user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Although the EU SEEMS to be against imperialism, and US policies and wars, and the breaking of international law... how can one trust that if they became a superpower they would not do the same thing!? Behave exactly as those that they currently criticise??? : O
If you vote no, I want to know why. Why should I trust Brussels to practice benevolent government? Sorry but my faith in the EU is in deep crisis.
EU become a superpower? HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Its a hypothetical question, that's why it began with the word 'if'.
Personally, i only wanted to see the EU as an economic superpower, which I don't think would be too difficult to achieve. I don't want the EU to become a military superpower.
I think it might primarily depend on whether it was a unipolar or multipolar world. In a unipolar world, I fear it would -- if not immediately, then eventually. Power blocs are only as principled as those who direct them.
We're not imperalistic either. Get over yourself.
Yes, Europe was bad when many of their countries were superpowers. If all the countries of Europe united their militaries, they would be a superpower and they have more manpower than the US.
by ABC on Tue Jun 21, 05 1:44pm
[+]
They couldn't agree with eachother. They've fought eachother since who knows when. Sad enough they need to combine to become even close to even compare to the USA.
I think a unified Europe would find the temptation of corporatism to great to pass by. They'd be deploying the military to safeguard corporate interests in no time. I don't believe they'd be as gun-ho as America though.
imperialism is basically using military force to gain control of another countries wealth, i.e oil, i think usa is an imperialist country also dont you.
as for the EU, i dont believe they would have the same foreign policies as usa, eu countries have done the most to combat global warming and world hunger.
the counter balance to the usa is for economic examples, not military, any country can challenge usa militarily, look at vietnam.
Republican_RightWing- brit4ever is correct in his definition of imperialism. The US has secured its material interests and assets in foreign countries through militarism (as has Britain and France and others) and has intervened many times on the sovereignty of other nations, that is a fact and is imperialism. Whether that is to be labeled as 'good' or 'bad' is what is subjective.
"They've fought eachother since who knows when. Sad enough they need to combine to become even close to even compare to the USA."
- yes Europe has a history of wasting time and lives on fighting eachother, and the point of the EU is to stop that. And to compare to the US? In what, militarism? miltarism doesn't even interest me. Besides, in this new era, all the rising powers are geographically large (Russia, China, India, even Brazil to an extent) whereas the European nations are relatively much smaller, so there is a greater need to come together economically as a trading bloc. But I don't see a need to be a militaristic superpower.
Vietnam- No clear object except not let the south fall. Besides the point they never met our trrops in battle, they only set booby traps. We lost more troops in the battle of Gettysburg than in the whole 10 years of Vietnam. Britain couldn't even take out the IRA. Any gurilla warfare army is the best way to attack an occupation force.
The EU will fall apart within the next 7 years so i'm not even worried about them.
The only way the EU can become a military power is to turn it over to the British or the Germans and kick the French out (or occupy them).
inter_regnum- Assuming that being a military superpower is even something worth being. I mean what for? So Europe can tread all over Africa? Or the middle-east, or perhaps Central Asia? Invade countries just because they democratically choose to nationalise their assets? No thanks.
Republican_RightWing- the EU collapse? There are many in Europe who wouldn't care if that happened. What has that Blair been up to anyway, telling the other 24 countries to copy Britain's economic system- since when was he the boss of everyone. I don't know, tension with the British is up to a new high, probably more so than it ever was against the US. I mean the US never even came close to attempting to destroy the social-democracy of Europe (and I respect the US for respecting Europe's choice of social-democracy), It is Britain who is dictating what type of government there should be (in TWENTY-FOUR nations). I think Britain is making it very difficult for the EU (just as de Gaulle predicted (NOTE: I don't like de Gaulle but he seemed to be correct about that))If the EU means that much of an end to social-democracy, then maybe it SHOULD just collapse...
"i'm not even worried about them." - yeah you are right Republican_RightWing , especially since the EU spends more time arguing with each other. And the whole rhetoric of 'social democracy will be ruined if the European countries don't band together'. That was just complete nonsense. I don't remember America or other non-European nations attempting to destroy European social-democracy. The threat to European social-democracy doesn't come from outside Europe, it is not the US or China or India (Brussels has been using that xenophobic nonsense for too long)- the real threat to it comes from those WITHIN Europe- from those like Blair and Britain. I see now that many over-estimate an 'American threat' to the European way. An American threat is at best minimum- probably even none. Britain on the other hand has outright expressed its desire to mould Europe into its own image. The USA NEVER did anything of the sort.
Don't you understand that socialism is one of the key factors in the death of western civilization?
Eurotopia, it is your ballot, your question. Why are you asking those questions when you posed the question in the first place.
In answer to my own ballot question, I don't think the EU should become a military superpower. It should keep its focus on economics.
^Okay. But then the question comes up about "whose" economic system, doesn't it?
The French and German model on one side and the UK and E.Euro models on the other. Now that the EU has expanded, and the Franco-German dominance has been diminished, I am thinking that the UK version will prevail.
What about you?
Then, about military. As a US taxpayer I resent somewhat Europe's recalcitrance about defending itself generally, and France's specific refusal to take part in its defense vis a vis NATO.
What I am saying is that many American dollars are still spent in defense of Europe, and when President Bush said that he was going to pull troops from their "old bases" to redeploy in countries that are "nicer" to us, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, Chirac and Shroeder kind of had a tissy fit.
I think that economic might has to be backed with a minimumally confident military which Europe lacks.
A economic integration, I think, needs a concurrent military integration.
inter_regnum- but you're forgetting one very important element... I am a pacifist : )
"President Bush said that he was going to pull troops from their "old bases" to redeploy in countries that are "nicer" to us, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, Chirac and Shroeder kind of had a tissy fit."
- first of all i don't know why Shcroeder had a problem with that. It makes strategic sense to redeploy them to Eastern Europe, not because of tension with Western Europe, but because Russian influence has moved back, and I see American strategy of moving troops as an attempt to surround Russia and to keep them in check. USA is using the same strategy in Central Asia and the Caucuses. But, even so, I'm still a pacifist, and that ALSO means that I don't think that the US has to act like a body guard. The US can't keep protecting Europe from all the cruelty of the world forever. Europe needs to deal with these on their own terms. I remind you that I'm a pacifist- so I'm still not suggesting military superpower.
But even more importantly, I don't trust that an EU military superpower would use its might for defense purposes only. It would, I predict, use it to intervene in the third world to secure 'its assets' from nationalisation. AND becoming a military threat will sour good relations with Russia (possibly an arms race), and may encourage global conflict. It may even mean war with the USA just to compete for assets in the third world- which is NOT worth it at all. Having healthy business competition with the USA is all that is necessary, but to think that there could be a clash militaristically with the US, and of Europeans and Americans shooting at each other, the thought of that sickens me. There is talk of a united military being needed as a part of balance of power politics. I say that balance of arrogance has historically never achieved anything. Conflict resolution is much more complex, and all factors must be taken in. To talk of maintaining peace through a balance of power (or balance of arrogance as I call it : ) ), or through nuclear deterrents is foolish. The might of armaments can only produce fear, and not peace. It is impossible that there can be genuine and lasting peace through fear. Through fear there can only come hatred, suspicion, ill-will and hostility, surpressed perhaps for some time, but ready to errupt and become violent (to the extreme in these modern times) at any moment. True and genunine peace can only come when there is a minimisation of international fear. Can you imagine a Cold War with five nuclear militaristic superpowers (USA, China, Russia, EU, and India) - it would be far more complex and dangerous to maintain peace.
Well obviously I abandoned the military argument with you long before. Just pointing out my view.
You did however expertly avoided the question about whose economic system? Nice dodge, that.
I didn't know you were a pacifist though.
inter_regnum- "You did however expertly avoided the question about whose economic system? Nice dodge, that."
- I personally don't like the UK model or that of Eastern Europe. I would prefer the NOrdic system. It is a nice synthesis between the two sides.
QUOTE BY REPUBLICAN RIGHT WING says "Vietnam- No clear object except not let the south fall. Besides the point they never met our trrops in battle, they only set booby traps. We lost more troops in the battle of Gettysburg than in the whole 10 years of Vietnam. Britain couldn't even take out the IRA. Any gurilla warfare army is the best way to attack an occupation force.
so you did lose after all.
Also you seem to enjoy sitting there and laughing at the thought of EU becoming a mass superpower..well....Britain was...France...Rome and Greece all have been. the US managaed to become one...so i shouldnt be so quick to judge as i honestly think you'll be in for a shock in the not too istant future.
In 50 years the USA will be the 3rd superpower in the world: The world will be leaded by China and followed by the EU. 50 more years and India will leave the US behind.
And what makes you think this. ^^
It never will...Germany's population is falling dramatically while American gdp is growing twice as fast as European Unions..look it up on cia world factbook. Also im sich and tired of European assholes saying the Eu is richer. It is not America still has a higher gdp so shutup and get your facts straight.
Above comments may have been a bit harsh on my part even if they are true. Saizen shutup you have no idea what you are talking about. EU will never surpass United States. Germany your most powerful country is in population freefall with an unemployment tate of 12%. I have no idea why the Uk joined the European union and betrayed it's commonwealths. China will have difficulties surpassing the United States. They have an ever increasing elderly population which will burden they economy. Don't count on China's economy to keep growing as fast as it is now for long. The only country im worried about is India. it will take at least three quarters of a century for India to be fully equal. In order for China to be considered a superpower they must have a gdp of at least 30 trillion. This is becasue they have a huge population to support. China now only has a gdp of about 8 trillion while United Sates is edging 13 trillion. European Union's gdp is growing twice as slow as the United States. Also it would take a hell of a long time for China or India to catch up. Even Europe. The United States supplies all European countries with military technology. Which range from huge globemaster transports, to Apache helocopters, to guided tomohawk missiles. Look at the Brits they have 200 nuclear missiles which can be turned off by the Americans at any time. They are trident missiles sold to the Brits by Americans and are controlled by American gps satalites. America spends 500 billion a year on its military. The entire world combined without the United Sates also spends about 500 billion a year. The American navy has more gross tonnage then the next 12 navies combined. The U.S. military is very close to China's military in size. China has like 2.5 million soldeirs while the United States has 2.4 million. You don't stand a chance so why even try to catch up. I don't mean to ramble on and I hate sounding arrogant but I can't stand people who say stupid things like saizen.
|
|
