After two world wars it became obvious the Europeans could not be trusted with large military forces. America goes in to Yalta and establishes the World Bank and the United Nations in an attempt to stabilize Europe economically. Over the years we have pumped money into Europe and now they have a collective economy that rivals our own. Between the US and the EU we do more trade that the rest of the world combined. I have tried to understand this issue and Im having a real hard time isolating the real issue. If Europe were rearmed they would be more then a match for the US. Could the European nations eventually come together and make a United States of Europe and knock us off the throne of dominant world power? I mean think about it, none of the Asian nations are really threat to us politically. Heres my question for debate:

Is the European Union going to over take the United States as dominant world power? I have a lot I want to discuss on this topic. Obviously the particulars are up for grabs and we probably wont have any trouble finding links on the net. Im just going to see how the topic is recieved first.

I don't think the European Union will overtake the U.S. as the world's superpower because the United States has more invested in Defense spending and we have stealth technoloy which even our allies can't understand.

Plus, the EU countries have to work on their economies before they can do anything about their defensive strengths.

Militarily, why would they want to? That gives them a leg up on us. I suspect that without the drain of a military force to support, they could surpass us as an economic world power. But first, they have a lot of old hatchets to bury.

I am personally afraid of the EU and the rise of power and influence it is having in America. For example:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33584

I think that the EU is taking away from the individuality of nations and assimilating them. A perfect example of this is the Euro.

With how crushing the effects of our recession was on the Euro, and on Europe in general, I think we've got quite a long time before we need to worry about a competitive EU.

In the article, there are talking of the UN, and america really doesn't care that much about the UN, as it proved us many times in the past (The children righst declaration, ever heard abou it? not ratified, and i'm not speaking about the Irak war, it is not the subject)
Apart from that, The euros was a great progress for europe, you don't have to change money to go to another country, you don' have to worry about that anymore when you go from France to Spain, or from Belgium to Germany, it provides a monetary stability inside europe that favors trade, cooperation and so on.
Your fear is irrational, what do you think we are going to do, we are democraties, not rogue states, we are not goig to attack you, we are just free people who decides freely of our future ( the USA are not a part of Europe, they don't have to be tied up with europe internal policy)

And you deduced this from my two sentences and one website that I posted? I don't think I have given you enough of an insight YET on what my fear of the EU is based on. Please withhold your judgmental comments until you have enough information to form an education opinion.

I realize that the article I provided was on the UN, but in my opinion, the EU and UN are for all intentions, are one and the same. And as further evidence of my "irrational fear" as you so kindly put it, I give this link as more "fuel for fear" in my"irrational state of mind":

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...27/150125.shtml



Seeing that the originator of this thread wanted to get initial feedback I posted just my initial thoughts on the subject with intentions to expand with time.

The European Union is a threat to American hyperpower, although not in a military basis. The geo-political threat that Europe poses comes from international monetary competition, in other words, the rising Euro is threatening the traditional dominance of the US dollar.



The American elites feared that once Iraq started to sell their oil in Euros, the rest of OPEC would as well.

(http://www.rationalrevolution.net/opec_iraq_euro.htm)

A speech by Mr Javad Yarjani of OPEC explained this possible shift to the Euro:
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp20...eSpainApr14.htm



Further detail for the economophobes on this board:



This gives a better understanding of how economically vulnerable America is to the growing economic superpower of the European Union.

(http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn5)



Moreover, what would happen if OPEC does decide to switch to Euros?

(http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1083)

Most likely the gradual approach will be used, but the danger is that once some start to shift to Euros, the dollar starts to fall, like lemmings the rest of the world will rush to switch to the Euro, precipitating financial meltdown in America.

With the budget deficit in default, how could the Pentagon pay for the greatest military in the world? Without the basis of the dollar hegemony, the American military superiority over Europe will crumble and disintegrate.
This is why the European Union is such a threat to America.

is the EU going to overtake america's dominance? probably not. will they becom a competive force. yes, and I think that would be good. all throught the 50's, 60,s 70's and 80's the world lived in relative peace (note I mean compared to now) this was because america had someone to keep it in check and doing anything like Iraq. russia is thinking about switch from using the dollar to using the euro. ( http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum....cgi?read=34572 )



russia might be trying to join the EU, which would be a major boost to russia's economy and europes military (russia still has a large army and many highly advanced weapons systems such as the SU-27 flanker,(jet) and the t-90 tank. and the newer one the t-94. and can't forget the
[http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/blackeagle.htm]"Black Eagle"[/URL]one the most if not THE MOST advanced tank yet.(though it will likely be exported only)

the EU as a super power is not only possible, but likely and soon.

I disagree, it makes sence for the world to shift to Euros, why should they fund Americas massive deficit and the Pentagon?

Once some countries shift to Euros, the rest of the world will as well. American economic and thus military power will be so severly downgraded and historians will be right to say that the American Century will be over.

The American economy is not in a healthy state,



(http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1083)

The American era of dominance is coming to the end, but I suspect that such a paradigm shift in understanding of the external world will be too much for most Americans, including on this site.

Let us not forget that mammath danger of the Derivatives Bubble, now totalling over a hundred trillion I beleive. The danger is that if the above comes true, confidence will collapse in the derivatives bubble, leading a worse great Depression than in the thirties. And I'm not joking there.

For more, see,

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_00/ci091500.html

And how the banking titan J.P.Morgan is in the derivatives bubble:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...erivatives.html

Warren Buffet has also warned about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...04/cnbuff04.xml

Is it possible to be competitive but not adversarial? Dynamic equilibrium is desirable.

Why should we see the emerging European Union as a threat? The competition will serve to keep the United States competitive, to prevent stagnation. And we need to keep things friendly. I don't want to see a weak or an angry Europe.

Paladin the Bush Adminstration has propelled the world into two choices, a 'Reserve Currency' for the dollar or the Euro. Its that simple. If the Euro fails to aciheve its objective to overthrow the American dollar hegemony, than there may be a rising tide of criticisms within the EU which could put the European project a risk. If the Dollar losses its dominance, it will be disastrious for America economically, geopolitically and militarily.

Seriously, even if you think that the european union is a threat to the US (And if both want to work in the same direction as partners, i don't see the threat), what are you going to do? Nothing, this a direction that europe has taken for 50 years, litlle by little, and now the idea of europe is so deeply rooted in the mind of people (especially the youngs that have always lived in the UE) that an another way seemed impossible to them.
A united europe will happen and afterward, a united world, a united federal world, I think that is the wish of many people.

Maybe in Europe, but there are MANY in the States that don't want any part of that, including me. Not to use a cliche', but I'm proud to be an AMERICAN and I like our individuality, independence and unique currency, with it's own history. I think that a one world government is a bad idea and America would be even more of the work horse for the worlds problems. Not that we don't bring a lot of those problems on ourselves, but to be "indentured" to another government entity and dissolve our sovranty would be detrimental to the livelihood of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

BTW, This is my 300th post!

I think everyone knows where an exacerbated patriotism leads, history proved it, nationalism is not a godd thing at all.
just a questionr: isn't a loss of sovereignty worth if the world becomes better afterward? I think so, look at the european union, don't you you think that now people of europe understand better each others, that war was banned of europe and that former conflcts (some wich dated from the middle age !!!) are now resolved and are just part of history? Don't you think that if we can apply this model to the world, it will be better (look at turkey, there are doing a lot of effort in improving human right in their country, in the hope to integrate the european union)

Examples please? How has patriotism and nationalism not a good thing? Look at the Olympics and the pride people have in their nation. Look at our national holidays and the obvious pride we take in our rich and diverse history. Look at the accomplishments America has made: 1st man on the moon, penicillin and electricity are just a few of the many accomlishments by Americans and we take pride in those people. Sure there are things in our past that we're not proud of, but we're HUMAN and we make mistakes and learn from them. Look at how America rallied together during WW2. That is patriotism in it's finest, women, men, black, whites, American Indians and Japanese Americans all fighting and working together for a common goal, NATIONAL PRESERVATION AND FREEDOM.

look at the two world wars for exemple, at the balkan wars, at the napoleon wars, etc ....
Where you are too prood of your country, it leads you to lower your legitimate criticism that as a citizen you have to have about your country and your government, and to follow your government whatever it does, even if it's wrong, and history proved us that it only leads to cataclysm.
I think that if in europe we are less patriotic than in america, it's because it remenbers us the worst parts of our history.
After all, the nazis, the fascists, the vichy regimes, were all nationalist regimes

Well, I sort of agree that a united Europe could certainly challenge the USA's economic sole superpower status, possibly with the currency implications that Thomas talks about.

However, a single united European economy could be a massive opportunity for American business - even in it's current fragmented state, the wider EU economy (including the prospective members like Slovakia and Poland) is comparable with the US economy, with potential to be at least half as big again once it starts to function more cohesively. Because you'll be trading with an equal (if not, for the time being, a superior), the USA will have to open its domestic market to full foreign penetration if you want similarly free access to the European single market, which up to now the USA has been loath to do - no more steel tariffs, among other things.

And, because the European economy (even with the Euro, it still makes more sense to talk about economies) is out of phase with the USA, it would mean that US and EU businesses that traded in both areas would be insulated somewhat from slack periods in either area. They could still do ok in the USA while Europe stagnates (as is the case at present), and vice versa as the economic cycles progress in both continents.

So, for one thing, an equally large European economy doesn't have to be a threat to the USA, only to the USA's dominance. The UK is proof positive that a former unchallenged world leader doesn't suddenly turn into a third world economy when knocked off the top spot (despite what Brit doomsayers would have you believe) - our standard of living is vastly superior to what it was when we were the dominant power in absolute terms; it's just that we are not streets ahead of everyone else any more, and some have overtaken us.

But more than anything else you shouldn't think of macroeconomics as a zero sum game. If the EU starts to win, it doesn't automatically follow that the USA will have to lose. You just won't win all the time.

Even if the USA does lose it's primacy economically, which seems very unlikely in the short or medium term (even if it is inevitable in the long term), that wouldn't immediately translate into being a military basket case. Again, taking the UK as the most recent example of an unchallenged world power that fell from the top spot, we were militarily dominant for 30-40 years after our economy was overtaken by the USA (around the turn of the 20th century, if memory serves).

On the military, I think that the EU will take a long time to develop and exert any military muscle after it gets the upper hand economically. Always remember that the main reason the EU was founded was to remove the possibility that European nations would go to war with one another. The Germans, especially, are pretty much opposed to war in almost any circumstance (don't forget they opposed Iraq just as much as the French did, if less noisily).

And before the EU will be able to project significant force overseas, certainly on any kind of scale that could make the USA nervous, we would have to be able to defend our own continent, a burden currently shouldered by the USA, even though the cold war threat has now gone. If that were ever to happen, it would mean that a huge chunk of your own military were freed up, which would either mean you'd have more defence resources at your disposal in the rest of the world, increasing short term US dominance, or it would allow you to cut some of your spending (and therefore taxes), which most of you wouldn't sneeze at.

Not only that, but a resurgent EU would still be your allies, militarily and politically. Unless there's some kind of shift away from freedom, market capitalism and democracy in either the USA or EU, the two powers are always going to share more interests in common than any differences. Remember that even though France and others opposed Iraqi intervention, a majority of EU states favoured it. A politically united EU would have reflected that. Also, even within France, the pursuit of al Quaeda suspects continued unbroken, despite the unhelpful rhetoric directed at them from some in the USA. They think of themselves as equal allies, so where they agree with you they will be only too keen to help. There is no reason to suppose that a politically and militarily unified EU will be any less of an ally to the USA (indeed there is plenty of reason to believe that French anti-Americanism and German pacifism will be more than balanced by a more active UK and by the planned expansion of the EU into the East).

In fact, I would humbly suggest that the easiest way to make sure that the EU emerges in the future not only as a competing power, but as a rival and potential enemy, is to keep on treating their nascent growth as a threat rather than an opportunity; to keep on viewing their motives as suspicious; to keep on imagining their natural desire to prosper is driven by jealousy of American dominance and a desire to see harm come to you. Treat someone like you don't trust them and are afraid of them for long enough, and they'll begin to behave in a way that justifies your fears. It's a bit like the thread on the Golden Rule, Silver Rule, and so on. Apply the tit-for-tat rule to the EU. Treat us as a friend until we give you reasons to to otherwise. (NB Friends sometimes disagree.)

More than that, I think it would pay dividends if America stopped trying to understand what EU motivations are on American terms. Europe's nations have already had global dominance (all of the current EU members have been a or the dominant world power at one time or another, except Ireland) and while it had it's compensations, the consensus seems to have been that it was more trouble than it was worth. With the number of people in Europe, it's always going to be easy to find someone who SAYS they think the EU should do down the USA by fair means or foul (just as it's possible to find Americans that think they've been abducted by aliens). Don't judge us on that, or even on the "official" proposals of what we're going to be like in the future. Judge us on what we DO. With a few exceptions, on that basis the EU has a lot more to fear from the USA than you do from us.

But actually I think that it's all moot - before any of us realise, the other superpower will be China (they have a billion people, and economic growth that's been in double figures since they allowed capitalism in during the late 90s).

Great Britian has a great amount of Patriotism and stood up to the Nazi's. The French resistance was essential during the war. Like I said, you learn from history and improve on the mistakes of the past. You can have national pride and the cringe of past humiliations.

most of the french resistance were communists
And don't you remember chamberlain? before the war, the english were pacifists and only wanted peace, there were not at all nationalisst in the way it is understood by the majority of people (it is to say thinking of your country as moraly superior, culturaly superior, etc..). It is a totaly different thing when you have to defend yourself against a foreign agression, it is not nationalism, it is self defense

The Russians were communists too and were our allies durring the war. I don't see your point about the French resistance and communism. I think a communist can be patriotic, the former USSR and China prove that. And as far as Chamberlain and the Brits, they were pacifists untill they started getting bombed by the Nazis! What's the difference between protecting your homeland and nationalism? Not much in my opinion.

According to www.dictionary.com

Nationalism:

1.Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2.The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3.Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

What's so wrong with that?

By definition, communist is internationalist (reread karl marx and you'll see, "Proletarian of all the country, ...")
nationalism is an ideolody that implies intolerance, hate, disdain, against people who are not like you ( who are not from your country). if you are proud of your country, there must be a reason, maybe because you are proud of his achievments, etc .., but it implies too that this achivments are better than the ones of the others, that, as we are a great country that is moral and good, we have to educate the other people, and we know where it lead, to colonialism, to expansion wars (Even the americans had this sort of war, in texas for exemple), etc ....

The same can be said about the EU or a one world government. Isn't that the epitome of colonialism and expansionism? Wouldn't a body of world leaders then dictate what is moral and good the the population of the world? Who would keep that governing body in check? No, a one world government has too many flaws, there are too many cultures, religions and ideologies that conflict for a one world government to be effective. Those differences are what makes countries unique and diversity is one of the very best traits in the human species.

Of course, but I was not talking about that, but there is some problems that are global and that can be fight only with all the nations of the world, like global warming for exemple, I think this sort of government would just have to deal with some global problems like human rights, environement, starving, global health problem (like aids),etc in a way a sort of UN but with real means and a strong political will which results from a true representative composition of the assembly.

colonialism is when you think you have a moral duty to educate people who you think are less civilized than you, it implies that this people are forced to it, against their will
In europe, it's something different, people WANT to be a part of europe, they are a part of it because they think it will improve their country and the others too (look at norway and switzerland, the people of this countries didn't want to be a part of the EU and actually they are not), so there is really nothing to do with expansionism and colonialism

Julian, with the post-9/11 national environment within the United States, it is highly unlikely that we will see a convergence between the United States and the emerging identity of a United Europe in the coming five to ten years. With George Bush almost certain to win the 2004 presidential elections (in fact certain, considering his corporate allies control the main companies that own the electronic voting software) the present nefarious influence of the neo-conservatives will continue to spread, despite the problems in Iraq.

In fact, the neo-cons and the ultra-federalist bureaucrats in Brussels need each other, with the rising spiral of anti-Americanism and anti-Europeanism within their respective continental populations; it suits both their interests. The global currency power-struggle between the Euro and the Dollar has gone to far to be patched up, despite the recent efforts at the Versailles meeting of Bilderburg. Anyway, the defence and aircraft industries in Europe are starting to merge and lead to European wide companies in competition to America, for example Airbus. These corporate trends are actually threats to leading American corporate conglomerations even if in the long-term the competition will do them good.

With the massive American debt totalling trillions, the Real Estate Bubble, the even more mammoth Derivatives Bubble and the Third World debts bubble the whole American banking system is in crisis. On there own, each wouldn’t be a problem but these multiple threats to confidence to the economic system will be too much for the Fed. Of course, the doomsayers will predict the worse-case scenario, worldwide financial meltdown but in practise what will happen is that the worst effected countries, mainly America will collapse while other currency blocs like the Euro will face a short-term recession. After that, like the Chinese currency bloc, the Yuan, it will experience growing strength as Europe and China expand geopolitical and geo-economically.

However the threat to Americas current position as the top player in the world stakes doesn’t not just come from the threat of the Euro and the expanding European economy, but also militarily. This will surprise many, since it’s generally accepted that America is unchallenged militarily. During the pre-war Iraq debate, where strange convolutions occurred in the international order, we saw the emergence of a Franco-German-Russian strategic axis.

(http://www.bu.edu/iscip/digest/vol8/ed0803.html)


This has far greater significance than most people imagine. Since it is the Franco-German duo which have dominated the emerging European Project (up to now), aligning with Russia leads a new international anti-American axis. Already Russia and China have their own strategic alliance against America and both argue and are currently working towards a multipolar world order, which Blair so recently condemned at Congress. Included in this axis is North Korea and possibly India (although India has recently developed close relations with America). Under the nationalistic leadership of ex-KGB official President Putin, the Russians are actively working towards a crisis when they can destroy America’s military superiority,

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...16/102442.shtml



What does this mean for the emerging United Europe? Working with the Kremlin, and thus by indirect connection with the Chinese, the Russians can demolish Americas military superiority (and possibly Britains, presuming that they have finally ended their “special relationship” with America) while Europe can destroy the economic foundations of the American “Empire” – the Dollar hegemony.
The destruction of the United States of America, will lead to a genuine multipolar world order, where a humiliated, emasculated America will be finally shorn of its unilateral impulses while a growing, confident united Europe, politically and economically can unify the European continent. In alliance with a neo-soviet Russian great-power regaining its hegemony over the “near south”, meaning Central Asia, Ukraine and others, both superpowers can push into the geopolitical vacuum in the Middle East, the Indian peninsula. China can regain its traditional informal hegemony in East Asia while America’s satellites (a la “allies”), like Japan, Taiwan and Australia will face either destruction or join the victorious camp.
And don’t think that the world will be upset by the economic and military destruction of America, quite the opposite, anti-Americanism is growing everyday and many ordinary people would dance in the streets to see America humiliated so systematically. In conclusion, the strategic trends in contemporary international relations seem to concur that the European union is a threat to America.

The CIA would figure it out. Just because the CIA screwed up on 9/11 & overf the Uranium incident doesn't mean they won't figure this out. Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the CIA & the Brits' M-16 don't have agents in former Iron Curtain states & in whatever department the KGB calls it's self these days.



Anti-Americanism is a government request from the gov't s around the world. Iraq always held anti-american protests because Saddam told his people to or die. Iran the same, along with everyone else in the middle east.

The United States gives the World technology and the EU uses American technolgy to survive and try to catch up. Who do you think NATO turns to when their computers need updated? IBM, Microsoft, and maybe a japanese country.

Thomas, I don't share your enthusiasm to see the demise of American power.

I certainly don't think that a concerted Euro-Sino-Russian effort to deliberately undermine American power is desirable. The Americans are no so tolerant of their closest allies that they'll stand by indulgently while we plot their downfall - nor should they be.

Nor is it ultimately necessary. The first rule of history is that things change. Dominance fades. Power slips away.

Rather than try to hasten this, I think Europe generally, and Britain in particular, should try to influence America into recognising the inevitable (I think they have started to do so - taking the steps the neo-cons have to entrench and extend American power implicitly recongnises the possibility that it will slp away unless entrenched and extended), and then losing their fear of it. Decline needs to be managed as carefully as growth - probably more so, as there's the constant sensation of having something to lose.

Britain is perhaps the first example in history of an utterly dominant power (during the 19th century at least) that gradually lost that power without bloody collapse or revolution. Better that the USA follows our example when the times comes than attempts one last push (like France or Germany) or collapses in anarchy taking most of their sphere of influence (i.e. the whole world) with it for almost a millennium (like Ancient Rome).

Talk about a checker champion at a chess tournament! I am a little overwhelmed at the level of debate on this topic and reluctantly I am going to offer my views in the hopes of getting a handle on this. First off the debt that the United States is acumulating is bad for business. We are into record deficit spending with no relief in sight. The first hundred days of the Bush administration yielded not fiscal, domestic agenda, particularly with regards to the European markets. He repeatedly went to Europe and came away with nothing in the way of a comprehensive agreement. If you think for one instant that this has no bearing on our ability to support and maintain our interests abroad you are sadly mistaken. We are living in the reality of a world market that we spent billions to create. War machines are incredibly expensive both in terms of men and material. The wealth necessary to generate a military like ours is based primarily on trade or commerce, which ever term you want to use. Americas influence has never been based on military might its allways been on our ability to generate wealth. Europe is not a threat to us because we are weak militarily. We have defended allies in Europe and Asia and South America pretty well not because we are strong but because we are rich.

Thomas has me baffled the same way that every source for substantive information on this emerging conflict has. He supports a view that I have suspected was true for years and have never been able to support. Europe is the dominant economic giant of the world and there is no stoping it except that we get our fiscal house in order. I dont honestly understand how the ,"The global currency power-struggle between the Euro and the Dollar has gone to far to be patched up, despite the recent efforts at the Versailles meeting of Bilderburg..." works. I do know this, if we do not deal with Europe soon they will follow the same pattern of history and push for dominance. I am not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works and I am suprised and delighted to see this topic treated in such an intelligant manner. I dont think America is in trouble just yet but unless we come to terms with Europe and their emerging economic might we will decline and Europe to begin to make its influence known. Maybe when Im a little better informed I can contribute something more substantial.

I'm sorry but what emergence of economic might? France and Germany have more worse unemployment than we do. Some of the former warsaw countries too.

“to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor” (http://rebuilding.blogspot.com/)

Who wrote that? The highly influential PNAC thinktank, which include Vice-president Cherney and leading neo-conservative hawks. In other words, the national strategic policy of the current Bush Administration is to try to destroy the legitimate desires of other competing alternative sources of global power to reach their natural potential and this includes the emerging United Europe. So Julian, to suggest that it is not in Europe’s interest to see America destroyed, or at least severely humbled on the international stage is profoundly naïve, since the determination of increasing numbers of ultra-patriotic Americans is to see Europe, Russia and China destroyed. If that is how growing numbers of anti-European Americans see us, why should we feel any sentimental attachment to them?

Of course, if this was only a fringe minority within the American political culture, which saw the world in such stark black-and-white terms, we could safely ignore them. However, they are anything but fringe, their leading supporters occupy prestigious and influential posts within the Federal government and each day they are striving to achieve their goals. Moreover as you well know, ordinary Americans seem deeply frustrated with Europeans and see them as “Euroweenies” not prepared to stand up to freedom and so on. This is the growing reality of European-American relations.

The neo-cons to their benefit Goamerican do foresee the threat that Russia poses, that’s why George Bush has been so supportive of the missile defence programme. The claim that North Korea is the reason is nonsense, as China and Russia well know (that’s why they have been almost hysterical about it) so America is belatedly starting to do something about the Russian-Sino threat. Remember Bill Clinton was elected in 1996 based on funding from Communist China! Whatever the CIA said, it would have been ignored.

As for the claim that “Anti-Americanism is a government request from the gov't s around the world”, I find that quite extraordinary. If you look at recent global polls, the Brazilians in particular detest America, so do many ordinary Middle Easterns, Russians and Europeans. That’s based around people’s perceptions of America and its policies, which affect their everyday lives. Of course, some Arab governments seem to encourage such anger, but you can’t deny that it is based on a substantial reality. Certainly in the Middle East, there would be dancing on the streets if America was humiliated while the rest of the world would have little sympathy for you.



Certain influential circles in America would concur with you Julian. That’s why there is growing resistance to the Bush Administration from some leading financial families, for example the Rockefellers, where Senator Jay Rockefeller has led the Democrats attacks on the Administration. They understand the need for America to work with its allies, manage the decline constructively and create a new international monetary system, perhaps where the Dollar and Euro can co-exist.
Sadly, these moderates are out-of-tune with the current political environment within America, and only a Democratic win in 2004 could lead to a renewed détente with the Europeans and other great-powers. Ordinary Americans just aren’t interested in knowing the economic reality of their nation and prefer to wave their flag, watch their nation go to war and support Dubya. This means that the only rational basis for the European Union is to strive ahead it its Project and give the Americans as good as they can get. If the Americans want currency war, than they’ll get it!



Yes, that would be the sensible and prudent approach, but I see no sign that this will occur. As long as the American public tacitly supports the expansion of American hegemony throughout the world, than the neo-conservatives within limits will enjoy wide public support in their efforts to sustain the “unipolar moment”. The present course of the Bush Administration is creating enemies it doesn’t need to create, angers former and traditional allies and encouraging the hard-liners in other great-powers (China and Russia primarily) who have always argued for a hawkish line against the United States.

Such American hubris, arrogance and contempt for the rest of the world, seen everyday is increasingly intolerable for many decent ordinary folk throughout the world, including me. If a Russian military strike against the American military machine and a full-on clash between the Dollar and the Euro has to occur, than it will and needs to occur. In the long-term it will be good for America and the rest of the world, where a new multipolar order will emerge.



http://www.friederich-mielke.de/kupchan.html

Thomas



With all due respect. I don't see how a Russian nuclear attack against America will be good for any one... How many did you say would die in the first strike? 125 million????


Having read the latest posts here, I have to say; that I think we are dealing with extremes here. The EU does not have political unity, and is only barely held together. It could spin apart at any moment. Just about the only thing we can agree on is a distrust of GW Bush...

Frankly I don't see the EU as presenting a serious threat to the USA in the next few decades... (But I may be wrong ...) and neither do I see Russia's nuclear weapons defeating the American's any more than they did when they had red stars painted on them.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with Julien. I do think the EU has the potential to threaten the USA's global economic position, but lets just try and remember how poorly Europeans actually get on with each other!

I'll believe in Euroepan unity, when and IF I see it.

Gotta agree with all that you said thereMOIF (total anarchay i know ).

The EU may become a compeitor economically with us but does that mean we have to become enemies? No. It means we can become partners and trade with each other and be all happy.

Militarily, the EU is a mouse

Its life GA... but not as we know it!

editted to add;

At this point in history, the EU may be a military mouse. But measured against the back drop of history, then Europe has the most bloody and grusome military history of all...

Considering the implications of deployed military power. Then I really don't see the EU's current lack of military as a weakness.

President Putin will attack America when it becomes clear to the Russian public and the broader international public that America has gone to far and is a threat to world stability. Although already the Russian people are increasingly fearful and distrustful of America they aren’t bloodthirsty and I would argue that for European, domestic opinion and the rest of the civilised world, the Russians will try to cause the least “collateral damage” – to use that lovely Pentagon phrase.

In other words, tactical nukes will be used as sparingly as possible, while long range non-nuclear missiles will be used to wipe out American military bases. Of course, there will be unfortunate casualties in highly densely populated areas near military bases, but that’s an inevitable result. The destruction of the Americas carrier fleets which is the essential means for the global projection of America power will be the potent result of this grand Pearl Harbour assault in the near-future.

The American reaction to the economic collapse and the military destruction of their military will be stunned shock, outrage, fear and impotence. It will be like 9/11 except without the worldwide sympathy and a thousand times worse. From then on, the decades of built-up anger, hatred and desire for revenge from peoples across the world, which the Americans are blithely ignoring even now, will terrifyingly retaliate.

The invasion of Iraq was a de facto declaration of World War Three on the European Union because Saddam had dared to trade in Euros, on Russia because Iraq has always been a long-time ally of the Kremlin and on China because Beijing needs Middle Eastern oil. In other words, the United States started the new Hobbesian clash of the great world powers since they all know that national or continental survival is at stake.

The best historical comparison would be the decline of the British Empire at the start of the twentieth century where new powers are competing in a transition from a Britannica unipolar world order to an emerging multipolar world order. Like now, the worlds superpower was hated and respected by everyone, but the difference lies in that Britain successfully managed the decline of its international power while America is going the way of Classical Athens to self-destruction.

Moreover, when will this mega Pearl Harbour occur? The earliest time will probably be 2006 once America destroys its remaining MX missiles and Putin knows that he can attack America without any threat of retaliation. What will this monumentious earth-shattering destruction of American power mean for the world, including the European Union? Well, the first direct consequence will be that New Europe, all those new nations joining will face a brutal choice between accepting the Franco-German-Brussel nucleus of the United Europe or withdrew into the claustrophobic embrace of a neo-soviet greater Russia. Even the most anti-EU pole will prefer the Europeans to the danger of a renewed Russian hegemony over their countries.

The British Eurosceptics will lose their main anchor in international relations and will be forced to embrace the European Project. Other nations will clamour to join the booming European superstate with its mammoth continental European economy and the protection of the new European Army from the hypothetical Russian threat. The Russians and Europeans will carve up eastern Europe into different spheres of influence, Russia will reunify with the traditional Slavic nations of the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Caucasus with the Baltic States probably becoming satellites of the informal Russian empire. Similarly the American presence in Central Asia will be expelled and the Russians (with possibly Chinese competition) renew its hegemony in that desert region.

China, with a new Fourth Generation of military and civilian leaders, not caring about Communism but rather building a strong China, they are already preparing the ground;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EC22Ad01.html



The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) in particular are war gaming and preparing for a clash with the Americans, but the Chinese are a highly intelligent and subtle race and their strategy will be to create a informal hegemony over East Asia. With the taking of the oil-rich Spratly Islands, China will probably become oil-sufficient and will be first-among-equals within the new East Asia. The North Korean hermit state, if it hasn’t been dissolved by the Americans, will either have unified the Korea, or it will be destroyed by the Chinese, since its use will be ended. As for Japan, its only rational choice will be to develop an alliance with China while trying to remain independent by closely aligning with the Russians.

The state of Israel, without American economic and military support will become bankrupt and will face total destruction by the combined Arab armies bent on annihilation. United Europe needs Arab oil too much to intervene, while the Russians will supply and support their Arab fraternal friends in their holy war. Whether the old ideal of the Nasserian pan-Arabian state is finally created, or whether the collapsing discredited regimes are replaced with a mash of different ethnic statelets is impossible to know at this stage.

Without America, will the Europeans manage to unite or will they dissolve into nationalistic squabbles? That is clearly a danger but since power is transferring to the supranational agencies and institutions, a new European elite which genuinely see themselves as European, may and should emerge. Remember 11,000 children of Eurocrats are now being educated in special European Schools throughout the Union, these are the next generation of European leaders. Unlike the older generations, this elite strata will view themselves as European first and there particularly nationality very much second in terms of personal identify. Of course, the masses will remain far more traditionally nationalistic and there is a remote danger of civil disorder. Already, Brussels is preparing for “non-military civil management” exercises in anticipation for these xenophobic elements of the masses.

However, I am confident that the new Europeans, which are going to lead the first united Europe in the 21st century, will remain strong and not given to these old-fashioned bigots of the dying age. Blood may be shred on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin, which is unfortunate but ultimately necessary since nothing, I repeat nothing can stop the European Project. With the destruction of the United States, there will be three superpowers in the world, the United States of Europe (USE) in the Euro zone, the neo-soviet greater Russia within the Rouble zone and a greater China within the Yuan zone.

Thomas, it is obvious you are making this into a "What would happen if.." thread. If you would like, i'll copy your entire post, the first one & second, and put it in a new one & we all can play the hypothatical game without going off topic with this one

I do think the overall socialist/communist aspect is whats allowing most of the world to work together for the most part. Of course the u.s is not going to like this being we are a capitalist nation. Not only that but no super power that is number 1 wants to think otherwise and or deal with something that it is not the boss of, though that is very dependent on u.s voteing and current leadership. I hope the hard fought diplomacy with china and related trade is not destroyed and the EU stays the course of economic unity in europe. President bushs pulling from missile accords, and the latest disaster at the u.n can only be setbacks, to the rational nature that no one wins a nuke fight and the world is shrinking, we can only hope to get bright people that want to work with this, not be a child and hit it with a tank. I dont see the EU as any threat to the u.s. More or less a great ally.

Thomas

You forgot the bit about Skynet sending the terminators back in time to kill the leader of the human resistance...




Ah... except of course unless Putin has a conscience that prevents him from becoming the greatest murderer in history...




Apparently not so subtle that internet debators cannot fathom and analysis their actions, and then predict the outcome.


Nileriver



Agreed. For all her faults, America is still Europe's greatest friend.

Putin comes from the Chekist tradition where the State is more important than the sanctity of human life. Anyway, the strike won't be too "bad", certainly nothing compared to Maos or Stalins crimes.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We'll know in '06 whether your guess is correct.

Read these too Moif:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ct_storm_1.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ct_storm_2.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ond_bush_1.html

I think you're getting carried away a little, Thomas. (Perhaps you should consider posting the next raft of doom-and-gloom predictions as quatrains!)

The neo-cons have had significant influence for all of three years, and already you're predicting a WWIII of Rest of World vs. USA.

I agree that the UK should throw itself more wholeheartely into the EU project, but I've always thought that, and it's because I think that has always been where our most prosperous future lies, whoever is in power in Washington.

Plus, even if the USA is already on a slippery slope their military superiority will last for quite a while after they've lost economic supremacy, no matter what we (or the Russians or Chinese) do. So the idea that war with them is necessary (even a necessary evil) or desirable is to me just plain stupid.

The USA will decline in their own time no matter what the EU does or does not do, the neo-cons will be out on their ear sooner or later, because they seem to have forgotten that "it's the economy, stupid". I imagine it will be more like the economic stalling of Japan (remember the 80s and 90s paranoia that they were going to take over the world? where is that now?) than James Cagney on the top of a petrol tank.

And if Bush wins in 2004, it just means that their eventual falling out of favour will be harder and last longer when it DOES come.

i might be abit late posting in this topic but here goes.

i think europe will become the next super power, for a few reasons, one the euro, russia has already started turing her reserves in to Euro, the EU as a whole is taking over mission in the bosnia.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peace...02/0703bos2.htm

the pentagon tried to stop the EU having its own GPS system for the world, and Europe in one voice said " its none of washingtons buisness"

see i can see where the bush admin is coming from, if they deal with little nations that can make there case and the little nation will follow the US, if the EU constitution is signed up to which in time it will, giving brussles full control, a president, a UN ambass, a common defence pol, ect... then i see it will be hard for not only bush but anyone in washington getting support from Europe, like france and germany and russia, not going to iraq now bush is asking, or more so trying to tell them.

so if Europe is talking in one voice it could mean a lot of trouble for the US. Also the european GDP as a whole is around 8trillon, with 10 new members and the UK which will join in time, once that happends you will be looking at the biggest economy in the world. The UK is making a stealth fighter at the moment so there is no worries there.

Europe may not have a big armed forces yet, but give it time, and with the decline of the dollar, america wont be able to support hers.

dont get me wrong i mean no harm to america or americans, but its the way these things happen, and i think a few people in the US will say " it will never happen, europe doesnt get alone....." but we are getting along, we do talk in one voice.

lastly if opec turns euro it will mean even more of a decline in the dollar.

Europe is an aging population, with it's share of the world population rapidly decreasing. The next superpower won't be in Europe.

I think people in Europe are still having children, but i have no idea on the quality of the education various European nations offer to them. When i listen to conservatives talk about the EU formation, not American conservatives, the main brunt of course is the power thing, or the hierarchy i guess, and the lose or generation of new culture like you find in American generations. I do think the EU is making positive steps though in breaking barriers, namely the creation of the euro. To me the key basically would be if the economies of the various nations could actually mingle as one, at that point i would think The EU would be something to worry about in an economics sense.

Plus it seems like other nations seem to work with them just as well as the work with the u.s, such as china. I wonder if the various African nations will play any kind of a role.

The free market is a funny thing, particularly in an American sense, being i guess we pushed so hard for it, and when it does not work out to our liking we become nasty nationalists, if you ask me that is rather irrational behavior to say the least. I don’t know how fully how the EU rates in this arena though. Plus the free market needs positive people to work in it, or we will be making Fidel Castro’s on a daily bases on would think. More to the point, i feel the EU is more progressive an open in regards to free markets then the dominant u.s.

I don't see it. maybe if ALL European countries were to adopt the euro, then, yes.

China is who I worry about. They're economy is kicking butt, so is Japan's.

As much as some may think Europe will not be the next superpower but i think a certain communist country in Asia will. China is not a threat now because no one has provoked it and we have tried to keep our relationship with them in the friendly catagory until the issue of Taiwan's independence comes up

I think Europe is positioning itself very nicely to become the next superpower, but it will be friendly to the US in military terms, and will be competitors in economic terms, and in fact, in emerging markets, are doing better than us in many ways seperately, much less in unison. When I travel to third world countries, especially the former USSR and the current Russia now, German especially and some French companies dominate, and I mean, really own the markets.

I think that the scenario of Russia killing or attacking the US borders on silly (sorry Thomas, I agree with you sometimes, but not on this one, not even close) they are WAY to interested in how to move themselves back onto the world stage via an economic comeback.

I would like to see a strong EU. I believe that would be a positive thing for everyone... but they have a few things against them.

1.They are going to absorb several unhealthy economies in 2004, when the EU expands to include the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Malta, and Cyprus.
2. Culture clash and disagreements an monetary policy.
3. Aging population, as Hugo pointed out. Most of the countries in the EU have the lowest population growth in the world. It's a actually negative in some of the dismal economies they're scheduled to absorb. Their more-Socialist style of system will eventually disproportionately burden the young in the future unless something changes.
4. I would expect them to increase military spending as our troops withdraw and NATO is ever-expanding.

USA on the EU expansion May 2003

I happen to be familar with the barbaric and fractured of Europe in the 20th century and down through history. The only ones to ever unite Europe were Alexander the Great , Caeser and the Roman Catholic Church. For Europe to be 'reconciled and united, around common ideals and common values' sounds great. Then again it sounded good when Hitler was saying all the German speaking people should unite. It allways sounds good in the begining. It will be interesting if they can bring Europe together without a Pope or an Emperor.

There is a big difference between consensus and conquest. I sincerely hope you're not trying to compare the two.