US-EU War

GavinS

Lads,

Haven't been on here in a while, wanted to get users opinions on this idea that I've had floating around on my blog.

http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/04/24.html#a287

Would anyone agree that it is a fairly likely scenario that a strong and united EU, currently being built, could lead to a serious conflict between it and the United States? Perhaps within 30 - 50 years?

I think it is likely, but I would like to get people's opinions.

BattleBoar

I've always thought it was frighteningly possible.

Firstly, virtually every time in history that a member country of Europe has been a strong military power, it has started a war and sought to conquer. This leads one to believe that if the power of the EU were consolidated and it had the military power of the US, it would be using its military in the same way Europe always has - very aggressively.

Secondly, what time in history have 2 military superpowers competing economically with each other co-existed peacefully?

History does repeat itself, regrettably more often than not.

Fortunately, however, a few things work against this theory as well.

Firstly, since starting wars that directly killed probably more than 100 million people in the last century or so, the people of Europe have become far more passive. Whether they would revert to their old ways if possessing a great military again is debatable, but it is not a certainty by any means. But to even ask that question brings up the next point.

Secondly is the question of whether Europe has the will to develop the type of military capable of challenging the rapidly advancing technology of the US military machine. There is little doubt that Europe certainly has the scientific institutions, heavy industry, resources, and economy to support such a move were it ever made an EU priority. However, the economy of the largest EU member states is very much tied up in social programmes that sap the financial resources and stagnate the growth that would probably be necesarry for such development. Many billions would have to be devoted to research and development of military technology...a very hard sell when, a. countries of the EU currently know that the US will protect them from any serious military threat, and b. the largest economies in the EU (ie. France, Germany) are under severe budget constraints already due to overspending on very large and wasteful social programmes with huge bureacratic overhead and prolonged, anemic economic growth with double-digit unemployment.

Thirdly, though certainly not a statement about all of the members of the European militaries, a large portion is either aging and in it for pensions, or conscripted into service, with the notable exception of Britain. A conscript army would most likely not make the best fighting force.

So, what's the verdict? Will it ever happen? Possibly. But I'm more optimistic that it won't happen now than I was a few years ago. There is no doubt that Europe has the economic, academic, and industrial strength to develop a superpower military force if it were ever made a priority. I'm just not sure that the people of Europe would go for it. Europeans know the US and UK would protect them from any serious threats, and I doubt they really see the need or have the desire to dump billions into developing the type of military that could challenge the US, at least right now...which brings us to the last point...

What the US cannot risk is electing another Bush, or someone worse, who would have policies that are totally uncooperative and isolationist, thus forcing the hand of the Europeans and swaying public opinion toward military growth. If that were to happen and the protectionary umbrella of NATO were retracted, Europe would almost certainly make aquisition of military might a priority once again. And after that, if history is any guide, it wouldn't be pretty.

TomF

I don't think the E.U. will ever be so united that it would wish to create a military force with the purpose of conquest or of conflict with a democracy like the U.S.A.

Consider the present E.U. situation of a babble of languages and national purposes. Think of the U.K. allying itself in Iraq with the U.S.A. against fellow E.U. members France and Germany. Remember that Germany is presently "on the ropes" like Japan.

Remember that the population of the E.U. is aging faster than that of the U.S.A.

The U.S.A. is a vast enterprising democracy with tremendous resources of people, knowledge and raw materials and continues to evolve and develop with no sign of ever slowing down to allow the E.U. or any other entity to catch up.

Hobbes

Originally posted by TomF
The U.S.A. is a vast enterprising democracy with tremendous resources of people, knowledge and raw materials and continues to evolve and develop with no sign of ever slowing down to allow the E.U. or any other entity to catch up.

Can I ask you to quote the facts that you based that off?

From what I see the US economy is in the toilet and Bush is trying hard to flush away the floaters. If you think things can get better, remember that it only took one president to totally fuk over Brazils economy.

Trebor

i personelly will see to it that the EU never developes an army!!
it's not needed, as in any confict each country can send in their own troops or support any action in other ways be it with money or over-flights
the EU was set up to be an economical challage to the US not a military nor another super power. We do not need a United States of Europe. what we need is the exchange of knowledge and resources.

ChiGung

If 'it' ever happened - new world against the old - who would win?

Nobody surely - Russia would definately get involved - the bombs would fly and man would die.

GavinS

Thanks lads,

Battleboar thanks for the lengthy post. You say though:

"Firstly, since starting wars that directly killed probably more than 100 million people in the last century or so, the people of Europe have become far more passive. Whether they would revert to their old ways if possessing a great military again is debatable, but it is not a certainty by any means."

I don't believe Europeans are any less passive in real terms - they slaughtered each other in the Great War and then did it all again less than a generation later - and we were all apparently peace loving nations after the Great War, remember the Disarmament Conferences?

"Secondly is the question of whether Europe has the will to develop the type of military capable of challenging the rapidly advancing technology of the US military machine. There is little doubt that Europe certainly has the scientific institutions, heavy industry, resources, and economy to support such a move were it ever made an EU priority."

I wish Europe did not have the will, but it does. In fact just last night I watched Newnsight and one of the main thrusts of d'Estaing's plans for the Future of Europe is to pool militiary research and build a greater European Army. And this is not a sideline, it is what he envisages as the way forward. Europe would end up spending a significant amount of money on purely military research/

http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/04/25.html#a288

"Thirdly, though certainly not a statement about all of the members of the European militaries, a large portion is either aging and in it for pensions, or conscripted into service, with the notable exception of Britain. A conscript army would most likely not make the best fighting force."

So enters the EU's new members, and millions of immigrant workers. Like the US with hispanics, the EU will likely adopt millions of immigrants into its ranks. As well as the the newly added members of the EU(mostly also members of NATO), add a huge amount of intellectual capital, and youth.

"Europeans know the US and UK would protect them from any serious threats, and I doubt they really see the need or have the desire to dump billions into developing the type of military that could challenge the US, at least right now...which brings us to the last point..."

On the contrary, 'Europeans' are far more federally minded than alot of us think - and there will be shift in mindset over the next decade as Europe becomes 'Europe'.

TomF: The US reached its economic peak in the 70's and has been declining ever since, in real terms. And economies all go through cycles - Europe may welll be on the up in the next decade.

Trebor: I agree, a UE will lead to war, at some point in the future, if not with the US then with someone else, and millions will die.

Cheers,

mike65

Fur fecks sack everyone! Cop on. There will be no intercontinental war cos Bill Gates wont allow it.

Seriously well semi-seriously, there may be money to be made from small wars but not much from a mutual thermo-nuclear blast....

Mike.

DeVore

Bullies pick on the weak.

800 pound gorillas rarely pick fights with other 800 pound gorillas.

Noone starts wars with people who can hurt them back, Afganistan, Iraq, maybe Syria sure... but Germany? France? China? No.

DeV.

sanvean

Originally posted by DeVore
800 pound gorillas rarely pick fights with other 800 pound gorillas.

exactly. does anyone remember the cold war (or atleast reading about it)? if there is a future escalation in bad relations, they will probably follow similar paths, ie, fighting wars against each other by using two smaller countries (like vietnam and most of the countries of africa).

also: nuclear war isn't the most productive thing in the world. even crazy lunatics like reagan and staling (probably) realised this.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TomF
Consider the present E.U. situation of a babble of languages and national purposes. Think of the U.K. allying itself in Iraq with the U.S.A. against fellow E.U. members France and Germany.

It’s very difficult to predict the course of the next thirty or so years. The journalist and political writer Luigi Barzini once wrote that he doubted that Germany would ever reunify. Yet a decade after he wrote that, Germany did indeed reunify.

When we consider the babble of languages and cross proposes within Europe, we have to remember that practically every nation in Europe is the result of similar unifications. Nations such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain were all created as a result of diplomacy, war and even marriage in some cases. Prior to this all of them were composed of a similar babble of languages, national purposes, and even cultures.

After all, why is the official German language Prussian German, or Italian Florentine Italian, or French Parisian French? All these were artificial constructs that took time to take hold, and still are the cause of varying levels of friction in each country. Britain is possibly the best example of such an artificial unification.

As for alliances, again thirty years is a long time. Look at the precarious balance that Bismarck achieved in the 1870’s to isolate France and protect Germany’s interests. By 1904, the unthinkable had occurred - the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain (consider that Britain had allied itself to the Germans almost without exception in the previous century, normally against France) - sowed the seeds of the alliances that would ultimately lead to World War I.

Perhaps we will see a European super-state, perhaps not. It is however a little presumptuous to argue that it will never happen base upon apparent diversity.

Remember that Germany is presently "on the ropes" like Japan.

No more really than the US economy, tbh.

Remember that the population of the E.U. is aging faster than that of the U.S.A.

I don’t know if that is the case once you add in the new eastern European members.

The U.S.A. is a vast enterprising democracy with tremendous resources of people, knowledge and raw materials and continues to evolve and develop with no sign of ever slowing down to allow the E.U. or any other entity to catch up.

That’s a simplistic, and frankly seems an almost jingoistic, assessment of the two blocs. In reality, the US economy has largely been slowing down since the oil crisis of the 1970’s and period of stagflation that followed. The Euro has created a very definite rival to the Dollar, which in turn has slowly but surly been losing value to the Euro since it’s launch. The fact that OPEC is considering a switch to the Euro is at least an indication of its economic strength. Lets not forget that the EU also includes four of the G8 most powerful economies (UK, France, Italy and Germany) - three of which are in the Eurozone.

Europe is also a vast enterprising democracy (or vast confederation of enterprising democracies) with tremendous resources of people, with on average a slightly higher level of knowledge/education (Literacy in Germany, Britain and France is 99%, in Italy and Ireland 98% against the USA, which is 97% - source).

As for Europe rearming, well… hardly surprising considering it has been abdicating military responsibility to the US for so long. Even Japan is beginning to get its house in order.

Of course all of the above may ultimately result in nothing more than a historical footnote, but I wouldn’t be so glib as to discount Europe just yet.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
what we need is the exchange of knowledge and resources.

The surest means of gaining resources is by having the might to take them.

The surest means of keeping resources is by having the might to defend them.

Your view of the world is based that no one will to the former to us.

Meh

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The Euro has created a very definite rival to the Dollar, which in turn has slowly but surly been losing value to the Euro since it’s launch.

You couldn't be more wrong. The euro was worth $1.17 at launch. It fell to $0.85 at one stage, and is now back up to $1.10, still well below its launch value. That chart you linked starts at the euro's record low point in 2001, so of course it appears to show a rise in the value of the euro.

Hobbes

Originally posted by DeVore
Bullies pick on the weak.

800 pound gorillas rarely pick fights with other 800 pound gorillas.

Noone starts wars with people who can hurt them back, Afganistan, Iraq, maybe Syria sure... but Germany? France? China? No.

DeV.

Not true. The smarter 800 pound gorilla will.

They just won't fight face to face. Maybe poision the other gorilla's food and make them sick? Refuse to let other gorilla's to give them banana's. Tell all the other gorillas that he sleeps with chimps.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
You couldn't be more wrong. The euro was worth $1.17 at launch. It fell to $0.85 at one stage, and is now back up to $1.10, still well below its launch value. That chart you linked starts at the euro's record low point in 2001, so of course it appears to show a rise in the value of the euro.

The initial, and typically, violent price fluctuations that will take place in the value of a currency, equity or derivative are seldom indicative of it’s actual or long term value.

The Euro did indeed fall in value at the start, but this was generally perceived as below it’s true value and as typical teething problems of the new problems.

As with the distorted price of a tap share, it’s not unusual for many analysts and economist to ignore the initial fluctuations.

Or did Eircom plc reflect it’s true value in the first few weeks of trading?

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The surest means of gaining resources is by having the might to take them.

The surest means of keeping resources is by having the might to defend them.

Your view of the world is based that no one will to the former to us.

The combined armies of the members of the EU would be enough might to be able to keep those resources but that does not mean that we have to have one single army under the control of one single president which i believe will cost too much as it will be up to the net provider countries ( which we are soon to become ) to fund this army. but none of the countries will give up funding on their own armies which will mean will end up like the USA, pouring billions into an army and then looking for a use for all the money with invested

PH01

What the US fears most is a loss of empire. They don't want to go through what other empires, from the Romans to the British, have gone through.

They want to stay on top.

The only thing that treatens that is another superpower. And the EU has the potential of becoming one. And the US will try their best toput that off for a while

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
The combined armies of the members of the EU would be enough might to be able to keep those resources but that does not mean that we have to have one single army under the control of one single president which i believe will cost too much as it will be up to the net provider countries ( which we are soon to become ) to fund this army.

Please note that the key word you use is combined. Especially given recent events, how likely is that at present? You are regrettably putting forward a rather simplistic analysis of what is feasible at present.

Ironically, and as an aside, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” would be good council here.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Please note that the key word you use is combined. Especially given recent events, how likely is that at present? You are regrettably putting forward a rather simplistic analysis of what is feasible at present.

Ironically, and as an aside, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” would be good council here.

at present, yes it is not feasible but in the long run Britan has invested too much in europe.

if it comes down to a choice Britan will chosse europe over USA because we are neighbours and we can harm them more than the US can. ( money wise as britan also relieves on import's )

Britan is playing the role of match marker trying to get Europe to be part of america's superpower as opposed to an alternative ( Source ) but in the end the way america see's the world ( one big market ) and the way europe see's it ( people who need to be taken care of i.e. welfare states ) will result in a clash of intrests, not military but economic, which will then see them compeating over countries to invest in

Matt Simis

Here is the MSN equivalent article to the Sky one: http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/ap04-28-114809.asp?reg=EUROPE

''We do not benefit from a NATO that remains a group of one super power with 18, larger or smaller dwarfs trailing behind,'' he told another daily, De Standaard. ''We need to move toward a NATO with a strong European pillar.''


The US played their card, they have shown little regard or respect for the EU view on the world. However, the US is ruled by companies, multi-national companies, its not in their Economic interest to provoke hostilites (Economic or otherwise) between the US and EU. They will keep the US Government in line. I also think in terms of International tack and skill, Bush is the bottom of the barrel, I can only assume [hope?] future presidents do not follow suit.

I think having a strong European military would be a benefit from another perspective too. If we can stand alone, seperate from NATO then the next time the US goes on their Empire march, the non-NATO EU powers image will not be tarnished by association.



Matt

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Matt Simis
''We do not benefit from a NATO that remains a group of one super power with 18, larger or smaller dwarfs trailing behind,'' he told another daily, De Standaard. ''We need to move toward a NATO with a strong European pillar.''

Very unnerving. I might be inclined to believe that a strong European military would lead to another cold war, as certain posters on this board have suggested. However, given Europe's history, I believe there is a significant chance that a strong European military will lead to much bloodshed, conquest, and destruction. There is little reason to trust that the most imperialistic culture in the history of the world haas changed so much in 50 years that it could possess a powerful military and excercise restraint with that military.

As I noted in my above post, there is at least a chance now that Europe wouldn't revert to its old ways, but to even put it in that position is a very dangerous proposition indeed. As for starting a nuclear war...ask yourself if Hitler would have started a nuclear war if he had the ability and then come back and tell me that it would never happen.

All this said, however, the primary states pushing for this, France and Germany, have horrible economic situations with double-digit unemployment and miserable growth rates. Their economies are bogged down with so much social programme waste that its pretty difficult to see how they are going to devote loads of euros to bolstering military power while they're closing schools in Berlin. Whatever about the US economy declining since the 1970s (which may very well be true depending on how it is measured), the US economy is still much better off than the continental European economy.

While this may be offset to some extent by the newer members, which are sure to experience great economic growth thus inflating the EU's growth rate statistics in the coming years, my hope is that the new members will also water down the power of France and Germany enough to reign in their desires to make the EU into a military superpower. If they do not, I fear for the future of the world.

Europe is also a vast enterprising democracy (or vast confederation of enterprising democracies) with tremendous resources of people, with on average a slightly higher level of knowledge/education (Literacy in Germany, Britain and France is 99%, in Italy and Ireland 98% against the USA, which is 97%

Literacy rates don't translate into the ability to build a great military (especially with the large number is english-illiterate hispanic immigrants in the US). Give me numbers for engineers, scientists, and mathematicians and the numbers of those workers that have post-graduate educations.

Still, Europe does have tremendous human resources and great scientific research institutions that could facilitate the creation of a very powerful military if it were ever truly made a priority. However, the economy will never sustain the growth it needs for such a move until certain EU member states undergo major changes in the welfare state mentality. Until that happens, economic growth, particularly in France and Germany, will most likely continue to be dismal.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
There is little reason to trust that the most imperialistic culture in the history of the world haas changed so much in 50 years that it could possess a powerful military and excercise restraint with that military.

And there lies the problem really. We all want peace, but at what price? For an American (like yourself - correct me if I’m wrong) a peaceful and demilitarised Europe is the best route. For a European (like myself), I would agree if I did not fear that I would ultimately become a citizen of a state subservient to a foreign power.

These fears, held by many Europeans, and the rearming that is now likely to follow, did not spring up as a result of renewed support for European nationalism, imperialism or a need for lebensraum, but as a direct reaction to an external belligerent power that has lost our trust.

If this is the issue BattleBoar, then it really is not Europe that needs to get its house in order, is it.

As for starting a nuclear war...ask yourself if Hitler would have started a nuclear war if he had the ability and then come back and tell me that it would never happen.

What are you saying? Europe should not be trusted as we produce Hitlers by the sack full? Isn’t that a bit patronizing?

As an aside on the topic of Hitler and WMD, he did have nerve gas and never used it. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong here, but only one nation actually used a WMD in WWII.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And there lies the problem really. We all want peace, but at what price? For an American (like yourself - correct me if I’m wrong) a peaceful and demilitarised Europe is the best route. For a European (like myself), I would agree if I did not fear that I would ultimately become a citizen of a state subservient to a foreign power.

These fears, held by many Europeans, and the rearming that is now likely to follow, did not spring up as a result of renewed support for European nationalism, imperialism or a need for lebensraum, but as a direct reaction to an external belligerent power that has lost our trust.

You misunderstand me Corinthian. This is why in my first post, I specifically stated that the US cannot risk electing another Bush who would further alienate the Europeans. Actions have consequences. The damage done by this war may very likely be greater in terms of the European-American relationship rather than the Arab-American relationship. The reaction to build a powerful military is a very predictable reaction to the events of the past monthes, and if I were a continental European, I would probably be reacting exactly the same way as you.

However, that doesn't take away the danger that a strong European military presents to the world. As you said, perhaps this is does not mean electing another Hitler, but more than enough European powers through history have exerted their military power in an imperialistic fashion to call it a trend. Hitler is just the latest and most notable of a long pattern. As I said, this doesn't mean that the trend has to continue. I said in my first post that the population of Europe has become much more averse to war than the previous generations that killed millions. This still doesn't mean I trust a powerful Europe not to revert to what it has always been. Believe it or not, as an American, I would much rather see a world situation with a strong Chinese military than a strong European one.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Believe it or not, as an American, I would much rather see a world situation with a strong Chinese military than a strong European one.

Then you have some seriously deep seeded (and I would say misplaced) distrust of Europeans. I would also like to point out something you seem to be brushing over; since you have mentioned several times that "Europe" has historically been basically an Imperialistic War machine (ok, my words not yours), dont you think that most Americans *share* that heritage? After all, the US certainly started as a microcosm of Europe and moved on (somewhat) from there.

Interestingly you also paint Europeans as warlike, yet recent events have shown most Europeans attempting to promote peaceful solutions. It maybe an obvious and easy to make statement Ill agree, but it does fly in the face of your theory.


Matt

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
You misunderstand me Corinthian. This is why in my first post, I specifically stated that the US cannot risk electing another Bush who would further alienate the Europeans. Actions have consequences. The damage done by this war may very likely be greater in terms of the European-American relationship rather than the Arab-American relationship. The reaction to build a powerful military is a very predictable reaction to the events of the past monthes, and if I were a continental European, I would probably be reacting exactly the same way as you.

I watched a BBC report yesterday that mentioned what is often referred to by the US administration as the No-Votes-Media (i.e. the foreign media).

So while I appreciate your point, what you are asking Europeans (and not just the continental types either) to do is to trust that Americans don’t elect Bush again, or another Bush or worse still, another Theodore Roosevelt.

This is the concern held by Europeans; that we have abdicated our security to a power that we are disenfranchised from. That as one of your countrymen recently posted on these boards the "USA owns the world, you should be happy we rent you the space you stand on" - and you know what scared me most of all? He has a vote in how the World’s policeman operates, regardless of how mad or unrepresentative he is. I don’t.

It has been a rude awakening indeed.

This still doesn't mean I trust a powerful Europe not to revert to what it has always been. Believe it or not, as an American, I would much rather see a world situation with a strong Chinese military than a strong European one.

The European nations have historically been no more militaristic than any other nation, including your own. I would strongly disagree with the inference that we are culturally imperialists or militarists. I actually find it disturbing that you would think so.

vorbis

please Corinthian are you trying to gloss over European history? I'm Irish and European and I can identify with the notion that we are a warlike reace. Europ has spawned countless empires that spanned the world. (british, spanish, french etc) Don't forget that the Chinese originally used gunpowder for fireworks. What did Europeans do with it?

Matt Simis

Look Vorbis, spelling mistakes aside, that post doesnt make any valid points. The reason you are familiar with the ""war likeness"" of Europeans is because you are immersed in the knowledge and history of your native society daily. Europe was no more or less warlike than everyone else, they were just better at it. You cant pin a "ancient" history of War on the US as they simply have no (comparative) history. In their short time as a nation however, they have managed to play a large role in every major conflict.

Your Chinese blurb is wrong too, the Chinese didn't "just use it for fireworks":

"The gunpowder used for military purpose was first recorded in 919 A.D. By the 11th century, explosive bombs filled with gunpowder and fired from catapults were introduced and used in China. The words "fire cannon", "rocket", "missile" and "fireball" appeared time and again in the official Song history as well as two other books written during the same period. The first detailed description of using "firing cannon" in warfare was in connection with a battle fought in 1126 when the Song army used it against the invading Nuchens. The so-called fire cannon was a tube made of bamboo filled with gunpowder which, when fired, threw a flaming missile towards the enemy"

http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/info/current/inventions.html
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/gun.shtml


When it left China, the Arabs were the first to improve upon it and further develop its killing power BTW, so you cant pin that on Europe either.



Matt

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
If only because it likes to be the biggest rooster in the chicken coup.

Tell the truth, rooster wasn't the first word that came to mind... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
please Corinthian are you trying to gloss over European history?

No and neither am I trying to gloss over anyone else’s history. We've just been most prominent in the last few centuries, during a time when human civilization and technology had reached a point where it could do the most damage.

But we hardly have a monopoly on aggression and empire building.

Captain Trips

Well it's common knowledge that since the mid 20th century, it was the intention of the US to make the 21st century the "New American Century" - when America would truly dominate the world.

This started by federalising the economy. Two world wars in 30 years and an open immigration policy meant that millions left to work in America. There, they would pay taxes that would be primarily used for military development to ensure cooperation/intimidation of the lesser but resource rich economies worldwide. You name it, the US has been there to try and pin a flag in it.

The difference these days is the presence of instant media. In times of yore, for example, the Roman Empire, the presence of the Eagle meant that that town/city was under Roman rule, news was by mouth.

These days, such arrogance would not be tolerated - the flag being pinned is McDOnalds, Coca Cola, etc., . The staple brands that launched the US worldwide since the middle of the last century.

So it's only natural that if you use corps to colonise (because what you really need is just get people to become dependent on you so they *need* you - no need for symbols of he underlying empire) - the colonisation just gets to be a little more complicated.

So the US has endeavoured to create situations around the world to ensure people *need* it.

Unfortunately, they can *not* compete with a Europe that will just get larger and larger. Especially one *less dependent* on the global currency - the oildollar. There is more investment on not ever having to *need* that global army that the US now finds itself, ironically, so dependent on.

It can never match EU education as long as corporations buy time in classrooms for advertising, corporations write the books, etc., .

It apparently has no intention of investing in alternative energy and will continue to require an ever increasing army to maintain control abroad. 300,000 troops in Iraq to maintain this control? Next, Syria. Next, Iran. Empires like this *always* fail. It didn't work for the Spartans, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Vikings, the French, the Brits, ANYONE.

As soon as the US decided to attack Iraq and as we see now it was really just to safeguard energy reserves, it signified the *end* of America's pre-eminence in the world. They could no longer rely on the last 50 years of goodwill - no longer on Coca Cola, no longer on investment money in small countries to maintain control.

They finally got their hands very dirty, and unlike Vietnam, et.c, they have no intention to leave, but more importantly, they now do not have the ABILITY to. They now, like every other military empire, require an invasion force constantly abroad. The already crippled US economy can go two ways:

(i) Up - if they actually continue to win and control oil, but this requirement will be gone anyway in 50 years
(ii) Down - which is what happens when you need to spend even more than before (already vast) amounts on "defence".

I think they were very clever at background economy controlling for years - go back over old Time magazines or talks with Kiisinger or Greenspan. Very clever guys but I reckon they may have fscked things around too much - and need to repair it, but given the origins (Nazi) of the likes of Rumsfeld, it's not looking good.

Sorry about the length.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian

But we hardly have a monopoly on aggression and empire building.

Don't mistake me, I totally agree with this sentiment. I do think that the US definitely (unfortunately) inherited much of the tendencies of this to some extent. However, I believe history generally shows the US to be much more restrained in its use of military power than Europe. That doesn't mean either is acceptable.

I would strongly disagree with the inference that we are culturally imperialists or militarists. I actually find it disturbing that you would think so.

Oh don't feel disturbed Corinthian, I distrust ALL governments, definitely not excluding my own. And as I have repeatedly stated, I don't necesarily believe that a powerful Europe would lead to war precisely because I think there is reason to believe that there has been an underlying shift in mindset among the general European population. Still, the historical precedent is that throughout the last several centuries, many different European countries with powerful militaries have started wars, pilliaged other countries of their resources, and sought to conquer. While that doesn't absolutely mean it would happen again with a united Europe, it doesn't do wonders for my confidence that it wouldn't either.

As for China, I can say that while China, like all powers, certainly has had its blemishes in history, it has not been terribly imperialistic relative to it's strength when compared to other powers, European or American. Of course, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen, it just means that if you believe in historical trends, it is probably less likely to happen. For example, I would be shocked if China, with a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer Japan, Australia, Phillipines, and India.

I would be much less surprised if Europe, if it possessed a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer northern africa (suez canal revisited?) and countries that either would not join the EU (ie. Switzerland), or countries that weren't considered for the EU but did not "fall in line" with the predominant policies at the time.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
However, I believe history generally shows the US to be much more restrained in its use of military power than Europe.

I would disagree. The style of gunboat diplomacy practiced by the USA in the latter half of the twentieth century was different (with an emphasis on client states rather than protectorates), but ultimately not the substance; and certainly not the level of aggression.

On a simple tally of military and covert interventions, the USA matched any of the European powers of the nineteenth century and may have even surpassed them on a combined level. Arguing that Europe would be more aggressive than the USA, is ridiculous in the extreme.

I would be much less surprised if Europe, if it possessed a very strong military 20 years from now, launched attacks to conquer northern africa (suez canal revisited?) and countries that either would not join the EU (ie. Switzerland), or countries that weren't considered for the EU but did not "fall in line" with the predominant policies at the time.

It is quite conceivable that Europe would adopt much the same foreign policies as the USA (Panama canal revisited?), were it in a similar military position; of propping up client states and perhaps facilitating regime changes. While this is not certain by any means, I would not deny that possibility.

However, what you’re suggesting is that Europe is, for the good of the World, better off abdicating it’s security to a foreign power that is just as aggressive as Europe has ever been. This would be well and good if we could trust this other power not to abuse its position in relation to ourselves, but recent events have indicated otherwise.

Since the end of WWII, Europe has been happy to remain relatively demilitarised, ultimately because it trusted America with her interests. Regrettably, the present US administration may have crossed a Rubicon in this regard, in that this confidence, this trust, felt by Europe and by Europeans may have been dealt a mortal blow - even Britain would be a little weary of the special relationship after the manner it was dealt with in the present conflict.

Were this trust regained, Europe would again lose interest in rearming. Smiling and saying, “trust us” won’t cut it, I’m afraid.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I would disagree. The style of gunboat diplomacy practiced by the USA in the latter half of the twentieth century was different (with an emphasis on client states rather than protectorates), but ultimately not the substance; and certainly not the level of aggression.

On a simple tally of military and covert interventions, the USA matched any of the European powers of the nineteenth century and may have even surpassed them on a combined level. Arguing that Europe would be more aggressive than the USA, is ridiculous in the extreme.

I think you are losing sight of the fact that the US's interventions, while tragic, were part of a larger (cold)war against another imperialist power that didn't feel the need to fool around with client states, it just annexed them and called them its own territory.

European imperialism, on the other hand, was not motivated by a response to anything other than a desire to conquer lands and steal the wealth of other countries.

[/b]
However, what you’re suggesting is that Europe is, for the good of the World, better off abdicating it’s security to a foreign power that is just as aggressive as Europe has ever been. This would be well and good if we could trust this other power not to abuse its position in relation to ourselves, but recent events have indicated otherwise.

Since the end of WWII, Europe has been happy to remain relatively demilitarised, ultimately because it trusted America with her interests. Regrettably, the present US administration may have crossed a Rubicon in this regard, in that this confidence, this trust, felt by Europe and by Europeans may have been dealt a mortal blow - even Britain would be a little weary of the special relationship after the manner it was dealt with in the present conflict.

Were this trust regained, Europe would again lose interest in rearming. Smiling and saying, “trust us” won’t cut it, I’m afraid. [/B]

I can't argue with the loss of trust issue you raised. As I said, it is a predictable reaction to the horrible diplomacy demonstrated by the Bush administration, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable. I suppose what I'm saying is simply that I'd be very nervous with such a powerful europe. I just wouldn't trust that it wouldn't lead to another world war. Therefore, I hope it never happens.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I think you are losing sight of the fact that the US's interventions, while tragic, were part of a larger (cold)war against another imperialist power that didn't feel the need to fool around with client states, it just annexed them and called them its own territory.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were the only states that were actually fully annexed by the Soviet Union (in 1940). All the rest were to one degree or other client states. Some completely controlled puppets, some far less so. The US did the same.

European imperialism, on the other hand, was not motivated by a response to anything other than a desire to conquer lands and steal the wealth of other countries.

Even this difference in motivation was true, last time I checked the Soviet Union no longer existed and US troops were nonetheless guarding another nation’s oilfields. So what is the motivation now?

I can’t help but feel that the move towards a New American Century is a more practical implementation of a Thousand Year Reich...

I suppose what I'm saying is simply that I'd be very nervous with such a powerful europe. I just wouldn't trust that it wouldn't lead to another world war. Therefore, I hope it never happens.

If you’re feeling nervous about a potentially belligerent foreign power threatening war and other consequences against anyone who disagrees with them, then you know how many Europeans feel now.

If you were a European, how would you feel? And there lies our dilemma.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even this difference in motivation was true, last time I checked the Soviet Union no longer existed and US troops were nonetheless guarding another nation’s oilfields. So what is the motivation now?

Can't argue with that. I maintained that cold war foreign policy should have died with the cold war. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld, Cheney and company don't see it my way.

If you’re feeling nervous about a potentially belligerent foreign power threatening war and other consequences against anyone who disagrees with them, then you know how many Europeans feel now.

If you were a European, how would you feel? And there lies our dilemma.

I've already stated how I'd feel...probably the same way. That doens't mean it wouldn't be dangerous, and I'd hope if I were European, I would recognise that danger.

Is it your opinion that a unified Europe with a military equal to America's would result in a more safe, more stable world?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I've already stated how I'd feel...probably the same way. That doens't mean it wouldn't be dangerous, and I'd hope if I were European, I would recognise that danger.

Absolutely. But I also recognise the danger of the alternative. That’s what the split in Europe is largely about, from what I can see - which is the bigger danger for us. And frankly I’m undecided on that one too.

Is it your opinion that a unified Europe with a military equal to America's would result in a more safe, more stable world?

Buggered if I know. But I do know that Iraq was more stable under Saddam than it is at present. So it’s not as simple as that, I’m afraid.

Wook

'The UK Premier Tony Blair yesterday warned France that any attempt to create "rival centres of power" to compete with the United States would restore the disastrous divisions of the cold war era.

Today he will hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as part of his efforts to restore relations between Europe and America as attention focuses on Iraq's future.

His comments are a direct attack on the four EU countries participating in a new, EU defence summit - Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg. The countries, which were all in the anti-war camp in the EU dispute over Iraq, have insisted though that their intended meeting is not supposed to be anti-American.

"If we do not deal with the world on the basis of partnership between Europe and America, we will in a sense put back into the world divisions we wanted to get rid of when the cold war finished. I think that would be a disaster", the Prime Minister declared.'

(source :http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=11042)

To all of you that think this move is Anti-american...think again.
How many people didn't moan and bitch because USA has to 'clean-up' our continental problems ? How many people didn't say that Europeans didn't have the balls to create a possible united-european strike force to (once again) clear out our internal problems ? I for one applaud this move, Americans should be happy that they can stop sending troops... to help our arse..but they're not... why i wonder ? How many times did i not have to hear from american 'media' sources that Europe is not capable of doing military interventions ? I hope this all stops.. (naive).
If we really wanne to be a counter-balance or another super-power against USA.. then we should really start thinking of moving away all the nuclear weapons that belong to the US, but we don't (just yet) so what would that tell us ?

Trebor

Originally posted by Wook

If we really wanne to be a counter-balance or another super-power against USA.. then we should really start thinking of moving away all the nuclear weapons that belong to the US, but we don't (just yet) so what would that tell us ?

don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

that's the question isn't it?
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wook
"If we do not deal with the world on the basis of partnership between Europe and America, we will in a sense put back into the world divisions we wanted to get rid of when the cold war finished. I think that would be a disaster", the Prime Minister declared.'

Of course what is being neglected in the above statement is that recent events have indicated that if there is a partnership between Europe and America, then Europe is clearly seen as a non-executive partner.

Any potential cold war, arms race or whatever you want to call it, between is not new, btw:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51130,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/euro/story/0,11306,627134,00.html

Originally posted by Trebor
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

I don’t think Germany wants to invade Poland again; so any idle speculation to the resurgence of an imperialistic Europe is exactly that.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

that's the question isn't it?
cause i would rether not have a military power as big as the US we should stick to what we are doing now and keep expanding the EU until it covers every country, but do it by bribing them not forcing them

Actually, looking back on your post, what is it you’re trying to say? What connection to you make between the initial question you pose and your comments afterwards? What exactly are you arguing?

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Actually, looking back on your post, what is it you’re trying to say? What connection to you make between the initial question you pose and your comments afterwards? What exactly are you arguing?

sorry i said

don't you mean DO we want to a super-power to balance america

ment to say:

don't you mean DO we want to be a super-power to balance america

would not mind being an economical balance to america but not a military one. I belive that we can contuine to expand the EU by offering the support that we have recieved to other countries there by giving each country an incentive to change their ways peacefully in order to comply with EU regulations to get funding and be accepted into the EU.
obviously we won't be able to continue this outside of europe but we could set up trade treaties and/or finanical surpport for countries aslong as they agree to certain conditions i.e. enforcement pf the Human rights charter.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
would not mind being an economical balance to america but not a military one.

Unfortunately, the “sinews of war are infinite monies”, as Cicero once put it.

Take the present Iraq conflict, for example: No one denies that the US is to benefit from the numerous reconstruction contracts that are being awarded (by the US and, almost exclusively, to the US) that will ultimately be paid for by Iraq. Added to this, Iraq will switch back to the Dollar from the Euro when trading oil - returning to the US another economic advantage. Finally it’s more than likely that the US will be favoured over Europe in future economic dealings with whatever government is installed - given that it will be the US that ultimately vets them and that there will almost certainly be some form of military presence left in Iraq.

Pure capitalism is a fair and equitable system, unfortunately it doesn’t exist - as the use of military force to gain economic advantage goes against the perfect competition that pure capitalism, seeks to establish.

As such, even if Europe were able to economically overcome this disadvantage in attaining economic superpower parity, would she be ultimately be allowed to do so? [edit]- i.e. Nation A trades with Europe for good B, US carries out a regime change, new government switches to trading with the US for good B. Europe economically weakened.[/edit]

Wook

I am not pro war , but sometimes countries need to sort out there issues. If not on a diplomatic basis , then a military one.
But i think that Europe needs to be able to help themselves and not depend on the USA for this. With the enlargement of the EU, who say's we will never have internal conflicts ?

Trebor

if an internal confict where to arise the country that is affected would have their own militay to be able to contain it for a short time giving some of the larger countries time to send in forces but to have a military that is under the control on the EU parlimant on a full time basis would be costly and not needed.
if it did exist then we would want them to do something while there was no internal conflict, and then it just get's more complicated, it's not the way to go IMHO.

re economic interest's, i was talking about being able to invest in countries in which with a little funding could become developed countries and are not under the control of dictator's.
at the moment they are cripled with debt and have no way to surpport thier economies as all their money is spent paying off the interest on their debts. so by helping the country build infstucture and setting up trade agreements that give a fare price we can then out bid america companies that use them for slave labour. We could then lower the import tax so that the prices need not be affected.

i guess i'm just dreaming if i hope this is the way europe will go

bonkey

Originally posted by Trebor
re economic interest's, i was talking about being able to invest in countries in which with a little funding could become developed countries and are not under the control of dictator's.
at the moment they are cripled with debt and have no way to surpport thier economies as all their money is spent paying off the interest on their debts. so by helping the country build infstucture and setting up trade agreements that give a fare price we can then out bid america companies that use them for slave labour. We could then lower the import tax so that the prices need not be affected.

i guess i'm just dreaming if i hope this is the way europe will go

Well - if you think about what the current expansion of the EU is in practical terms, it more or less fits your criteria perfectly except that its far from "a little funding" which is needed in reality.

jc

Trebor

Originally posted by bonkey
Well - if you think about what the current expansion of the EU is in practical terms, it more or less fits your criteria perfectly except that its far from "a little funding" which is needed in reality.

jc

i ment compartivly(sp?) speaking. the amount of money they would need to get somthing built compared to what it would cost in ireland would be a big difference so for the same amount that we get would go a lot further with tham in the begining

Sparks

Wook,
That is a pro-war stance, just not a rabid one.

Havelock

In my opinion it is a certain that such a conflict will arise,

america:
The american government has and does control its media better than most dictator states, its population are educated to a controlled curriculum, conformity is praised, simply put they prooduce human sheep. The american government could easly create any number of fictious reasons to launch a campain in Europe and have the support of its comfort bought, coke and cable populace.

Europe:
Europe while striving to be the leaders of human betterment and universal understanding, are avoiding the thought of any repeated history. It has passed the stage of inter-contential conflict but the american satillite known as the UK is becoming less and less welcome, their reluctance to join the Euro and the Blair administration and the Washington - London axis, are some what unpopuler with the other major league European powers, France and Germany leading the the movement or teh maginlisation of the uk in Europe.

Technologically Speaking :
america would never have developed the bomb before Russia if not fro the work of european physicists (my spelling is appalling, just a warning). Europe invents most of the major technological break throughs in military hard/soft wear but doesn't spend the money on production and development as america does, when the conflict arose, if Europe had prepared the technological edge, which the ameicans are so reliant upon, would most certainaly be to the European forces. amercas stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (which it keeps only as "defensive" measures, and it is still current american policy only to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but for how long?) would be unrivialled as civilied nations sign accords forbiding reseach into WMD's and keep their word.

Movivations:
america wants an empire, they want a cosumer world, full of capitlism for ever and ever (no I'm not a socialist or communist), a world of cheap fuel, fast food and a complient comfortable populace who don't want to chance anything lest life becomes less comfortable. To maintain that they will need to constantly have abundat resources, and what they don't have they take (Iraq). Europe will realise what america wants and will take steps to protect its self against an offencive or might haver the gall to prement american agression (which would be nice, historically speaking they always get caught with their pants down while prepairing fro war and then claim it was an unprovoked attack). Or Europe might (and hopefully will) ask Russia to join the commen market on fairer terms, which would make sense as Russia is still a primary producer in many industries and any economy requires a good supply of raw materials for secondary and terisrary industries to survive and grow. this would weaken the american economy and would be grounds for war under a republican government ( and the current democratic party, they're like diet republicans).

In Conclusion
Anyway unless Korea or China gets the balls to nuke america it will be up to Europe to deal with any major military threat from america, but this may not even occure as they seem intent on economic suidice. Good night to you all.

vorbis

I apologies eomer for considering you the most rabid anti-American on these boards. Havelock quite clearly deserves the award.

america:
The american government has and does control its media better than most dictator states, its population are educated to a controlled curriculum, conformity is praised, simply put they prooduce human sheep. The american government could easly create any number of fictious reasons to launch a campain in Europe and have the support of its comfort bought, coke and cable populace.

thats hilarious. Do you know its possible to receive Al-Jazeera in America? You show no tolerance whatsoever for countries whose philosophy is different to yours. Controlled curriculum??? Which education systems isn't? You can't learn everything.
Id China did nuke America, I can assure you that the world would be a much worse place to live in? I'd suggest that you try and develop your understanding of the world a little better before resorting to petty racism.

Havelock

Racism, no I think not. I have no problem with Americans, just American international policy, hypocracy. The same of which applies to my cinical views of all governments and nations. Its not biased, maybe misogynistic (thats how you spell it?) but definitally not racist.