The above article I found very interesting. It gives the impression that the powers that be in the EU are poised to try and usurp the USofA as the #1 superpower sometime in the next decade. And it appears there is the beginning of a possible rift between the U.S. and the EU on some foreign policy points.
Obviously the title of this post is far-fetched (and designed to elicit posts!), but is it THAT out of reach for a despotic anti-U.S. regime to take over the EU and cause the U.S. headaches in the Middle East or the Balkans? Remember there is some anti-American sentiment in France, and of course history has shown that Germany has been known to act up once in a while.
The recent demonstrations and criticism of George Bush on environmental issues are examples of while not every European is anti-American, there are enough pockets of Yankee Go Home types in Western Eurpope that we should sit up and take notice.
What if for instance the U.S. decides to get militarily involved in Israel . . and the EU sides with Palestine. Or we go to war with Russia or Russia joins the EU . . all this would be precluded on the major EU nations disbanding from NATO of course.
Just some food fer thought . . . it seems far fetched right now, but then again, 20 years ago, who would have thunk we would be bombing Yugoslavia and Iraq??? The fact that England, France,and Russia have nuclear weapons should also be kept in mind.
As has been said many, many, many times in recent threads, the EU is not a coherent political force. There are a number of countries with their own foreign policy goals involved in the EU, so the idea of “the EU” versus the US in a global confrontation is patently ridiculous. The UK, for example, remains a staunch supporter of the US despite the current mumblings of discontent.
The idea of a “despotic regime” commandeering the EU is a popular one with the more extreme anti-European elements in British politics, but it’s baseless in my opinion. I can’t speak for everyone EU member, but in the UK membership of the EU is such a touchy issue any move towards centralised foreign policy and government elicits a frenzy of media attention and debate. There simply isn’t the desire or practical ability to bring together all of the member states on issues like foreign policy (well, beyond bland statements like wanting to reduce dependence on US might for peace-keeping; Yugoslavia was an embarrassment for the EU).
I don’t think there’s anything to worry about in the foreseeable future. Greater economic competition, maybe, and no doubt there’ll be disagreements on policy, but western Europe and the US share too much in common to really fight. Capitalism is strong glue.
(…and PS, if you’re talking about the state, it’s “Britain” or “the UK”, not England…)
I’m betting on the next war between the U.S. and another major power would be between the U.S. and California.
Think about it, and while I think California would eventually lose, they would have all the best songs and the best propaganda-type war movies. I can just see Kurt Russel in that great war epic, “The Sands of Huntington Beach”.
And who will ever the stiring war cry, “Remember Sunset Strip”?
Sorry, got distracted.
I fully believe Dubya would start a war with Canada if it meant more money for himself and his oil-industry cronies.
I’m quaking in my boots at the prospect of fighting the Euros.
Folks, a war with Europe is NOT going to happen. That’s because it’s easier and cheaper for Europeans to bellyache about America than it would be to fight us. They have neither the stomach for a fight nor the desire to spend the money that it would take to build a halfway decent army.
Consider: every nation in Western Europe has CUT military spending severely over the last ten years! How, exactly, are they going to fund the powerful armed forces that some Euros dream of, if nobody is willing to pay for it?
Now, I’m quite prepared to believe that if and when the U.S. finds itself faced with a possible war, the Euros will choose to sit it out. But there’s not a single cause on Earth they’re willing to fight for.
Incidentally, rjung, Big Oil was almost unanimously OPPOSED to the Gulf War. They’d have been perfectly happy to do business with Saddam Hussein. Big Business is NOT run by trigger-happy maniacs. It’s run by men who fancy themselves pragmatists, and war is BAD for business.
Well, at least he hasn’t bombed any aspirin factories lately to cover up his sexual indiscretions. :rolleyes:
That’s funny, I thought we Europeans still had peacekeeping troops in Kosovo.
But you’re right about the European distaste for war. We’ve had two sickening conflicts this century, and that’s a strong reason behind the formation of the European Union.
Remember that the Presidency of the EU shifts automatically between countries every few months. That would make it tough for a despot to take control.
Also public opinion makes it tough to take casualties these days (both here and in the US).
I don’t see the US going to war against the EU. From my point of view, the EU is not currently a cohesive enough unit to declare war against the entire group. I also don’t see each us declaring war against individual countries in Europe.
Now I was worried when I read http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/14/shanghai.five.02/index.html today. Not worried as in “we’re going to war right now and nothing we do is going to stop it”, but worried because the missile defense shield is a huge issue for several world leaders.
Uneasy. Uneasy enough to try anything necessary to stop a determined US president? I don’t know. I do think Bush needs to listen to world voices more, not just the US voices that agree with him.