The European Union

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
So explain to me how after so many years of the EU developed countrys (that have been around for hundreds of years longer than the US) still have unemployment rates as high as 25%?

 

That ones easy... they don't.  Spains is the highest, and it is under 20%.

Also... Europeans offer workers unemployment longer, so it isn't like it is a huge deal.  

France, Germany, and the UK are all under 10%.  Italy was ~12% in the graph I saw.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Urchin
That ones easy... they don't.  Spains is the highest, and it is under 20%.

Also... Europeans offer workers unemployment longer, so it isn't like it is a huge deal.  

France, Germany, and the UK are all under 10%.  Italy was ~12% in the graph I saw.

Wow!

The government offers unemplyment benefits longer so somehow thsi maked criminally high unemplyment rates not a huge deal...

Urchin, plese buy a gun and shoot the proffesors who taught you economics. Please.

[lasersailor184]

You claim to not be brainwashed, but are spouting off all the "pro's" of the EU after reading a single book?  Don't let yourself be swayed so easily.

Power is a loose term. You're right, when push comes to shove, power does rest solely on the military and the willingness to use it. But there are other types of power that at least can be exercised before the shoving starts.

Entirely wrong.  Power is not a loose term at all.  All the other things that you consider as "Power" do not even hold a candle to military power or the things that can be done with it.

"Market Power", as you can see worldwide, is the strongest with those countries that have the strongest militaries.  I'll let you decide whether or not this is a coincidence.

"Political Power" can only be used when the promise of military power is behind it.  How can we tell the middle east what to do if there is no promise of extreme retribution upon failure?  This is where the EU, the UN, and NATO fail.

Are they a fractured Union currently? Yep. Is there a possibility that this fracturing will continue? Of course. However, I think it would be foolish to automatically assume it will fall apart. I think it's equally foolish to just dismiss them as pretenders to the crown. They are an educated, numerous people with western views (slightly different then ours), I don't see how the argument could be made that they can't accomplish just about anything they decide to do, just like us.

Any country of decent size will fall apart without a decently strong central government.  

If you want to really read some interesting history, read up on the Confederate States of America.  This government has been in the US two times.  And both times it failed for the same reasons.  Without a strong central government binding everything together, the states will quarrel and fall apart.

Now, take a wild guess why I brought this up.  Take a wild guess as to the structure of the European Union.

The European Union **WILL** fall apart unless some strong central government takes over.  But then, this would not be a league of nations, but an entirely new nation onto itself.



Mark my word.  The EU will fail in one of two ways.  Over a span of about 6-7 years they will bicker with eachother so much that they will break the bonds that "Unite" them.

Or the EU will be challenged militarily.  And because (as we have already covered) the EU has no military power, they will fall apart within days.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You claim to not be brainwashed, but are spouting off all the "pro's" of the EU after reading a single book?  Don't let yourself be swayed so easily.

Hey I could spout you off a few things that aren't so hot about the place either: lack of strong military, quagmire of language (english helps, but hey), a healthcare system which, though largely free, is not IMO up to snuff with America's (In Britain, for example, you can't just go to NHS and get a colonoscopy because the state deems it "not cost effective"), and, finally, Eurovision

So no, I wouldn't say I'm brainwashed, maybe just optimistic or felt like talking about the positives as I was sure many here would have plenty of negatives to add.

Entirely wrong.  Power is not a loose term at all.  All the other things that you consider as "Power" do not even hold a candle to military power or the things that can be done with it.

"Market Power", as you can see worldwide, is the strongest with those countries that have the strongest militaries.  I'll let you decide whether or not this is a coincidence.

"Political Power" can only be used when the promise of military power is behind it.  How can we tell the middle east what to do if there is no promise of extreme retribution upon failure?  This is where the EU, the UN, and NATO fail.

If your definition of power is being able to beat someone up if they don't do what you say, you're quite right.  As far as telling the middle east what to do, and actually having them listen, good luck, military or not.

Any country of decent size will fall apart without a decently strong central government.  

Agreed.  But give them some time.  Our own government wasn't so decently strongly centralized at first, either.  Yet it survived.

If you want to really read some interesting history, read up on the Confederate States of America.  This government has been in the US two times.  And both times it failed for the same reasons.  Without a strong central government binding everything together, the states will quarrel and fall apart.

I will definately check that out.  Any suggested texts?

Mark my word.  The EU will fail in one of two ways.  Over a span of about 6-7 years they will bicker with eachother so much that they will break the bonds that "Unite" them.

Or the EU will be challenged militarily.  And because (as we have already covered) the EU has no military power, they will fall apart within days.

What makes you believe that the Europeans won't defend themselves?  They defended themselves fairly well for a number of years in both world wars while we were still sticking our heads in the sand.  They might not have a large army now, but I can't imagine they'd just roll over and die.

And who is going to attack them with the aim of occupation, anyway?  Us?

[Schwein]

This thread is a nice change of scenery. Americans arguing over European matters.

Being an European I really don’t see why the EU can’t be successful. The peoples of Europe are becoming more and more integrated, but the language barrier is perhaps the biggest hurtle we have yet to solve. I think that just the fact that I can drive from Greece to Finland without any visas or passport, and use the same money everywhere says a lot about how far the EU has come.

However it is not a federated state yet. No USE by far.

To those of you who mentioned the military power of the EU I feel it is necessary to clear up a few things. In total the 25 member states of the EU have a bigger army and air force than the USA. The USA has a significantly bigger navy though, and both the EU and USA are nuclear powers. However it must be said that the forces of the USA are far better integrated than those of the EU, but that will probably change in time. If the EU becomes a federated state like the USA

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Schwein

To those of you who mentioned the military power of the EU I feel it is necessary to clear up a few things. In total the 25 member states of the EU have a bigger army and air force than the USA. The USA has a significantly bigger navy though, and both the EU and USA are nuclear powers. However it must be said that the forces of the USA are far better integrated than those of the EU, but that will probably change in time. If the EU becomes a federated state like the USA

Oh I'd agree that if you that was your aim, you could achieve it.  The question is, is it worth giving up some social programs or at the least lessening their benefits to pay for it?  We here spend an awful lot of money on our military and other things naturally suffer, but it's a matter of what our priorities are.

Edit - and when i'm talking about the European Army being small, I'm talking the multinational one - not the individual nations' (have no idea about those).

[lasersailor184]

Agreed. But give them some time. Our own government wasn't so decently strongly centralized at first, either. Yet it survived.

Wrong.  WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Our government failed when it WAS NOT A CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.  The reason it succeeded was because it adopted one.

I will definately check that out. Any suggested texts?

Any standard history book.  And the quote, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it."

What makes you believe that the Europeans won't defend themselves? They defended themselves fairly well for a number of years in both world wars while we were still sticking our heads in the sand. They might not have a large army now, but I can't imagine they'd just roll over and die.

And who is going to attack them with the aim of occupation, anyway? Us?

Who said anything about defense?  I said challenge them militarily.  Sometime soon, the EU will venture out with all of it's military and engage someone.  That same day the entire world will realize the lack of power the EU has and all EU stocks will drop like a rock.

Oh I'd agree that if you that was your aim, you could achieve it. The question is, is it worth giving up some social programs or at the least lessening their benefits to pay for it? We here spend an awful lot of money on our military and other things naturally suffer, but it's a matter of what our priorities are.

Somehow, artists who aren't subsidized do not receive any sympathy from me.  Some of the greatest artists ever were **** broke.  However, these artists are getting paid and are producing pure crap.  I say **** them,  we should cut off all funding for them.

Socialistic programs do not garner any care from me.

[Schwein]

Originally posted by Vudak
Oh I'd agree that if you that was your aim, you could achieve it.  The question is, is it worth giving up some social programs or at the least lessening their benefits to pay for it?  We here spend an awful lot of money on our military and other things naturally suffer, but it's a matter of what our priorities are.

Edit - and when i'm talking about the European Army being small, I'm talking the multinational one - not the individual nations' (have no idea about those).

That was my point, we don’t have to give up anything to match the US in troops, tanks and planes. We already pay for them although instead of having one big army we have 25 smaller ones (with all the problems that entails). I believe the US Navy is the biggest spender of the US defense budget, and the USA needs a navy.

The USA is literally on the other side of the planet from most hotspots and potential enemies. You need a powerful navy to defend yourself and to project military power. The EU otoh has borders in the Middle-East and North Africa. Any potential invader is much more likely to come by land than sea, and as for power projection; a handful of carriers with escorts and subs is all we need for the foreseeable future imho, and the EU already have that navy.

The bottom line is that the USA spends about twice as much money on its armed forces than the European states, and I would surmise that half of that goes to your superior navy in addition to a less cost efficient army and air force due to the geographical size of your nation and the many foreign deployments you have (plus you like to have the biggest and most expensive toys )

My conclusion is that given a situation dire enough Europe could easily match the land and air forces of the USA to defend itself. However, any European expeditionary force would be severely hampered by the defensive nature of European forces and European Law. No one should let Europe’s defensive posture fool them into thinking us toothless however. It would still take another superpower to stop a European expeditionary force.

So you see Europe has both a big military and social programs, but it is more due to differences in geography and military needs than any superior social structure or economy.

[lasersailor184]

There are no differences in need for the military.  It's the same worldwide.


Sic Vis Pacem, Parabellum.

[Schwein]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
There are no differences in need for the military.  It's the same worldwide.


Sic Vis Pacem, Parabellum.

Yes, the Swiss really needs a big navy.

[xrtoronto]

Beautiful fighter:

[Saintaw]

See Rule #5

[Nilsen]

LOL.... amusing thread

[Rolex]

Originally posted by Nilsen
LOL.... amusing thread

I agree. Like listening to a couple of 12 handicappers exchange golf tips.  

[Furball]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
Beautiful fighter:

Eurofighter Typhoon...

Hawker Typhoon...



I think they chose a good name