The European Century? The European Superpower?
- Thread starter Proelite
- Start date
- Status
mikekennyb
Member
In regards to the OP talking about the military of the EU.... they can't agree on shit in that regard. In Afghanistan, the majority of the European troops can't even engage in combat. I've heard stories where an American Marine unit was in combat, they called on a nearby Italian unit for support, and the Italians said that they can't engage in combat unless they're shot at first!
On the other hand, the Dutch and the British (and it sounds like now the French) can engage in combat in Afghanistan, while the Germans, Italians, etc. stay away from it.
It seems to me like the EU is still a little too diverse in cultures/opinions to come together right now. Although with time that could change. We've seen stranger things, up until about 60 years ago Europe had been more or less at war with itself for over a thousand years prior.
On the other hand, the Dutch and the British (and it sounds like now the French) can engage in combat in Afghanistan, while the Germans, Italians, etc. stay away from it.
It seems to me like the EU is still a little too diverse in cultures/opinions to come together right now. Although with time that could change. We've seen stranger things, up until about 60 years ago Europe had been more or less at war with itself for over a thousand years prior.
Rapping Granny
Banned
Brits need to worry about getting into the UEFA tournament first.
Action Jackson
Member
So according to this map Europe would have a common border with North Korea. Nice...
liquid_gears
Banned
I hate being called British.
First and foremost I'm proud to be English followed closely by being a European.
In no way at all do I see myself as being British.
First and foremost I'm proud to be English followed closely by being a European.
In no way at all do I see myself as being British.
mikekennyb said:
That some European troops can't engage in combat has to do with the instructions of their governments. For me, I think it's absurd to send professionally trained soldiers to a war zone and tell them: don't shoot unless they shoot at you. C'mon... but you can't blame the soldiers. For example, a Dutch soldier shot a Iraqi man by accident who was plundering a truck from a convoy. The plundering man came at him and a warning shot fired by the Dutch soldier, which went into the ground, bounced back up into the chest of the man. Or so it is said, because the body was never found (muslims bury their dead real quick). Anyway, it was big news here, because the soldier was to be prosecuted. At the end, he won his trial, but the whole situation had a really bad effect on the morale of the soldiers in general who were stationed in Iraq; it became unclear when someone has or has not permission to shoot.
I think the above situation is a typical European, humanistic, make peace not war, the world is happy and pink point of view, and by that I mean the view by our governments. Europe = good, No Europe = bad and evil. Europe wants to do her part, and Europe knows some things can only be done militarily, but Europe is afraid of that part and that bounces back in her policies. The victims? Her civilians, and by that mostly soldiers, but also their families, who get fucked by this policy.
Kabouter said:
the political borders, yes. the geographical ones are much more tangible.
from wikipedia:
Geographically, Europe is the westernmost peninsula of the continent of Eurasia; its limits are well defined by sea to the North, South and West. The Ural mountains are usually taken as the eastern limit of Europe, along with the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea. Europe can be considered bounded to the southeast by the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
there is some discussion concerning the eastern boundaries, but they have one thing in common: turkey isn't in there!
azerbaijan, georgia and armenia are somewhat debatable, but turkey isn't imho.
there are several countries within the geographical borders wich should be excluded from the EU for political reasons, but imho you first have to check geography and if that would be a yes, then the political situation.
you have to draw the line somewhere, or you'd end up with the EAU.
Wrong. Many of its members aren´t following the Kyoto protocol, nor the EU could make the US nor China follow it.
Wrong. The Madrid terrorist strikes and the UK ones showed how uneffective our (still fragmented) intelligence services are.
Wrong. We weren´t able to avoid the Irak war, nor the shameful Kosovo fuck up, which had to be solved with the military intervention of the US. And that was happening in our backyard.
Wrong. European nations are some of the most oil dependant countries in the world.
And then again, wrong. Italy and Spain have violated the communitary rules of inmigration without any consequences. The EU on its actual state doesn´t have any way to force its members to fullfil their compromises on that issue.
That is meaningless unless the EU can force its members to follow their compromises, a thing that nowadays can´t do and still will not abe able to do unless it gains more power of the states.
China, Japan and Korea number of patents per year is steadingly increasing, while France, UK, and Germany´s is doing the exact opposite. Same can be same about our stagned economy and birthrate. We are a declinning power, these issues should be recognized and attended, and not only in a national scale.
Like Turkey abandoning its laicism or Chipre being unable to re-unify after decades? Yes, huge, growing influence indeed.
The EU needs to serve the goals of its citizens, not of retarded illusory collectives called "nations". European nationalism has been the main problem of Europe, and the EU is its flawed, yet only solution.
That´s the cool thing about the EU: in a distant future it might export its model to another nations. The idea of a common club of democratic nations where war is forbidden and free trade flows is way too good to keep it confined. Yes, it would turn into a "Universal Democracy Union" or something along these lines, loosing its European flavour. But I honestly think that it is one of the best ways that have ever been created to avoid wars, way more effective than say, the United Nations.
LazyLoki said:
Yeah, god knows we would LIKE to ensure that every single in person in Africa has the same human rights as those in Europe, we'd like to encourage their farmers with free trade to every member state, we'd like to use initiatives like the city of culture to encourage investment there, we'd like to eliminate war across the continent...but we just cant do it because wikipedia says it's not technically in Europe.
I don't really think the EU fits the bill as a super power, it's main benefits (besides peace in Europe for 60 odd years and counting) are economic, collectively, all the members of the EU can protect each other from nation specific economic fluctuations that otherwise would have been disastrous.
No matter how much politicians want us to unify I think ultimately the expansion of the EU will ensure that we are always too culturally divided to think of ourselves as European.
Ghost said:
what i meant with EAU was EurAsian Union
let's not talk about africa, you HAVE to draw the line somewhere, otherwise we would have a world governement sometime.
don't take me wrong, i don't want to shaft africa or any other country, but to help them and to integrate them into political, economical and social community resembling a state are two entirely different things.
i have no problem trading with turkey (selling them our leopard I battletanks, why not...), but i don't want them in the EU, because they don't belong there, simple as that.
ToyMachine228
Member
The European Union is already a "superpower" in the making. I wouldn't be surprised to see Latin America emerge with a "Latin American Union" towarsd the end of my life cylce.
The EU has set standards for green energy production and emissions. And while some nations will miss the targets, a lot is being done about this thanks to the EU. EU subsidies pay for a lot of the green energy projects for instance. Your stance is basically, if the EU can't do it perfectly, it can't do it at all. Show me any organization or unified country that can deal with this issue perfectly. Answer is, you won't find one. If only for the very simple reason that the citizens don't want to sacrifice their economic well-being for green standards that the rest of the world isn't following anyway.Ikael said:
Are you freakin' kidding me? Seriously? These anecdotal happenings don't prove a thing. Fact of the matter is, there have been two major attacks in the past decade or so. Do you honestly believe there have only been two attempts at one? Are you that naive?
That the EU wasn't able to deal with those things back then doesn't mean it isn't equipped to deal with them right now. The EU has learned from the mistakes it made in Yugoslavia and will not make those mistakes again. And really, until the people of Europe are more on one line as far as foreign policy goes, I really don't think the EU itself should decide for all on things like the Iraq war.
True, as you would expect from Western nations. However, European nations are also a lot less oil dependent than North-America and Oceania, which are really the only areas you can compare to. And great strides are being made in new energy technologies. Be it newer more efficient and safer nuclear installations, the development of more efficient coal, natural gas and oil power plants and of course investments everywhere in green energy generation. Like huge windmill fields in the North Sea.
There's a difference between not having the capability to do something and not doing something. While the EU can't really force many things, it can take measures against nations that violate rules and treaties.
I completely disagree, and your position makes it sound more like a dictatorship than anywhere else. And it would be to most people since the differences between the nations are so colossal (far more so than you seem to comprehend). Seriously, your entire post screams that you don't realize at all how absolutely gigantic the differences are between the various nations of the EU. Sure you could do something like this for the Benelux.
But what you want is an EU that forces the exact same policies on the richest and the poorest nations, the most liberal and the most conservative etc. etc. It would never work. What you propose would tear the EU apart. Maybe that's what you really want?
Economic growth in the Eurozone has been very good in recent times, thanks in no small part to the EU. And this is also sustained growth unlike in, oh, let's say the US. And while countries like China will run into gigantic obstacles in the future (water, food) the EU doesn't really face problems as serious as that. And yes, you can complain about the birthrate. But what do you expect the EU to do about that? Ban condoms? Force people to have more children? Fact of the matter is that women are putting their careers first and see children as an obstacle, neither the EU nor any national government can change, nor should it be it's place to do so. No governing entity should intrude into people's lives that much.
Like real reforms being achieved in almost every single neighbouring country. Yugoslavia especially is a prime example of this, it's progression from one giant powder keg to it's current state is remarkable.
By serving the goals of it's member states it is serving the goals of it's citizens. More so than policy coming straight from Brussels would.
- Status