I got this idea from a conversation in another thread:





So then assuming the rise of the EU to considerable power in comparison to the US.
Is that a good thing?
Can Europe realistically do better than say the UN at forming a positive alliance?
Or is this just another stage for the powers of Europe to duke it out for supremacy?

Its probably neither good nor bad. I suspect though that the world would benefit far more if the EU was the worlds largest power. Simply because I think the EU is more concerned with the global environment, and issues of pollution.




Yes. If you compare Europe today with Europe even twenty years ago, you will find a far greater level of trans European movement and identity. People today travel back and forth across Europe with the ease that was once reserved for travel inside one's own nation.

The UN has no homogenous identity, but the EU has. European culture is very diverse, but it is still bound up in a common heritage and history.



At this stage in the Union, yes.
As time progresses though, and if the plan succeeds, then the boundries and borders will fade, not only from the maps but also from people's minds. The nations will remain, but only as states with a federal structure, and people will come to identify themselves much (I suspect) as Americans do today.

1. What would it matter if the negotiations on such policies would be bogged down by power struggles? Such policies, without definite economic benefit, are likely to become bargaining pieces where support is tied to a more lucrative proposal.

2. One could say the US and it's closer allies are more interested in global security and human rights to some extent.

I think the EU would be a good role model for the world, as america was before we all went to war, for other reasons, anywho. the reason i say they would be good for the world is, they are finding different source of power, and are very big on non-polluting gases. Plus they don't like to go to war, unless they have been attacked on there own soil.

Sure, one could say that. One could also say that the moon is merely the figment of Jules Verne's imagination. It wouldn't make it true. The U.S. has done what to promote global security I wonder? America may or may not be safer (I'm inclined to say the latter) but at the same time it has promoted feelings of alienation from the West in every single country that it has engaged in it's anti-terrorism efforts. As for Human Rights; the U.S. has gone out of it's way to circumvent human rights issues in the past, so I don't see how you could make such a claim. Prisoners in Camp X-Ray are held in deplorable conditions while at the same time others are merely transferred to other countries where they can be tortured without a public outcry. There have been the funding of Contras in Central America (groups who slaughtered thousands of civilians), weapons sales to the Phillipines... the U.S. is the only developed nation on the planet that executes anyone, and one of the few countries developed or otherwise that actually sentences children to death.

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to explain how exactly you could SAY those things about the U.S.

Ultimatejoe is right, if any other country was doing to the camp x-ray people what the US admin is doing the US would be annoyed. For example, what isreal did to syria, if it was the other way around, the bush admin, would have been really mad. That isnt to say im promoting terroism, im not ,but i didnt see syria attack israel. And israel didnt provid any eveidence to the public for its actions.