Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Germans? There is a big difference between the population and the government. The latter does often not speak for the former.
I agree, though, that the US should leave Europe. In times of intercontinental missiles, satellites, etc. there is no need for their presence. If people want a big war, they can have one, no matter where they are.
Without the US, Europe would finally have to take care of its own defense, and achieve some kind of common foreign politics and military. No idea why people here don't believe more in themselves, we are the cradle of Western civilization, we have everything it takes.
The entire West is in decay in case you have not noticed, not just Britain and France. The West reached its peak some time ago, now the only way is down, especially relative to others who are still going up, such as China.
The West is in decay? Well, I`ve been in both China and Russia several times, as well as Paris and London.
I have never seen so much garbage, pollution and unhappy people as I saw in China and Russia. Nothing in those countries that indicated being up and rising.
Europe take care of it`s own defense?? What a joke! That will never happen. Heck, Europe can`t even agree on their common currency, how would they ever agree on strategic warfare if things heated up.
Of course, Russia would love that. They would love a split and divided Europe.
An strong European defense would mean a strong German military presence again...please...Europe has been there twice in 100 years..we all know what that involves.
It is much easier to form a defense union than an economic/political union.
If there were a common European army, it would consist of soldiers from all countries relative to their size. I.e. Germans would provide not even 1/6th of the soldiers, and thus not that much more than France or Britain. Not to mention that unlike in the past, the military would enforce a common European foreign policy, which has so far never existed.
Europe already has NATO. Why should it be dismantled, and create a new organisation with the lead of Germany, France and the UK? I don't see the point. The US is an important trading partner and vice versa, and there's definitely not that much anti-US sentiment some here claim. The torn to relations have been the War in Iraq and the NSA scandal, not much else.
And for the mythical West interfering in Ukraine, and claims that the Maidan would've been orchestrated by some mysterious entity is just ridiculous. Tin foil hat material. The Ukrainians decided for themselves, and it's their right as an independent state to do so. The annexation of Crimea was not justified in any way.
What does trading have to do with defense? China is also a major trading partner of the US, yet they don't have a common defense union, obviously.
It is just a matter of time before Europe forms its own military.
I don't see a leadership problem. The military would only be allowed to execute Europe's common foreign policies. And there one could prevent leadership by giving each country a veto right.
The Ukraine was an independent state, but a failed, broke one, which didn't get its act together. So they needed money, which is where the EU came in by offering them a deal if they turned their back on Russia.
I disagree there. It is like suggesting marrying someone for their money.
Switzerland has its own laws, which by the way are better than EU laws. Switzerland is a much more democratic unit than the EU.
Exactly, which is why I said it takes one big EU country to leave and do their own thing and others would follow. What you say there is exactly the problem: the big countries try to dominate the EU and the smaller ones have little to say. That is not what most people in the EU want. Even in the US, despite being much more homogeneous, people in smaller states hate being dominated by California and New York.
That kind of talk doesn't suggest the EU would be particularly concerned if Britain did decide to leave.
In fact, Junckers today seems to be giving the notion a push in that direction by blocking Cameron's attempts to renegotiate terms prior to the referendum he promised if the Tories were to win the GE. Juncker blocks EU treaty negotiations until after 2019 - Telegraph
This leaves Cameron in the unenviable position of having to hold the referendum, but without having won any concessions.
The OP 's title said it all : the EU expansion is a "relentless march"; the expression he uses, accurately, has a military, warrior silver lining. The EU doesn't want to sit quietly and develop economic ties between partners in stable societies. No, that organization wants to be a kind of regional UNO with a messianic message : its own version of "democracy" and "human rights", that they want to impose worldwide, in close partnership with North America and Australia , with-if need be- military interventions, coups, false flag operations, and bloody revolutions (Maidan) if necessary. It follows the trotskyite pattern of the "permanent revolution". It leads to chaos, not stability. Instead of a truly unifying force, it's a dividing force. Our short-sighted politicians are not steering us right now towards peaceful waters but towards dark times indeed.
The OP 's title said it all : the EU expansion is a "relentless march"; the expression he uses, accurately, has a military, warrior silver lining. The EU doesn't want to sit quietly and develop economic ties between partners in stable societies. No, that organization wants to be a kind of regional UNO with a messianic message : its own version of "democracy" and "human rights", that they want to impose worldwide, in close partnership with North America and Australia , with-if need be- military interventions, coups, false flag operations, and bloody revolutions (Maidan) if necessary. It follows the trotskyite pattern of the "permanent revolution". It leads to chaos, not stability. Instead of a truly unifying force, it's a dividing force. Our short-sighted politicians are not steering us right now towards peaceful waters but towards dark times indeed.
And what is wrong with this? It's beneficial for your country. It's beneficial for mine. So what's the problem?
And what would you want Europe to be? What is your utopia like?
And what the hell is UNO? Start using English phrases, you Neanderthal.
And what is wrong with this? It's beneficial for your country. It's beneficial for mine. So what's the problem?
well I'm not a short-sighted nationalist like you. I take responsibility as a world Citizen.
But why that fear of a greatly weakened Russian power ? I fully understand the fear the USSR inspired during the Cold War, with the Red Army and the SS20 missiles in the heart of Europe. But now? the USSR has disappeared, NATO has so much expanded east that it stands a few dozens kilometers from St Peterburg in Estonia, and Russia itself is suffering from tough economic sanctions decided by your "liberal" politicians while war is still raging on its doorstep. So it seems obvious to me that the US and its European allies are here "out for a kill". They want to break what is left of Russian power, for purely ideological reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
