Europe: The Invisible Superpower

A general in the age of Hannibal might agree.

These days, we have things like missiles and airplanes and power watercraft.

"The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat."

Okay, you got a point...our airlines have GOT to go...they've already got the "cram people in a boxcar till they die" thing down, it's only a matter of time before the crematoriums start up...

DIE AMERICANS! DIE!

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD!

ONLY UNDER SOCIALISM CAN ONE TRULY BE FREE TO SERVE THE STATE!

Justlee: I'd rather be at a barbecue.

Eh, so would I.

Relaxing to some good old rock and roll.

Just give me that old time rock and roll.
That kind of music just soothes the soul.
I reminisce about the days of old.
Under that old time rock and roll.

As would most Germans, if history is any indication.

The EU's economy is actually larger than America's and it has 450 million, not 500 million, citizens.

Further, GDP per capita isn't the only determinant of superpower status.

What is it about minimizing the achievements of non-Americans that appeals to you? As I said, Europe's gain isn't necessarily America's loss. Moreover, rather than laughing at others, you should ask what America has done in commercial aviation since the 1960's that was as remarkable as the 747.

If the person in Botswana also knows of Europe's high standards of living, I'd say he has very good reason to want to live on that continent.

Actually, fewer and fewer Europeans want to move to America.

What's with all this chest-pounding about America, anyway? I've never understood the righties' need to constantly focus on how powerful America is. You'd almost think there was something deep-seated and insecure about their faith in their own country that they constantly shout out to the world how great it is.

Give me a break.

The New York Times said in 2003 that the world now had two superpowers - the United States and world public opinion.
That would be a preferable state of affairs than centralised power in europe becoming one.

Perhaps. I respect what the Times has to say. However, I do think that Europe has strengthened even since 2003 relative to the United States, so perhaps the issue could be reexamined.

Despite what Fareed Zakaria says in his recent cover piece in Newsweek, America is not anywhere as strong as it was just as recently as 2000. America's foreign policy is widely reviled and Americans themselves are no longer admired as much as before. Our national security policies have alienated hundreds of millions of people. Crackdowns and excessive fear on the part of border security officials, for example, have made visits and other forms of traditional interchange between citizens of other countries and the United States much more difficult and even traumatic.

Since America has declined so precipitously and Europe has strengthened, there is little doubt in my mind that Europe should be deemed a superpower and a political equal to the United States in virtually every way.

Perhaps worst of all for right-wing nuts is the revelation that America really is a paper tiger. Its much-vaunted nuclear deterrent is declining as it voluntarily destroys most of its stockpile and soon whatever "greatness" it had by virtue of the sheer numbers of death-dealing weapons of global destruction will render it much more at strategic parity with other countries. Congress has just cancelled the Bushies' absurd program to develop a new nuclear weapon, reinforcing the progress of nuclear arms control and dooming the neocons' atavistic strategic "vision" to the garbage heap. Thanks to Congressional oversight, whatever risk there is that America will resort to the raw threat of worldwide destruction has been tempered -- at least for now.

Presently, it does remain to be seen whether Europe will in fact assert its unrivaled diplomatic influence and guile in order to assure that America never goes out of control again. Somehow, I think that it will, and soon.

How has Europe "stenghtened" since then? And are you saying that it would be a good thing?

the EU isn't a superpower, and is unlikely to ever become one for as long as its a morass of internal squabbling.

its a joy to behold to see politicos burble on about unity, whilst ensuring nothing occurs in its borders that doesn't profit their nation in some way.

europes far too busy arguing over who gets what sized pie-slice to be a meaningful force beyond its borders.

For one thing, countries like China, which holds a massive amount of U.S. Treasury bills and that by so doing has financed unprecedented levels of American debt, have quietly decided to diversify their currency holdings and China itself may dump large amounts of the dollar, thereby dooming American fiscal policy by undercutting any potential of strengthening U.S. currency. At the same time, the euro has become much more a rival to the dollar than it ever was. The Bushies think that they're doing us a favor by instilling a weak dollar, but there comes a time when this weakness becomes irreversible, and that's when the euro will largely replace the dollar as the world's currency. It's already not far from starting to do so in the energy market as many alienated Arab countries are making their displeasure with American policy clear.

Europe's recent expansion has also strengthened it by adding a resource base it never had before, as well as territorial and raw resources that make it the equal of the United States. The EU, even without Russia, is now geophysically and geostrategically broadly comparable to America.

Superpower? Hello no. Who wants that? If we turned into a superpower, I'd have to move to Switzerland.

Europe's still invisible, however, as a superpower, even though its strength is real and growing. It may still be years before you have to move.

ahhh the swiss. content to stay out of wars and profit from them, europes very own ferenginar

Would be if they had decided to stay outside the EU. But they wanted in to have access to the nice money pots, so they'll have to play by the rules. And that makes it a European matter, not a national one. Even tho the integration isn't as far as in the US: what would you say if some US state suddenly started to push an exclusively European agenda while still sucking on the US' money tit?

Welcome to California.

Sorry for the harsh word, but the Europe-vs-US attitude prevailant in some posts in this thread just - sucks.

The EU is a buerocratic abomination? Perhaps. The US are run by a coalition of Haliburtons and christian fundamentals? Perhaps there is a truth in both of this cliches.

Looking at history, the different mindsets might be understandable. The EU is trying to be a union of well-established nations, some of them having been selfproclaimed arch-enemies.

Meanwhile, within a century - after two big and several minor wars, the United States changed from almost embracing a "splendid isolation" policy to being world policeman.

True, current US-administration is flabbergasting many Europeans. Also true vice versa.

But what choice of ally do we have?

For example, the Germans traditionaly got good relations to the Russians, the Turks and Iran. The Brits and especially the French have good ties to the Arab countries. The United States list Saudi Arabia and Pakistan amongst their allies.

I beg your pardon? We call Vladimir "Chechen" Putin, "Pharao" Mubarak, the Saudi Wahabits our friends? Don't need no enemies with friends like that. At the same time, both Europe and the US drool about making business with the Chinese. Tiananmen Square is nothing but a GPS coordinate by now.

It's about time to start to think again what "humanism" and "self-evident, unalienable rights" is supposed to mean. Provided it ain't just lip service.


*End of rant

I, for one, would be happy to have them in the EU. You can have Poland instead

Mubarak and the Saudi Princes are the lesser of extremely potent evils. They are also strategically necessary.

If they go, what is going to replace them? Because I guarantee it isn't going to be a liberal secular democracy.

Trying to replace them with one like we did in Iraq would inevitably lead to WWIII.

Leaders of countries are usually fairly smart people - and when leader after leader follows the same policy, it's almost always for a pragmatic reason.

And that was basically his point.

Contrary to what you implied earlier, the US does allow a state to pursue policies that would be more acceptable to the EU. Europe, however, does not like states to pursue policies that would be more acceptable to the US. "If you don't agree with the leftist EU policy, you're not a true European."

Now where have I heard that kind of argument before?

​

@ 'leftist'. Corporate Europe disagree's.

You're forgetting that US states can't make their own foreign policy but EU states can. So California might be a little less Bible thumping right wing than Kansas but they can't station EU missile shields within their borders.

Which negates your comments in post #77.

No, doesn't. Can/must talk about it, can't prohibit it.

Didn't California sign their own international global warming treaty?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-24-calif-global-warming_x.htm

Call me again, when they open embassies abroad.

The EU is only good for one thing:

Easy passage across the borders.

That's why I'll be picking up my Spanish passport from the embassy down here in a few months

What is with you Krauts and trying to get rid of Poland? This would be what, the third time?!?