EU = Entities Unknown?

[JimmyDimples]

I was picking up a package from Ma and Dad from China Post, yesterday, and also waiting in line was a fellow from France. We chatted a little, and I'd guessed wrongly that he was from Canada according to the colors of the passport he'd brought for I.D. But it turned out he didn't have one from France per se:

He had one from the European Union.

Now I admit, I'm not from Europe, and I've never actually set foot in there. But somehow I feel a bit uneasy about folks uniting under one entity like that.

True, the idea is that it makes things easier to flow between the nations. And you don't have to exchange marks for lira, francs, pesetas, Kroners, or what have you. And from what I garner, traveling from country to country should be no more cumbersome than crossing a state or province line.

Still, I'm kind of antsy and a bit sad to see some of the local flavor falling to the wayside. I would've loved to have collected money from all those different nations. And when I bought a product of snack bars from an import grocery not long ago, the label said... "Product of Europe."

Huh? Where in Europe? I'd like to know which country I had to thank for my treat.

I'm a firm believer in being proud of where you're from, and not hiding your regional origins. In fact, I've heard that many British feel moreso that way, what with representing their nation, shire, city or town... even the street they're from.

And I feel that joining the EU, even for all its benefits, is gonna result in a loss of identity.

European NGers, can I get a witness? What's your take on it?

[emmytee]

Depends how far they take it. Britain never converted to the euro which is my opinion a good thing.I think some of the major european politicians almost want to create a EU superstate (although they would never say it) because it may improve their economies and mean that America can't push them around in the future. People in most eu countries don't really want that though, the french, italians and Brits are especially proud of their/our culture.

Also, the GBP is doing better than the dollar or the euro anyway, despite all the pro euro bullshit around a while ago. I support a lofty alliance of countries in the EU, but a loss of culture is the big worry.

[RedGlare]

At 2/10/07 12:07 AM, JimmyDimples wrote:
He had one from the European Union.

And?

Now I admit, I'm not from Europe, and I've never actually set foot in there. But somehow I feel a bit uneasy about folks uniting under one entity like that.

Like how the provinces united forming most of modern day China?

True, the idea is that it makes things easier to flow between the nations. And you don't have to exchange marks for lira, francs, pesetas, Kroners, or what have you. And from what I garner, traveling from country to country should be no more cumbersome than crossing a state or province line.

No you have to fill out some paperwork usually and you do have to register your visit etc.

Still, I'm kind of antsy and a bit sad to see some of the local flavor falling to the wayside. I would've loved to have collected money from all those different nations.

Then just go to a bank they'll have a few left.

And when I bought a product of snack bars from an import grocery not long ago, the label said... "Product of Europe."

Huh? Where in Europe? I'd like to know which country I had to thank for my treat.

Maybe it was made from ingrediants from a number of nation.

I'm a firm believer in being proud of where you're from, and not hiding your regional origins.

No one in Europe does. The guy told you he was French didn't he. Look its Continent first then Country. Your far more likely to know a continent then an individual country. For example Liechenstein (sp) thats in Europe but no one i know knows where it is.

In fact, I've heard that many British feel moreso that way, what with representing their nation,

Britain is a collection of Four Nations. And is a Island separate from the E.U mainland so its a bit different for us mate. Like Taiwan

For example if a Scottishman and an Englishman just met and the accents didn't give them away they would reply Im from Scotland or I am English.

shire,

To another British person in the same nation mainly.

city or town...

To a person who lives in the same shire or close to it but not in the same town/City.

even the street they're from.

If your speaking to person in the same town. We don't when asked by say a German on holiday in Austria where are we from? we don't reply by saying "58 trident close"

And I feel that joining the EU, even for all its benefits, is gonna result in a loss of identity.

Not really the E.U. isn't a superstate its like a local branch of the U.N. its main reason for existence is economic hence the Euro and border relaxation.

Infact if anything its led to more identity. More people are joing this nationalist groups or flying there flags more to show theres still a difference.

European NGers, can I get a witness? What's your take on it?

Your Chinese why do you care?

[lapis]

At 2/10/07 12:07 AM, JimmyDimples wrote: I would've loved to have collected money from all those different nations.

You still can (1 2).

I'm a firm believer in being proud of where you're from

Which becomes impossible when a country loses its own monetary system? Scots, Corsicans and Basques should all become independent and introduce their own currencies or else they'll never have a cultural identity according to you? Besides, I am from Europe so I might as well be proud of that too instead of just my individual country.

[lightning]

At 2/10/07 12:07 AM, JimmyDimples wrote: And when I bought a product of snack bars from an import grocery not long ago, the label said... "Product of Europe."

Huh? Where in Europe? I'd like to know which country I had to thank for my treat.

All those made in china tags on the other hand.....

[D2Kvirus]

The EU is something that terrifies the Middle Class, Middle Aged Middle Englanders due to it being...well, a bit foreign.

You always hear conspiracies that it's a Franco-German stitch up to get back at Britian for the two World Wars/Napoleonic Wars or whatever, and people missing the point when complaining about it.

For example, they always make note of non-stories like cucumbers not being straight enough for the EU standard, or blaming them for all that is wrong with Britain these days - such as the lack of a coal, steel or shipbuilding industry (all of which were shut down by Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister and Europhobe, who also privatised all the railways and so forth).

Yes, the EU has had some bad ideas. The Euro, for example, is an economic disaster: the Deutschmark was a very strong currency and the Franc was pretty strong, but adding the Lira, Peso and Drakhma has diluted its strength (if you're an economist, you understand), yet on the flipside it does mean there's a body that has some political strength and won't be a whipping boy in talks with the US (although Tony Blair really lets the side down, the little bitch limpet). After all, it gave the Germans, French and Russians the base to say they wouldn't send troops to Iraq, and Italy and Spain to pull out.

But, since it's all foreign and stuff, your average Brit will baulk at it...

[Begoner]

At 2/10/07 07:25 AM, emmytee wrote: Also, the GBP is doing better than the dollar or the euro anyway, despite all the pro euro bullshit around a while ago.

Your argument suffers from several logical fallacies. First of all, you seem to think that opting to adopt the Euro instead of a particular national currency will alter the purchasing power of a particular citizen in that country or it's government. This is false. Consider the following example. Country A has a strong currency, which trades at a ratio of 1:100 with Country B. However, it joins a union of countries, and its exchange rate plummets to 1:1. Does that mean items in Country B are now much more expensive for those in Country A? Certainly not! Even though each individual monetary unit is worth 100 times less in Country A, there are now 100 times more monetary units in Country A, which compensate for this.

The Euro also has a number of economic benefits aside from exchange rate stability. It also increases the ease of the movement of intercontinental goods, labor, and services; it decreases investment risk; it increases price transparency; it eliminates most transaction costs; it increases competition; it has a plethora of positive effects on the European economy, and the exchange rate switch for countries joining the union means absolutely nothing -- it is utterly irrelevant. Here's a site which catalogues the inherent benefits of the Euro.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/bene fits/benefits_main_en.htm

[Cole]

At 2/10/07 12:07 AM, JimmyDimples wrote: True, the idea is that it makes things easier to flow between the nations. And you don't have to exchange marks for lira, francs, pesetas, Kroners, or what have you. And from what I garner, traveling from country to country should be no more cumbersome than crossing a state or province line.

I predict that in the next 20-30 years, Europe will be one united country and the different countries will still hold their individual systems of government, but have equal power in the European Union, and be kind of like European states.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

You call it lose of identity. Everyone else calls it uniting for the better.

[lightning]

At 2/10/07 02:10 PM, Cole wrote: I predict that in the next 20-30 years, Europe will be one united country and the different countries will still hold their individual systems of government, but have equal power in the European Union, and be kind of like European states.

Although I do see that happening some day. I don't think it will happen in the next 30 years.

[cellardoor6]

By uniting under the EU, a lot of countries benefit economically, but some countries lose their sovereignty.

And membership in the EU is basically permanent, its ridiculously hard for a member state to concede from the Union. If a country decides to break away from the EU due to the EU imposing rules and regulations that they don't like, their economy will be destroyed because their own infrastructure, businesses, and society had become intertwined with the EU government.

But I don't think the EU will ever become as powerful as the US. The EU lacks unity. And their militaries combined (although larger than the US) still rely on the US military for support, and while the EU is trying to become independent of the US, the US still technically occupies Europe and has a vast amount of influence on most of the individual countries.

You can't have a superstate to rival the US, when the people of your superstate rely on the US in the first place.

[Extremewookie]

I'm not European, but it does seem likely that the EU can increase the risk of terrorist attacks. No one anticipated religious fanatics during its formation. As for the loss of identity, the average Joe isn't going to mean much in any society of a sizable magnitude.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/10/07 11:36 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Yes, the EU has had some bad ideas. The Euro, for example, is an economic disaster: the Deutschmark was a very strong currency and the Franc was pretty strong

What are you talking about?

Before the adoption of the Euro, the Deutschmark was like $.50 USD...

but adding the Lira, Peso and Drakhma has diluted its strength (if you're an economist, you understand)

Um I am an economist of sorts. I actually own thousands of dollars worth of Euro-bonds. And I don't think you even understand what you're saying.

When the Euro was adopted, it was a currency to reflect the wealth of the EU combined economies. It actually made each country have a more valuable currency. The performance of the Lira and Peso meant absolutely nothing once their economies were integrated into the EU. Their economic performance individually might effect the power of the Euro a little bit, but the old value of their currency means nothing now.

yet on the flipside it does mean there's a body that has some political strength and won't be a whipping boy in talks with the US

The EU as a whole still depends on the US alot. The US still takes the lead in economic, political, and military power. Most EU states can't even operate their militaries independent of the US, most EU states actually have closer economic stake with the US than they do within the Eurozone.

After all, it gave the Germans, French and Russians the base to say they wouldn't send troops to Iraq, and Italy and Spain to pull out.

Russia isn't in the EU buddy.

But yes, the Germans and French backstabbers used the EU to oppose the Iraq war. But more EU countries supported it and participated in Iraq than those who didn't:

Portugal, Italy, Spain, S. Ireland, UK, Poland, Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (and I think more) all participated in the Invasion of Iraq, just to a lesser degree than the US, UK, and Australian forces that made up the bulk.

So it seems that the EU isn't as potent as a single entity as they like to believe. Internal dissent and disagreement prevents them from having a unified, official stance on things, especially when you have outside countries like the US with more influence on some of the countries than their own EU central ministries.

[WarV]

Although I think if all the nations in the world came together under one sort of state based government, it would help vastly with resolving issues. The U.N just doesn't seem to be enough, but this won't happen for along time I think.

[zzzzd]

What I don't like is how France and Germany seem to be the leaders. It doesn't seem right that Germany which has started the largest war in history and france, the country which surrended so easily to germany have become the power housed of europe.

Churchill had an idea of the 'United states of europe'
then France, Germany and Italy when and Built the EU and didn't let Britain in till the 1970's.

I like the idea of the EU and I do think it would be a good idea for it to emerge as a new power similar to the united states (which is well within its grasp) especially with china growing as it is. I just don't think Germany and France should be leading it.

[Leonardo-Da-Finchy]

At 2/12/07 06:34 AM, zzzzd wrote: What I don't like is how France and Germany seem to be the leaders. It doesn't seem right that Germany which has started the largest war in history and france, the country which surrended so easily to germany have become the power housed of europe.

Don't forget the Napoleonic wars. France had it's day.

Ah, then there was the British Empire...

Every country has it's day. Today belongs to the US. It looks like tomorrow could be China's. Maybe the next day will belong to a united europe, but that may not be for a century.

[D2Kvirus]

At 2/11/07 01:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Before the adoption of the Euro, the Deutschmark was like $.50 USD...

Before the adoption of the Euro, the Lira was worth 0.0007p (making it worth something like 0.00035 cents).

Also, if you're going to Italy, remember that at the Beaureau de Change, they round up the exchange rate, everyone else rounds it down.

Um I am an economist of sorts. I actually own thousands of dollars worth of Euro-bonds. And I don't think you even understand what you're saying.

I'm European, so might have noticed the exchange rate at some point when going on holiday. I call it hands-on experience.

When the Euro was adopted, it was a currency to reflect the wealth of the EU combined economies. It actually made each country have a more valuable currency. The performance of the Lira and Peso meant absolutely nothing once their economies were integrated into the EU. Their economic performance individually might effect the power of the Euro a little bit, but the old value of their currency means nothing now.

That's what I've just said - countries that used to have weak currencies (Italy, Spain, Greece et al) now don't.

The EU as a whole still depends on the US alot. The US still takes the lead in economic, political, and military power. Most EU states can't even operate their militaries independent of the US, most EU states actually have closer economic stake with the US than they do within the Eurozone.

Nice one: saying the EU is reliant on the US, as opposed to the actual answer: some countries within the Eu are reliant on the US, which is closer to the truth.

After all, it gave the Germans, French and Russians the base to say they wouldn't send troops to Iraq, and Italy and Spain to pull out.

Russia isn't in the EU buddy.

*ahem* I sort of remembered that one after hitting submit. Damn this lack of editing facilities!!!

But yes, the Germans and French backstabbers used the EU to oppose the Iraq war. But more EU countries supported it and participated in Iraq than those who didn't:

"Backstabbers"?!? How about "people who formulate opinions of their own, or can spot that the reason the US were bandying about for going to war was a pack of shit"? Again, that's a tad closer to the truth. Also, it implies the French and German military operate independent of the US.

Portugal, Italy, Spain, S. Ireland, UK, Poland, Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (and I think more) all participated in the Invasion of Iraq, just to a lesser degree than the US, UK, and Australian forces that made up the bulk.

Spain and Hungary left in 2004.
Portugal, Netherlands and Bulgaria left in 2005.
Italy left in 2006.
Slovakia left in 2007.

After that, Denmark are the only EU state you can claim to have troops over there: Romania and Bulgaria have around 150 troops each - and neither were EU member states between 18/3/03 and 31/12/07, just as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't members until 1/1/04.

And I note the EY countries missing from that list: Greece, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg (oh, alright, they'd be a waste of time anyway) along with France and Germany. All "backstabbers"?

Oh, and the Republic of Ireland don't have any troops over there, because their army aren't independent of the British army.

So it seems that the EU isn't as potent as a single entity as they like to believe. Internal dissent and disagreement prevents them from having a unified, official stance on things, especially when you have outside countries like the US with more influence on some of the countries than their own EU central ministries.

You miss the fact that Russia/Putin is on good terms with France and Germany (that's where the error came from), so therefore they can be independent of the US as they can get oil and natural gas exports from there, which is a tad more important to any country with half a brain than military might (and lack thereof).

The US have influence with the likes of Blair becuase, as I pointed out, he's just a limpet to people with power, hence he's always buddying up to whoever happens to be US President (Clinton and Bush, a bit of a 180 on his political stance really), and trying to be friends with Chriac, Schroeder and Putin (to their obvious displeasure).

It's easy for the US to pick up former Soviet Block countries and others that are comparitivly poor (such as - you guessed it - Italy, Spain and Portugal), but when a country has either some form of strength or power, such as France and Germany (or even Sweden or Belgium), suddenly they're "backstabbers" because they can use their power. And, let's face it, the US couldn't draft in Greece, and they're a poorer country than Spain or Italy.

[zzzzd]

At 2/11/07 01:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The EU as a whole still depends on the US alot. The US still takes the lead in economic, political, and military power. Most EU states can't even operate their militaries independent of the US, most EU states actually have closer economic stake with the US than they do within the Eurozone.

The EU does rely on the US a huge amount, But only as much as the US relies on the EU. If Both the EU and US broke from each other, they would both be fucked. Allthough the EU is actually slightly more self reliant but not by a huge amount.

The US and the EU are Economically at a tie.
Politically i wouldn't say US has really in the lead. As the EU has better realtions with pratically the whole world than the US. And the US has no were near as much power as it did have.

Military america is in the lead. But at the moment the EU doesn;t need to spend a huge amount. With america as the only nation which could take on the EU theres no point in a super power military. Howether with the Rise of China I fully expect the EU will build on there military and become more unified. At the moment only on average 1% of countries in the EU budget is military where as the US has 3%.

The EU has the capability to have a military at the same stage as the US.

[Chris-V2]

The true problem in Ireland is we are,frankly, a bunch of racist little bollocks.
The Polish are coming in, taking jobs no one wants. Its causing an uproar amongst the ignorant.

I dont kind being in the EU personaly, but I do feel the UK should have to conform to our (gay) currencey like everyone else.

[Memorize]

It's more or less their way of saying "hey, look how big we can be".

[cellardoor6]

At 2/14/07 11:12 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 2/11/07 01:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Before the adoption of the Euro, the Deutschmark was like $.50 USD...

Before the adoption of the Euro, the Lira was worth 0.0007p (making it worth something like 0.00035 cents).

You realize that you just proved my my case and made your original statement moot right? Why don't you go back and read what you said.

Um I am an economist of sorts. I actually own thousands of dollars worth of Euro-bonds. And I don't think you even understand what you're saying.

When the Euro was adopted, it was a currency to reflect the wealth of the EU combined economies. It actually made each country have a more valuable currency. The performance of the Lira and Peso meant absolutely nothing once their economies were integrated into the EU. Their economic performance individually might effect the power of the Euro a little bit, but the old value of their currency means nothing now.

That's what I've just said - countries that used to have weak currencies (Italy, Spain, Greece et al) now don't.

NO YOU DIDN'T, this is what you said:

At 2/10/07 11:36 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Yes, the EU has had some bad ideas. The Euro, for example, is an economic disaster: the Deutschmark was a very strong currency and the Franc was pretty strong

Therefore, you were suggesting that the Euro was BAD for the individual countries who previously had strong currencies. But the adoption of the Euro actually made everyone's currency stronger. The impact of the countries whose former currencies were lower didn't really effect the strength of the Euro whatsoever.

And these countries who you pretend had such strong currencies which are 2 of the 3 economic powerhouses of Europe (Germany and France) now have a currency that is worth twice as much or more as their previous currency.

You have a serious short term memory problem.

Nice one: saying the EU is reliant on the US, as opposed to the actual answer: some countries within the Eu are reliant on the US, which is closer to the truth.

Every EU country is a member of NATO I believe, and NATO is the vehicle through which they have received military aide from the US for decades. The 2 most powerful countries in the EU rely on the US for economic and military cooperation. Economically: Britain mostly. Militarily: Germany more so. Both of whom, however, have tens of thousands of US troops in their country. The Nuclear deterrent that the UK has is provided and manned by the US. And almost all new high tech weapons that Britain has in its arsenal is provided by the US.

The conventional military power of Germany is still technically subservient to the US military, and they also rely on US-provided technology for their military.

Also, the EU has a whole desperately relies on US-provided GPS. Both military, and economically in terms of navigating ships that import and export products to and from Europe. The entire air defense system of Europe is either manned by US forces, or relies on American-provided equipment and technology.

So it is a pretty well known fact that right now, the EU relies on the US economically and militarily. Individual EU countries rely on the US more so than they do their own EU central system right now.

Europe is trying to ween itself off of American dependence because they are ware of this, but this is pretty slow going. This is especially obvious when you look at the fact that the Galileo GPS-system that Europe has tried to create to no longer depend on US GPS has been a complete and utter failure. Then when you look the failure of recent EU military research and development, such as the Eurofighter typhoon fighter jet, which despite being explicitly funded by the EU, has been pretty much a total failure and most EU countries instead decided to purchase the soon to be operation US-designed and manufactured F-35 JSF fighter aircraft.

Therefore, the EU relies on the US. Both as a whole and among their individual countries.

After all, it gave the Germans, French and Russians the base to say they wouldn't send troops to Iraq, and Italy and Spain to pull out.

Russia isn't in the EU buddy.

*ahem* I sort of remembered that one after hitting submit. Damn this lack of editing facilities!!!

If you didn't know that Russia isn't a democracy and therefore not eligible for EU membership, then how credible can you be for anything else that you say? It seems I know more about your beloved EU than you do.

Spain and Hungary left in 2004.
Portugal, Netherlands and Bulgaria left in 2005.
Italy left in 2006.
Slovakia left in 2007.

The Issue was the will to go to war with the US, not about the determination or perseverance of EU countries to stay in the war. And more EU countries not only supported the war, but participated in it than the EU countries who refused to and who attempted to block action in Iraq.

So it shows that the US has more influence on the EU both collectively and individually to each member state because more EU countries chose to follow the lead of the US than they did to follow the French and Germans.

After that, Denmark are the only EU state you can claim to have troops over there: Romania and Bulgaria have around 150 troops each - and neither were EU member states between 18/3/03 and 31/12/07, just as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't members until 1/1/04.

Um are you forgetting the UK?

But it doesn't surprise me how low of numbers each country contributed. EU countries have very small armed forces and don't really have any force-projection capability. Most don't really have the economic power to keep their military force in a foreign country equipped and supplied for very long.

I think that if some of those EU countries that participated in the war had the ABILITY to participate more, then they would have. But the current state of alot of EU armed forces is pretty bleak. Even the UK can't really operate independent of the US in Iraq without US support in logistics.

And I note the EY countries missing from that list: Greece, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg (oh, alright, they'd be a waste of time anyway) along with France and Germany. All "backstabbers"?

No, pretty much just the French and the Germans. The French and Germans opposed the war because they had economic interests in Iraq. They also had participated in the Oil for Food scandal and they didn't want the proof to be uncovered that leaders in their government were receiving money from Saddam Hussein in return for their cooperation in blocking US action against Iraq.

Maybe you should do some research. German and French politicans were receiving BRIBES from Saddam Hussein in return for them trying to block US action against him. And they failed.

You miss the fact that Russia/Putin is on good terms with France and Germany (that's where the error came from)

Um, are you out of your fucking mind?

so therefore they can be independent of the US as they can get oil and natural gas exports from there

The EU doesn't rely on the US for oil and natural gas. It relies on the US for investment, access to American financial systems, military cooperation, and trade.

It's easy for the US to pick up former Soviet Block countries and others that are comparitivly poor (such as - you guessed it - Italy, Spain and Portugal) but when a country has either some form of strength or power, such as France and Germany (or even Sweden or Belgium), suddenly they're "backstabbers" because they can use their power.

No because they are attempting to use their power to create more power for themselves, despite all that the US has done, and continually does for them.

And, let's face it, the US couldn't draft in Greece, and they're a poorer country than Spain or Italy.

And then that completely disproves what you just said...

[zzzzd]

At 2/15/07 01:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Europe is trying to ween itself off of American dependence because they are ware of this, but this is pretty slow going. This is especially obvious when you look at the fact that the Galileo GPS-system that Europe has tried to create to no longer depend on US GPS has been a complete and utter failure. Then when you look the failure of recent EU military research and development, such as the Eurofighter typhoon fighter jet, which despite being explicitly funded by the EU, has been pretty much a total failure and most EU countries instead decided to purchase the soon to be operation US-designed and manufactured F-35 JSF fighter aircraft.

The Eurofighter and Galileo aren't failures though. The Eurofighter is second only to the F22 raptor in combat ability. And Galileo will be superior to GPS when launched.

Its early days yet but the EU easily has the ability to become as big as the US.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/15/07 06:14 AM, zzzzd wrote:

At 2/15/07 01:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Europe is trying to ween itself off of American dependence because they are ware of this, but this is pretty slow going. This is especially obvious when you look at the fact that the Galileo GPS-system that Europe has tried to create to no longer depend on US GPS has been a complete and utter failure. Then when you look the failure of recent EU military research and development, such as the Eurofighter typhoon fighter jet, which despite being explicitly funded by the EU, has been pretty much a total failure and most EU countries instead decided to purchase the soon to be operation US-designed and manufactured F-35 JSF fighter aircraft.

The Eurofighter and Galileo aren't failures though.

They still aren't in full operational ability like they were supposed to be years ago. Therefore, failures.

The Eurofighter is second only to the F22 raptor in combat ability.

First off, the Eurofighter doesn't even have stealth, it is a very conventional design. The only thing that makes it superior to most fighters is its maneuverability and a few nifty tech features, but most of which have been used by the US for years, such as helmet-mounted display.

And the Eurofigther is second to the F22 in dog fighting ability, thats it. But in a modern airware, dogfighting doesn't take place anymore. US jets these days can attack enemy fighter aircraft from hundreds of miles away using radar instead of visual sight. This would take place long before the enemy was even aware of US jets, the ability to due this wasn't emphasized by the Eurofighter typhoon at all.

Also, the US has integrated radar and targetting systems with airborn radar and ground-based radar, satellite and so forth. Information sent from a ground radar autmatically integrates seamlessly with the radar display on most US jets, this means they can find and destroy an enemy from hundreds of miles away using radar information that can only be attained from radar that is too large to fit in a jet fighter.

It's not just about maneuverability. Theres a full spectrum of capabilities that no Air Force in the world other than the US has. The Europeans are way too stingy on defense spending to even attempt to fund the research and development that would be needed to match US capabilities.

And Galileo will be superior to GPS when launched.

I don't think so. The US is at the forefront of high technology, especially regarding space technology. The European space program is a joke. Plus, US GPS satellites are being replaced and upgraded continously.

It's not like the US is just going to remain stagnant in space technology so that the Europeans can catch up. By the time Europe launches their first functionals satellite, the current US GPS system will have evolved dramatically anyway.

By the time Europe has an independent satellite system, the US will already have space-based lasers.

Its early days yet but the EU easily has the ability to become as big as the US.

What do you mean by "big"?

The European Union already has 500 million people, which is 200 million more than the US population of 300 million. Yet, for 2007 the US will have a higher GDP than the EU due to a higher economic growth rate and better economic performance.

Also, the GDP per capita in the EU is a lot lower than the US. $25,000 a year compared to the US GDP per capita of $46,000 a year, and this gap is getting bigger.

And the expansion of the EU is slowing steadily, so the EU isn't going to acquire a larger physical size than the US.

So explain exactly how you think the EU is going to become "as big as the US"??

[Begoner]

At 2/15/07 07:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yet, for 2007 the US will have a higher GDP than the EU due to a higher economic growth rate and better economic performance.

The GDP of the US and the EU are almost identical. However, since the US's population is ballooning while the EU's is stagnant, it is obvious that a given increase in productivity will result in a greater growth rate for the US than the EU. Due to its low fertility rate, Europe's population is shrinking -- it's difficult to maintain a rapid growth rate when more people are leaving the workforce than entering it. Nonetheless, the ratio of growth to number of new people entering the workforce is greater for the EU than it is for the US.

Also, the GDP per capita in the EU is a lot lower than the US. $25,000 a year compared to the US GDP per capita of $46,000 a year, and this gap is getting bigger.

The reason that the gap is getting bigger is because the EU is expanding into Eastern Europe. Countries such as Romania and Bulgaria have "developing" economies and are lacking in GDP per capita, as well as many other critical indicators. This serves to bring down the EU statistic which you mention. However, rest assured that if the US was busy annexing Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc., it's GDP per capita would also decrease correspondingly. Also, many industrial countries in the EU, such as France, have a greater GDP per capita per hour worked than the US, but, due to government intervention in the labor market, they are limited to a 35-hour workweek instead of working all day. Countries such as France have the capacity to exceed the US in GDP per capita, but they instead opt to enjoy a higher standard of living rather than working until they drop down dead.

[zzzzd]

Heres a British passport. It still says United Kingdom as well as european union.
Countries within the EU havn't lost national identity. The EUro changes in each country as well.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/15/07 08:19 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 2/15/07 07:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yet, for 2007 the US will have a higher GDP than the EU due to a higher economic growth rate and better economic performance.

The GDP of the US and the EU are almost identical. However, since the US's population is ballooning while the EU's is stagnant, it is obvious that a given increase in productivity will result in a greater growth rate for the US than the EU.

Dude, you don't know WTF you're talking about!!! Allow me to own you for the 1000th time:

The US has a faster economic growth rate from year to year than the EU, and this growth rate has to do with the growth in productivity year to year, and this far out-paces the population growth!!!

- The US population (mostly illegal immmigrants) increases by about 3 million a year,

- This is only about 1% of the current US population population of about 300 million .

- But our yearly economic growth rate is 3.5%

Therefore the population growth means nothing!!! And you're just spouting out nonsense.

And by the way, the EU population growth has been ALOT faster than the US. Not so much from new births and immigration, but from the fact that the EU has expanded to include more countries.

The US and EU GDP is only nearly identical right now because of the expansion of the EU to include now over 27 countries. But the US economic growth is much faster due to a stronger economy. And forecasts for the end of 2007 and onwards after that show that the US will have a much higher GDP due to forecasts of reaching a growth rate of 5%-6% in the next couple of years.

The EU economic growth rate is only about 1% and even this is a rare high because the EU reported an economic growth rate of ZERO for 2003.

Due to its low fertility rate, Europe's population is shrinking

NO IT'S NOT

it's difficult to maintain a rapid growth rate when more people are leaving the workforce than entering it. Nonetheless, the ratio of growth to number of new people entering the workforce is greater for the EU than it is for the US.

Holy shit Begoner, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about!!!

Also, the GDP per capita in the EU is a lot lower than the US. $25,000 a year compared to the US GDP per capita of $46,000 a year, and this gap is getting bigger.

The reason that the gap is getting bigger is because the EU is expanding into Eastern Europe. Countries such as Romania and Bulgaria have "developing" economies and are lacking in GDP per capita, as well as many other critical indicators. This serves to bring down the EU statistic which you mention. However, rest assured that if the US was busy annexing Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc., it's GDP per capita would also decrease correspondingly.

Um, nevermind the fact that while the US isn't annexing Mexico, the US is however receiving MILLIONS of impoverished lower-class Central America and South Americans every year...

Yet the US GDP per capita is only getting higher, as well as the median income.

So you're wrong... again... for the 1000th time...

Also, many industrial countries in the EU, such as France, have a greater GDP per capita per hour worked than the US

Wrong, France is THE ONLY major industrialized nation in the world that has a output per hour worked than the US. France is the only nation in the EU that has a higher productivity per capita than the US

But France still has a far lower GDP per capita of $29,000 compared to the US $46,000, this means that although French work-hours produce more in absolute terms, the lack of ingenuity and market strength means that their end product/service isn't as lucrative as US services and products.

The US still has far better business performance, per capita, and in absolute terms. The numbers don't lie.

but, due to government intervention in the labor market, they are limited to a 35-hour workweek instead of working all day. Countries such as France have the capacity to exceed the US in GDP per capita

Thats not true at all you fool.

-The average work week in the US is 46 hours, in France it is 35 hours.

- This means French work about 3/4ths or 75% of the time Americans work.

- However, Frances GDP per capita is only $29,000 compared to the US GDP per capita of$46,000.

- 75% of $46,000 is $34,500, which is $5,500 more than the French GDP per capita

- that means that the French would have to work about 53 hours a week to meet the US GDP per capita... 9 more hours than Americans work.

And theres no way the lazy French are going to do that.

So once again, like everything else, you're wrong.

but they instead opt to enjoy a higher standard of living rather than working until they drop down dead.

Um actually, the quality of life in the US is higher than in France. The US scores higher on the UN HDI (Human Development Index) than the French do...

The US is in 8th place, France is 8 places behind in 16th place.

So you're wrong.

It seems that free time that the French are getting doesn't really help them at all...

You've been owned

[cellardoor6]

I see that begoner didn't care to reply this time...

[Begoner]

At 2/15/07 09:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US has a faster economic growth rate from year to year than the EU, and this growth rate has to do with the growth in productivity year to year, and this far out-paces the population growth!!!

Indeed -- population growth is not the only factor which contributes to an increase in production. You correctly identified productivity growth as another aspect. Nonetheless, population growth does play a role, as the US's population is growing at a rate of ~1% per year, while the EU's is quagmired at a measly 0.15%, mostly due to immigration and not natural reproduction.

Therefore the population growth means nothing!!! And you're just spouting out nonsense.

No, that is an illogical conclusion. What you mean is that population growth cannot account completely for the high growth rate enjoyed by the US, and this is true. Productivity does play a factor, and the US is on the cutting edge of productivity growth. It may attain this high level of economic growth partially by neglecting other sectors of its economy. For example, the number of people below the poverty line is thrice that in the US as it is in France. Higher taxes in many EU countries discourage business investment and the resultant GDP growth, but allow many to have a decent standard of living. In the US, taxes are low, business investment is high, and 18% of the population lives in poverty, violent crime runs amok, schools are failing, etc.

And forecasts for the end of 2007 and onwards after that show that the US will have a much higher GDP due to forecasts of reaching a growth rate of 5%-6% in the next couple of years.

Really? Because The Economist, that bastion of ultra-conservatism in economic matters, forecasts US GDP growth to be 2.6% in 2008. That's half of what you predict it will be. If you're going to make outrageous assertions, at least back them up with a source.

http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profil e.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast\

And, anyway, the US is living on borrowed funds. Foreign nations are pumping their cash into US treasury bonds, but we'll have to pay off that outstanding debt eventually; it will not be a pretty sight when we do. We've just narrowly managed to avoid a recession thus far -- we're not going to start experiencing such strong economic growth as you suggest for quite a while.

NO IT'S NOT

That shrinking is offset by the fact that the EU is experiencing strong immigration. However, if the EU prevented more people for entering the region, its population would indeed shrink. Have you seen the fertility rates in the EU? They have been below 1.5 for pretty much the last couple of decades, with a few exceptions.

Holy shit Begoner, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about!!!

No, you have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

Um, nevermind the fact that while the US isn't annexing Mexico, the US is however receiving MILLIONS of impoverished lower-class Central America and South Americans every year...

The EU is also receiving impoverished immigrants, some from countries much poorer than Mexico or other Central American nations. In addition to this, however, the EU is "annexing" entire nations -- Romania has a GDP per capita of about 3000 Euros. It also has over 20 million inhabitants. That's going to skew the statistics a lot more than the steady trickle of illegal immigrants, who aren't really counted in the measurement of GDP per capita all that much anyway.

Wrong, France is THE ONLY major industrialized nation in the world that has a output per hour worked than the US. France is the only nation in the EU that has a higher productivity per capita than the US

False. You didn't even provide a source. Well, I will (it's an .xls file from the OECD).

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/17/36396820.xls

As you can see, there are many countries which are more productive than the US in Europe. The first is France, which barely squeaked out a win against the US. However, Belgium also ranked higher than the US, as did Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway. So France is not the only major industrialized nation which surpasses the US by that particular measure -- there happen to be 6 which qualify. So, for the 1000th time, you're wrong.

But France still has a far lower GDP per capita of $29,000 compared to the US $46,000, this means that although French work-hours produce more in absolute terms, the lack of ingenuity and market strength means that their end product/service isn't as lucrative as US services and products.

No, it means that they work less! I have already explained this before. You are just fabricating erroneous conclusions predicated upon a flawed understanding of basic economics. See, this is why I don't like arguing economics with you -- you just invent statements to corroborate your assertions when they are firmly situated in the realm of fantasy. The only possible explanation for this phenomenon is that the French work less! If they make more stuff per hour yet don't make more stuff per person, that means that each person works less hours. That's basic logic. Ingenuity and market strength don't factor into this at all. Neither do unicorns and sunshine.

Thats not true at all you fool.
-The average work week in the US is 46 hours, in France it is 35 hours.

That would be exactly what I said (you fool).

- 75% of $46,000 is $34,500, which is $5,500 more than the French GDP per capita

Of course, you also have to factor in that the French usually take more time for vacation instead of being confined to a cubicle day in and day out. It is also easier for them to take a leave from their work if they are sick or faced with a similar problem.

And theres no way the lazy French are going to do that.

What a blatant and false stereotype. I'd like to see the obese Americans even get their ass of their sofas to actually go to work. See? It's not hard to generalize.

Um actually, the quality of life in the US is higher than in France. The US scores higher on the UN HDI (Human Development Index) than the French do...the US is in 8th place, France is 8 places behind in 16th place. So you're wrong.

I never stated that the French have a higher standard of living than the US (although I believe they do). I simply said that they would rather be entitled to a higher standard of living rather than working until they drop down dead. Way to completely fly off on a tangent.

[D2Kvirus]

At 2/15/07 01:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
If you didn't know that Russia isn't a democracy and therefore not eligible for EU membership, then how credible can you be for anything else that you say? It seems I know more about your beloved EU than you do.

After an age, we get to the point: apparently one minor oversight in ym typing now makes everything I say contemptable and, therefore, innacurate. Right...

And you sort of miss the point with your "beloved EU" comment - my original post was pointing out the complete ineptitude of the average Middle Englander's attitude towards it. If you can't grasp that, obviously that means there's a pretty hefty gap in the credibility of what you say.

Spain and Hungary left in 2004.
Portugal, Netherlands and Bulgaria left in 2005.
Italy left in 2006.
Slovakia left in 2007.

The Issue was the will to go to war with the US, not about the determination or perseverance of EU countries to stay in the war. And more EU countries not only supported the war, but participated in it than the EU countries who refused to and who attempted to block action in Iraq.

Participation is sliughtly pointless if you cease participating and go home, or a large chunk of your troop deployment is pulled out. For example, only the UK and Poland have more than 500 troops in total over there at this moment, which doesn't reflect too well against the 130,000+ of the US or 7,200 of the UK, does it?

So it shows that the US has more influence on the EU both collectively and individually to each member state because more EU countries chose to follow the lead of the US than they did to follow the French and Germans.

Greece, Sweden, Finland, and Belgium did from the start, while Spain, Hungary, Portugal, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Italy and Slovakia chose to follow the lead of the French and Germans later on. Your version states that, just because they were over there at one poiunt, the US obviously has influence over the EU, but surely if they had influence all those countries that withdrew their support would still be there?

After that, Denmark are the only EU state you can claim to have troops over there: Romania and Bulgaria have around 150 troops each - and neither were EU member states between 18/3/03 and 31/12/07, just as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't members until 1/1/04.

Um are you forgetting the UK?

I seem to recall using the words "Blair" and "Limpet" early on.

But it doesn't surprise me how low of numbers each country contributed. EU countries have very small armed forces and don't really have any force-projection capability. Most don't really have the economic power to keep their military force in a foreign country equipped and supplied for very long.

Most of them also have National or Military Service, so you'd think they would have a readily-replacible force.

Of course, there's the fact that the British army went over there with a shortage of: weapons, bullets, body armour and even camoflage - they must have been easy to spot, though: the guys walking around in their boxer shorts armed with rocks at the front. Yet they sent troops over in their thousands.

I think that if some of those EU countries that participated in the war had the ABILITY to participate more, then they would have. But the current state of alot of EU armed forces is pretty bleak. Even the UK can't really operate independent of the US in Iraq without US support in logistics.

I repeat, with national/military service mandatory in most EU countries (out of all of the participating forces, Britain is the exception). That means there is a ready-trained force, should the need arise.

The UK can't operate independently of the US because the only city under their control is Basra, while the US have decided they can run the rest of the country fine and dandy. True, there's the slight problem we can't launch our nuclear warheads without support from the US satellite system, but whoever the idiot that signed that one away was operating independently of all rational and logical thought.

No, pretty much just the French and the Germans. The French and Germans opposed the war because they had economic interests in Iraq. They also had participated in the Oil for Food scandal and they didn't want the proof to be uncovered that leaders in their government were receiving money from Saddam Hussein in return for their cooperation in blocking US action against Iraq.

Plenty of countries had/have economic interests in Iraq - for example BP (British Petrolium) spring to mind or the US-based Exxon-Mobil. The UK and US sold weapons to Iraq throughout the 1980s.

If you're going to talk about oil for food scandals, you should know France, Canada and Russia were those implicated in the Duefler Report - not the Germans by any stretch - as were Exxon-Mobil, ChevronTexaco and El Paso Corp. Or, to put it another way, the US.

Maybe you should do some research. German and French politicans were receiving BRIBES from Saddam Hussein in return for them trying to block US action against him. And they failed.

And what does it say above? The Germans weren't implicated in the Duefler Report. For someone who wants to talk about another poster's credibility, you're doing a fine line in hypocrisy.

You miss the fact that Russia/Putin is on good terms with France and Germany (that's where the error came from)

Um, are you out of your fucking mind?

No, I seem to be able to spot Putin regularly meeting with the French and German leaders. You see, this is what you miss on US-centric news broadcasting.

No because they are attempting to use their power to create more power for themselves, despite all that the US has done, and continually does for them.

I'll let you look up the Banana Wars for yourself. Come to think of it, the US seems to charge a large amount of import duties to EU countries, while they don't do likewise.

By the way, you'll be pleased to know the UK has just paid off their debts from WWII - the US are owing the UK money from WWI. So, if you're going to talk about what the US does for Europe, just remember they make us pay for our wars, but you can't be bothered to.

[JohnnyWang]

At 2/11/07 12:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You can't have a superstate to rival the US, when the people of your superstate rely on the US in the first place.

EU isn't trying to be a superstate, and besides, who owes who money, if we go deep down...

But anyway, I personally am somewhat optimistic about EU, though I'm worried about the federalist-militarist develepoment of it.

And off course, the part where it acts like a laboratory for neo-liberal economical policies.