Does EU need Military Power?

[DinoDoc]

Re: Does EU need Military Power?

Originally posted by Seeker
So, should or can other nations create a counterbalance, a de Gaullist 'force de frappe' to the superpower?

Should they? No.
Can they? China's your best bet for the rise of another superpower. Russia isn't in a position to make another run at the title for the time being and European nations lack the ability and the will.

[Spiffor]

Believe me, I'm far from being a Clinton fan. I still oppose the 1998 "Lewinsky" bombings and the war of Kosovo. However, Clinton tried not to use US' power potential at fullest, to avoid alienating the whole world. The Bushies don't have such qualms. And the recent American fiasco having the UN rubberstanp its war can make a future administration even worse.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This maxim will apply to the US is no counterweight emerges. It's already beginning to apply.

[Drake Tungsten]

However, Clinton tried not to use US' power potential at fullest, to avoid alienating the whole world.

So, you basically don't have a problem with unchecked US aggression as long as we're half-assed about it? That makes sense...

[Spiffor]

Drake :
I have a problem a with it. As I said, I opposed both Clinton's agressions (heck, I even went to anti war rallies during Kosovo, which I didn't for Iraq)
I have less problems with "half-assed" agressions than with "full-assed" agressions though. Gulf War 2 is the second in the long list of wars the US will wage to avoid its New World Order to break, for the sake of its power, much less for the sake of its security.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if tomorrow Syria or Sudan is presented as the new huge evil that will destroy the US and kill Americans if unchecked. And of course, these countries will get destroyed, naturally to save them.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I think we are fairly competitive when it comes to military, in some areas, even more advanced than the Americans.

Yeah, well, I tried.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Can't you just accept the possibility that the world can exist on one pole? Who needs a counterweight and why?

Yes, sure. The question is who gets to be that one pole? Not that many persons or countries like the US when it comes to international relations.

[Drake Tungsten]

Not that many persons or countries like the US when it comes to international relations.

What's the better alternative? France? China?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Not that many persons or countries like the US when it comes to international relations.

What's the better alternative? France? China?

Are you consious a situation maay evolve ? When becoming powerful, China will probably forster support from countries which will profit from its power. And France's diplomacy earned a wide support woldwide in this crisis, with much agreement from the international public opinion. By being arrogant like you are, you'll manage to make France and China look better than you.

[Drake Tungsten]

By being arrogant like you are, you'll manage to make France and China look better than you.

If you value humility more than morality, then maybe...

America has its faults, but we don't have to worry about being more immoral than France and China...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

By being arrogant like you are, you'll manage to make France and China look better than you.

If you value humility more than morality, then maybe...

America has its faults, but we don't have to worry about being more immoral than France and China...

You are waging a war for your administration's interests and your PR pretends it is to topple Saddam. How moral is that ?

Under Clinton : you made up another Iraq cirisis again to get the media off your president and his cigar. How moral is that ?

Continue being self-righteous, you serve the cause of USA's decay.

[Drake Tungsten]

and your PR pretends it is to topple Saddam.

You're losing it, Spiff. How is the war about anything other than toppling Saddam?

BTW, toppling murderous tyrants is pretty moral in my book...

[Spiffor]

This war is serving the interests of your administration. Had they been assured by Saddam, you would have never seen the hysteria about how evil he is in the media.
Or maybe you seriously think all these billions spent solely serve the altruistic purpose of saving Iraqis for their dictator ? It will be a pleasant side effect (heck, the only one), and your PR pretends the war is about this side effect.
I hardly call this war moral, even though there will be a positive side effect to it.

[Drake Tungsten]

This war is serving the interests of your administration.

What interests? Name them...

[Sarxis]

Re: Does EU need Military Power?

Originally posted by Seeker
We would never have the current situation if there was someone to 'reign in' the Americans excesses.

We'd still be planting our crops and making our cars in isolationist tranquility if we didn't have to 'reign in' European excesses in the early 20th century.

[Gatekeeper]

I find it hard to consider the United States a "hyperpower" when this little shindig in Iraq is soaking up a good deal of our current military capabilities.

Gatekeeper