Europe as Superpower

[megatron]

i THINK U GUYZ R FORGTETNG THAT AMERICA SUKCS

 

[John Uskglass]

More evidence that Western Europe ain't gonna be competing with us anytime soon. Imagine, a huge reaction against completely pathetic attempts too shrink the welfare state.


=====================================================
Conservatives Routed in French Elections

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 29, 2004; 5:27 PM


PARIS -- President Jacques Chirac and his ruling conservative party suffered a crushing defeat in regional midterm elections Sunday, with the opposition Socialists, and their Green and Communist allies seizing control of the vast majority of regional councils. The results marked a sharp rebuke for the government's attempts to reform France's costly health care, pension and education systems.

Chirac's party was expected to lose a number of regional councils after its poor showing in last week's first round of voting. But the scale of the defeat today was so widespread that analysts immediately began speculating whether Chirac's prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, will be replaced in a sweeping post-election cabinet reshuffle that is expected this week.

"It's not just a defeat," said veteran political analyst and commentator Alain Duhamel. "It's a disaster."

Results being tallied tonight showed the Socialists and their allies taking control of at least 21 of 26 regional governments. Nationally, the Socialists and their allies were winning almost 50 percent of the vote, compared to just 37 percent for the government and about 13 percent for the anti-immigration National Front party.

All last week, the French media had been filled with speculation that Chirac likely would keep Raffarin in a retooled government without some of the more unpopular ministers. But Duhamel, among others, said Chirac might now feel under pressure to replace Raffarin with the high-profile interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose crackdown on crime has made him France's most popular politician. Also uncertain was the future of the government's unpopular attempts to cut the spiraling costs of France's generous pension system and other aspects of the welfare state. The government has said changes were necessary to make the French economy more dynamic. But the cutbacks have prompted bitter and disruptive protests over the past two years by a wide range of workers.

Alain Juppe, the head of Chirac's ruling Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) party, insisted the reforms would continue. "The governing majority has suffered a serious defeat," he said in a speech to supporters. "Is it necessary to abandon the reforms launched by the Raffarin government? In conscience, I believe not. To abandon the reforms would be to condemn our country to paralysis and regression."

Raffarin, appearing subdued, said, "It is clear that the opposition has won this ballot." But, he said, "the reforms will continue simply because they are necessary."

Leaders of the victorious Socialist Party called the results a repudiation of Chirac's policies, and said voters had demonstrated their trust in the Socialists to "protect" them and preserve the safety net of social services.

"With a high turnout, they [the voters] have sent a clear message to our political leaders," said Francois Hollande, the Socialist party leader. "They have rejected the policies which have over two years aggravated inequality."

The ruling party's defeat was underscored by some high-profile races. Poitou-Charentes, in western France, was long Raffarin's personal fiefdom, but tonight it was won by a Socialist, Segolene Royal, who received 55 percent of the vote. A conservative former French president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, was handily defeated in his bid to become the regional president of Auvergne.

Regions have little real power, and turnout in the past has been low . But Sunday was the first time French voters have had an opportunity to go to the polls since Chirac and the center-right swept to power two years ago, and many wanted to signal their dissatisfaction before the next elections for president and parliament in 2007.

"The results of the regionals are going to have a huge influence on the national government's policies," said Karim Khelifi, 43, a communications worker voting in a working class neighborhood of Paris. "I hope that the Left wins in many regions," he added. "That way, the government will be forced to come back to more humane social policies."

Washington Post special correspondent Pan Yuk contributed to this report.

 

[megatron]

You filthy fucking racist ccr, we should lynch you from the oak tree and string your garters from here to kingdom come for fucks sake. Perhaps you should just stop copy and pasting horrible propaganda from other typical american nazis and rap about it. Knuckle up or swing low my nigger!

 

[Elissar]

MEg... wasnt there a time when people like you used to suffer untimely, horrific, and ultimately unsolveable deaths?

 

[welsh]

Meg is being an attention whore. Best left ignored.

Ok, Wooz - Has the US done some really EVIL stuff. You bet. And we still do EVIL stuff.

And because we do, we consume a big hunk of the world's production, our gas is cheap, we drink over priced coffee while folks in shitting third world countries starve. We import illegal labor and don't give them rights and we supported corrupt dictators and repressive tyrants that did business with us.

Sure we bombed Vietnam to the stone age (well not quite), and then sued the fuckers that made Agent Orange.

Supported Suharto, the Shah and Allende (and yes they did have significant domestic support, if not majorities. Why? In part because it was good for business and because we were more afraid of the commies. And there is the irony that some of those dictatorships actually made pretty effective states and economies (South Korea for instance).

But yes, the US had done some EVIL stuff. The US has done some really good stuff too- but in the end we need to hold ourselves to account for that.

And I agree, we have to be honest with ourselves and not be a bunch of pussies that deny it. But hey, for those that benefit from that and have the gall to bitch, you're welcome. This is your world too, so get off your ass and try to make more of it instead of just bitching and moaning with the life you've been given.

Can we justify a lot of our actions, sure. All, no.

And while we can hope that maybe someone else might have come to leadership of the democratic and capitalist world with more equity, humanity, generosity and morality than the US- fact is that no one has.

Now, finished, get back to the thread.
Considering the aggregate power of European economies, if unified, would Europe be a superpower, at least economically, to rival the US?

 

[Sander]

Indonesia's economy is going thru the roof. And it is on the road to Democracy. Vietnam would have probably surpassed that, and gone thru to the Democracy which was inevitable.

Democracy is NEVER inevitable.
Furthermore, you don't have anything to support your claim. Anything at all. You're just saying it's so, just because.

Face it, the vast majority of the time, a far right government, unless overthrone by a leftist or other one, will eventually become Democratic, while a far Left one will not. Happened with Caing Kai-Shek in Taiwan, happened across all of the South American continent.....

ANd I never denied that. However, this does not make a far right government any better, nor does it make supporting or instating a dictatorship good.
Furthermore, I didn't see democracy coming in pre-WW2 Italy or Germany, either. Those regimes had to be removed by force.

In theroy, nothing is wrong with it. But in practice, it cripple's half of Europe's economy, and is so ineffective as to kill an older generation of Frenchman.

FACT 1: The Netherlands have a welfare state.
FACT 2: The Netherlands have one of the best economies in the entire world.
CONCLUSION: THe welfare state CAN work.
Facts work a little better than speculation, CCR.

Nice Saidism here- "O NO, HE THOUGHT A HUGE IMMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS IS BAD!! RACIST!!"
By 2020, most of the Children in the Netherlands will be Muslim. Which means that most of them will be either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

I never said you're a racist. I said you were a prejudiced bigot, and if you keep on making these unbased claims, I'm not going to change my opinion.
WHAT do you have to base your claim that muslim immigration is bad on? Huh? I've yet to see any argument, really.

Same thing happened to Lebanon, and that did'nt work well did it?

<sarcasm>Wow, Lebanon and the EU-countries. What a striking resemblance </sarcasm>

Don't acuse me of being a bigot again. It's really getting on my nerves. I don't like Islam......yeah.......but what the hell does that have to do with me hating a billion muslims?

You're saying things equating to "Muslims are bad" WITHOUT any arguments. You were actuialy saying "The Netherlands suck because a lot of muslims are immigrating." WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT. That's being a prejudiced bigot.

Nevermind the fact that I am the only person here trying to learn a Muslim languages?

Oh, no, you learn muslim languages, now you can't be a bigot! Bullshit. That's the same as saying "Look, I'm reading books by *random anti-nazi person*, now it's impossible for me to be a nazi".

That is certainly true, but we do not have that kind of population growth, while negative populationg growth is a total fucking disaster in every imagineable way, like you and most of your European friends have.

Actually, the population is growing (due to immigration).

So, you are not a Federalist?

The EU is not and does not want to be a state, not at this point, and not with national identities at stake.

There is such a thing as a long term ressecion, and Europe seems to be in it for the reasons I have already listed

What bloody reasons? The reasons that are not really reasons? Like, a load of muslims are immigrating?
Frankly, you don't have any arguments to support this claim.

Horrible misquote. I never said they where inherintly bad. Never. They are'nt, at all. But in the situation Europe is in, with negative population growth, and most of the population growth coming from largely angry, fed up Muslims who lack the money to support a geritocracy's welfare, spells serious shit.

Bigot.
Seriously.
1) Muslims are not angry and are not fed up. Not in the least.The only thing they're actually pissed about is the constant branding of them in the media. And you seem to be going along with it.
2) They've moved over here to earn money and lead a better life, and they're doing just that.
3) Because of 2) they DO earn money to support the welfare state. They pay taxes, you know.

I said that? I don't think they suck, as quite a few of them are Turkish, and the only predjudice I have against Arabs I am trying to get past. Again, thanks for the Saidism.

You said: "Age and the fact that the only people having kids wear headscarves was one of my main points"
And:
"Not to mention most of them are Muslim, thus mostly relitivly poor, uneducated, and not Dutch?"

THusly, what you said equated to: "Oh no, they're not Dutch. That makes you sucky!"
Tsch.

The rate of assimilation is nowhere near the rate of immigration. True that that might change, and eventually as immigration stops there will be time for assimilation, but this is diffirent, as there is no end in sight, and Muslims-in any situation-tend to be the hardest groups to assimilate.

*smacks CCR*
Seriously, there is no actual problem with muslims. There are some clashes of culture, and people tend to get pissed at arranged-marriages (even when the girl (or boy) WANTS the arranged marriage. Meh), but honestly, muslims simply function in this society. There is nothing wrong with them.

A good point. But you still, despite what you say, have some of that, and we have neither of them.

Indeed, we have several seperatist movements, and that IS problematic. But that has nothing to do with any kind of history of nationalism, or a type of nationalism, which what you were saying. And what I was trying to disprove.

And stop getting so angry at me. I don't think I have ever exploded in your face like that.

Then stop making such nonsense statements.

Considering the aggregate power of European economies, if unified, would Europe be a superpower, at least economically, to rival the US?

Yes.

 

[Wooz]

But hey, for those that benefit from that and have the gall to bitch, you're welcome. This is your world too, so get off your ass and try to make more of it instead of just bitching and moaning with the life you've been given.

What do you think I'm doing, Obi-wan?

Considering the aggregate power of European economies, if unified, would Europe be a superpower, at least economically, to rival the US?

Economically yes, as far as the military is concerned, no.

Impossible to have such a huge army and a military budget that big, I don't think anybody would support it.

And rightfully so IMO. Most of the cash should go to education, culture and research.

 

[welsh]

But hey, for those that benefit from that and have the gall to bitch, you're welcome. This is your world too, so get off your ass and try to make more of it instead of just bitching and moaning with the life you've been given.

What do you think I'm doing, Obi-wan?

Ok, all this US bashing begins to feel like butt itch when it gets carried away. Could things have been, and should have been, different? Sure.

For the most part US followed it's national interest balancing it's different values (both good and bad), which is about what every other country has done throughout history. Yes, some real evil shit, but not all of it evil, and in comparison to others of that time, generally the lesser evil.

Considering the aggregate power of European economies, if unified, would Europe be a superpower, at least economically, to rival the US?

Economically yes, as far as the military is concerned, no.

Impossible to have such a huge army and a military budget that big, I don't think anybody would support it.

And rightfully so IMO. Most of the cash should go to education, culture and research.

And its investment in education, economics, culture and research that are probably the mechanism of power. It was the economy of the US that allowed it to build its military power. But it's those other elements that give a country persuasive power without the need of coercion. Arguably, when a country utilizes repressive or coercive force it has already shown it's weakness. A strong country should achieve its aims without the result of military power. In a sense, the US invasion of Iraq and it's inability to develop a broader coalition is not evidence of it's strength to go it alone, but it's weakness in convincing allies to play along.

Militaries can help achieve power, but historically, military power has often been the source of bankruptcy. With the advent of nuclear weapons, it is possible that war has become so illogical that weapons, when balanced, have little power against each other. With nuclear weapons, the goal of national security is often the balance between achieving national interests without taking the course to war.

In a sense many of the conflicts of the Cold War- especially in Africa and Asia, could be seen as proxy fights. Because of the importance of Europe to both sides, neither was willing to fight overtly, but covert action behind set defenses and fairly clear rules of engagement weer the norm. The danger of nuclear was was great. It's not always remembered but one of the questions was "If the soviets invade do we nuke them before or after they get to the Rhine."

But in other parts of the world, which were less important, the countries fought in a zero-sum gain. Your loss is our gain. Because great resources come from those regions, the stakes were quite high, and the soviet strength was in ideology. At the same time, nuclear conflict wasn't realistic and when considered, thought to be too severe to be implemented- so no nukes used against North Vietnam. Short of nuclear weapons, these were very violent ideological battles. While it's true that the US did some really nasty stuff, these were dirty battles in which members of both sides did terrible things.

I guess this is why I was a bit upset, Wooz. In a sense by looking at one side and demanding that one side play the high moral road, you neglect that there are two sides playing the game, and the other side often plays a much meaner and crueler game. Atrocities were happening in Vietnam before the Marines showed up. Death squads did operate in countries for both the left and right. Soviet support for conflicts around the world did initiate violent and nasty wars. You could see, if you look at the history of super power involvement in the developing world, that most regions were virtually ignored until one of the two stuck it's nose in local affairs and then the other showed up. As discussed here before, the US often supported nasty authoritarians because the US often saw them as preferable to communist leadership. Authoritarians die or get removed, but communist systems tended to have longer lifespans because they were more institutionalized around party rule. Yet a quick glimpse at many of the Marxist governments in the world reveals that these were often humanitarian disasters. While the US involvement played a role in some, but not all, of these, it was rarely the primary or causal variable.

But back to the topic, look at the cost. The US maintains this huge military infrastructure and system. You are right, Europe couldn't rival the US ability to project power abroad. No one can. Even China would have trouble rivaling the US power. Yet, this is an expensive system built to protect a global capital system which allows the US and it's allies to prosper (at the expense of much of the world). This protection is a public good that most countries involved in international trade benefit from. That the US patrols from the Red Sea to the Sea of Japan means that countries along that rim don't have to make large militaries to protect their trade. That NATO exists means that the countries don't have to build large militaries to protect their soveriegnty against rivals. This huge expense of the Cold War means that others can benefit at the expense of the US. Did the US benefit, sure, but we also paid the costs.

But this is also historically valid. Conflicts between great powers often allow lesser parties to grow and prosper, and eventually surpass those great powers. That the US ate the military expenses allowed Europeans to build more effective welfare states. CCR made the point that the welfare state has been in trouble, and this has been true for years. Only those countries that are very rich (they export in value more than import perhaps) can afford welfare states. And welfare states often exist, in part, to keep lower and middle classes content and participatory in a system that often sustains them as subordinate classes.

Problem though now is that in a globalized world, capital becomes more mobile and the world is full of cheap labor willing to be exported. Yesterday I called up a credit card and talked to a woman in Manilla. A friend of mine had his taxes done in Calcutta and another had computer support from Bangalore. Ford builds cars in Mexico and ships them out to other countries and back into the US through NAFTA. Speaking to a few of you here, I hear about the unemployment problems you face, and that's something the US is about to get zapped with. In my opinion, the Europeans have a better system to deal with that than in the US, at least providing a wider social safety net to catch people and reintegrate them into the system. In the US, unemployment can't cover the rent.

But what happens if the US gets unemployment of 10-20-30%? Ok, this has gone to long and sorry for the long post.

 

[John Uskglass]

Then stop making such nonsense statements.

I have treid very hard to get away from the pathetic name calling your argument has degraded to, and frankly won't reply to this topic until that pathetic, childissh tirade is edited.

 

[Wooz]

While it's true that the US did some really nasty stuff, these were dirty battles in which members of both sides did terrible things.

I guess this is why I was a bit upset, Wooz. In a sense by looking at one side and demanding that one side play the high moral road, you neglect that there are two sides playing the game, and the other side often plays a much meaner and crueler game.

No offence taken. Actually, I'm quite used to it. My mother, who also teached in a couple of universities, looses her cool much quicker while debating international politic issues .

My objective wasn't to denigrate the US, but to point out that it didn't only do "good" in its history, it ensued in a debate on European expansionism/colonialism, and how all that the US did was squeaky-clean.

And yes, the Soviets and some of the communist governments did *much* worse shit. I live in Poland, and you can see some of its effects on society today. Deportations, Gulags, 50 years of terror state. Not to mention the crappy architecture and "housing project" syndroms on the population.
Hell, I crack a laugh every time I see a kid with a Che Guevara T-shirt in the street. Usually, I come up and say "Hey, did you know the guy on your shirt made concentration camps in Cuba?" What if I started going around with a Himmler shirt?

Problem though now is that in a globalized world, capital becomes more mobile and the world is full of cheap labor willing to be exported

I think the problem is that while the capital is more and more mobile (fisk paradises, international placings/investments), and all but a small part of the world's population isn't.

That means a factory an sprout out in some third-world country (a factory dismantled by chemical security/environmental regulations in Europe or in the US), make a buck employing the local population as workers, and import the cash home, leaving toxic waste in the "poor" country. Minamata springs to mind, although it all happened in one country. Don't want to sound anti-US again, but the International Banana Company and its doings in south/central America is a perfect example as well.



Unemployment.

Poland has one of the biggest unemployment rates in Europe. Most of the people in that situation are people that were used as peons in national people's farms (huge farming projects) metallurgy, and mining. Now, the coal can't rival with other countries' coal (too much of a piecashit and too expensive), metallurgy is minimal, and the peons in the farms lost their job when the communist system collapsed. Again, no chance of competing with France on agricultural rentability/production.

The government decided to *fully* pay those people, sponsoring completely unrentable work places. Poland is the country that spends the most on social welfare in Europe. Instead, it could spend the money on education/reeducation or formation programs in order for those people to get a job, but no. In any case, we have around 25% of people living off the working class, if we sum up the unemployed, the people in the obsolete workplaces, and the normal fonctionnaries (cops, docs, politicians...)

If unemployment links to either a lack of education or an ill-concieved society, you could organize educational trips to Poland as well as safari trips are organized to Kenya, on how NOT to administrate a country.

But what happens if the US gets unemployment of 10-20-30%?

I dunno. A complete reform of the welfare system?

 

[Sander]

Fine. I can't make you reply, and I won't try to make you reply. Why not? Because I'm stating my opinion. And even though it is offensive, I know that there are plenty of good points in there, and that the offensiveness is certainly not unbased, and I've even been so kind as to provide arguments for it.
If you want me to stop calling you a bigot, then I suggest you prove to me that you're NOT a bigot.


That said: welsh, don't apologise for making a long post: those long posts are a source of information, really, and are very interesting to read....

 

[John Uskglass]

Fine. I can't make you reply, and I won't try to make you reply. Why not? Because I'm stating my opinion. And even though it is offensive, I know that there are plenty of good points in there, and that the offensiveness is certainly not unbased, and I've even been so kind as to provide arguments for it.
If you want me to stop calling you a bigot, then I suggest you prove to me that you're NOT a bigot.


That said: welsh, don't apologise for making a long post: those long posts are a source of information, really, and are very interesting to read....

Moron. You DO realize how hard it is to prove negatives, right?


Anyway, yeah, I have some racial prejudice. Then again, I did not grow up in some tiny town in the Netherlands. Matter of fact, I am only at my brand spanking new School because I was beaten with in an inch of my life by a group of very angry African Americans, and one of my earliest memories is seeing my 10 year old friend getting the shit punched out of him because he went tricker treating at Farrakan's house.

But I'm trying to get past it, honestly. You'r not helping by being lazy and calling me a bigot instead of using real arguments.

 

[Sander]

Moron. You DO realize how hard it is to prove negatives, right?

Yes, I do. But let me rephrase it: If you stop using arguments that amount to such thins as "It's bad, because there are muslims", then I will stop calling you a bigot.

Anyway, yeah, I have some racial prejudice. Then again, I did not grow up in some tiny town in the Netherlands. Matter of fact, I am only at my brand spanking new School because I was beaten with in an inch of my life by a group of very angry African Americans, and one of my earliest memories is seeing my 10 year old friend getting the shit punched out of him because he went tricker treating at Farrakan's house.

I'm really sorry for you, and I can see why you might have some racial prejudices then. And it is laudable that you are trying to get past them. I do apologise if I have actually hurt you, or brought back certain memories with my words...

But I'm trying to get past it, honestly. You'r not helping by being lazy and calling me a bigot instead of using real arguments.

I apologise, then. But I won't edit my post. I don't believe in editing.
But you should be able to see that I haven't actually used it as an argument or an excuse for a lack of an argument anywhere. I have used it's justification once, though that was to explain my reasons for using it.

 

[John Uskglass]

Meh, not really. If you'd have called me "Harry Potter", "Fag", or "Racist", that would have brought me back.
Just don't do it. I was at that school for three years (7th-9th), and I don't want to, nor do I need to tell you how many times I was assumed to be racist because I made Nosferatu look like Haile Selassie.

Democracy is NEVER inevitable.
Furthermore, you don't have anything to support your claim. Anything at all. You're just saying it's so, just because.

I think Welsh answered your two points better then I could, frankly.

You could see, if you look at the history of super power involvement in the developing world, that most regions were virtually ignored until one of the two stuck it's nose in local affairs and then the other showed up. As discussed here before, the US often supported nasty authoritarians because the US often saw them as preferable to communist leadership. Authoritarians die or get removed, but communist systems tended to have longer lifespans because they were more institutionalized around party rule. Yet a quick glimpse at many of the Marxist governments in the world reveals that these were often humanitarian disasters. While the US involvement played a role in some, but not all, of these, it was rarely the primary or causal variable.

FACT 1: The Netherlands have a welfare state.
FACT 2: The Netherlands have one of the best economies in the entire world.
CONCLUSION: THe welfare state CAN work.

I don't think I said that it coul'nt work. Just that at the size of the Netherlands, Germany or France have it without non-Immigrant population growth, they simply will not be able to support it for very long, at those levels.

<sarcasm>Wow, Lebanon and the EU-countries. What a striking resemblance </sarcasm>

Actually, they do.
The Levant, baisically streatching from modern day Iskenderun to the northern border of Isreal, was 90% Christian a century and a half ago. Thus when the French took most of the Levant as well as Syria, they decided to make a special state for thier "Latin Chritian" breatheren in the Levant, and that was the state of Lebanon. However, the Lebanese felt they had a close enough relationship with the Muslims further inland to include some Muslim territories, especially as most of the Muslims in the area at this time where Druze, so they did so. And Lebanon, for half a century, prosperd like never before. It literally became the Switzerland of the Middle East, a playground for Saudi princes and French tourists alike. However, with the foundation of the state of Isreal which lead to MASSIVE immigration to Lebanon, and the absurdly high growth rate of the Non-Christain/Druze population, the former goverment system, which can be justly compared to India's in terms of fostering Religious tolerance, was no longer percived as appropriate by the Palestinians, who wanted total control of Government. Thus a long, drawn out war lead to genocide, bombings, and ultimatly a huge immigration of the Lebanese Christian population to America and Brazil. They've done well here- the greatest industrialist in the world today is Lebanese Brazillian- but the fact remains that Muslim immigration destroyed Lebanon, and the Palestinians have yet to assimilate or leave.

Ill respond to the rest later, EU2 1.08 just came out.

 

[Sander]

I think Welsh answered your two points better then I could, frankly.

Frankly, I've kind of lost the point to that line of reasoning.
Ehmm....anyway.....meh.

I don't think I said that it coul'nt work. Just that at the size of the Netherlands, Germany or France have it without non-Immigrant population growth, they simply will not be able to support it for very long, at those levels.

You kept contradicting yourself, you said that it could work in theory, but not in practice, and then you said that only France and Germany have fucked up systems, and then you said that everthing sucks. (not necessarily in that order).

Frankly, I'm not too familiar with the exact details or consequences of the current French and German social welfare systems, and cannot actually comment on THEIR consequences for the EU. Whatever the case, though, could you perhaps provide some kind of fact? Or, for that matter, anything but statements?
Really, I personally see no reason to think that this is nothing more than the valley in the conjuncture movement.

The Levant, baisically streatching from modern day Iskenderun to the northern border of Isreal, was 90% Christian a century and a half ago. Thus when the French took most of the Levant as well as Syria, they decided to make a special state for thier "Latin Chritian" breatheren in the Levant, and that was the state of Lebanon. However, the Lebanese felt they had a close enough relationship with the Muslims further inland to include some Muslim territories, especially as most of the Muslims in the area at this time where Druze, so they did so. And Lebanon, for half a century, prosperd like never before. It literally became the Switzerland of the Middle East, a playground for Saudi princes and French tourists alike. However, with the foundation of the state of Isreal which lead to MASSIVE immigration to Lebanon, and the absurdly high growth rate of the Non-Christain/Druze population, the former goverment system, which can be justly compared to India's in terms of fostering Religious tolerance, was no longer percived as appropriate by the Palestinians, who wanted total control of Government. Thus a long, drawn out war lead to genocide, bombings, and ultimatly a huge immigration of the Lebanese Christian population to America and Brazil. They've done well here- the greatest industrialist in the world today is Lebanese Brazillian- but the fact remains that Muslim immigration destroyed Lebanon, and the Palestinians have yet to assimilate or leave.

Yet this misses two valuable points:
1) Lebanon is not in Western Europe. This changes a lot things.
2) There is only one muslim political movement in the Netherlands, and it isn't really active right now. (It's as docile as it gets). And, rather interestingly, most muslims rather like the Netherlands the way it is, except for the whole media branding thing.

 

[Paladin Solo]

*laughs* runner and solo i love you guys

I wub you too.

 

[Big T]

Considering the aggregate power of European economies, if unified, would Europe be a superpower, at least economically, to rival the US?

Economically yes, as far as the military is concerned, no.

I'm not sure really that military force is ever going to be an issue here.
Were things to get to the point where hostilities were on the cards for the US & EU, then the US could probably "win", but it would be such an expensive war for them that it may well cause a collapse in the (Political? Governmental? Civil?) structure of the US. (and that's assuming nukes aren't used)

 

[welsh]

Problem is that nukes probably would be. When things heat up and you have nukes the problem is a "use it or lose it" decision.

I agree, but the issue of military force here has other applications. As in Iraq, the power to mobilize military across vast distances means that you can influence, through military means, policy around the world. The other side of that is that the US military power also provides a public good as long as European and US interests converge.

But what if those interests diverge? For instance let's say that the US begins to see the Europeans benefitting too much from it's military and tries to exclude Europe from the benefits of the security that the US military provides. Let's say for instance that Europe can't trust the US to maintain stability in a part of the world where it has great investments or rather, it sees the US as trying to gobble up the goodies of Central Asia and divert them to the US and leave the Euros out.

Then military power might matter. Perhaps this is another reason why the Atlantic partnership is so important.