After reading a great column in this morning's broadsheet, I got to thinking - what is Europe's position in the New World Order?
A word order, it would seem, that sets the power and centre of the world on the Far East, economic behemoths such as China and Japan?
Does Europe need to unite in to some terrible "superstate" to avoid becoming a South America, does it need to Balkanize in order to remain a place in the world?
If not...than where does it stand against powers such as America and China in the future?

Whenever I think about that, I can't help but think of the Holy Roman Empire, a non-country-entity, composed of hunderds of principalities and states that roughly united for - as well as many reasons - security and progression.

Will the future see the emergence of the United States of Europe? Is that even possible? A similar character may exist between member-states of the EU, but there's more conflict inside the EU than there is between the US and France (take the Iraq war, for example)!

I, of course, agree with closer European links between member states, even the hand of Brussels over European law and economy, but I am opposed to a united Europe, for too many reasons.
But a part of me agree's with the columnist in today's newspaper, to counter US and Far Eastern power, perhaps the only successful future for Europe is a united one.

Thats pretty obvious, the world is moving toward the "mega-state", for lack of a better term, as a form of organization.
A confederated band of semi independant states that have increasing bonds with each other. Language is really the forefront of this. English seems to have taken dominance and will most likely be the language of the future almost globally. If you want to do business or communicate in the global community, english will be a necessity. We have seen this Europe and India as two primary example.

The world is starting to form these giant alliances as a matter of economic survival. With China and The US (+Canada and growing economy of Mexico), and the emergence of the EU, the smaller nations will be at a severe disadvantage in regards to trade unless they can band together in similar fashion.
While the goal of a united Middle East is the dream of every Arab, it will never be allowed to happen for the obvious reasons.
Africans can look to Nigeria for leadership as the nation continues a trend of prosperity, and has helped to end the conflicts in Liberia and now the Sudan. If a move of Pan-Africanism develops it will be Nigeria leading it.
The Far east is much more complicated as the Japanese are failry stringent isolationists and have a poor view of other nations. While an Alliance with Korea, Australia and India would be a great counterbalance, it is unlikely due to geographic and ethnic difficulties

You can read my opinion here:

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5327&page=5&pp=10

WW3 is inevitable imo.

Yes I can point to a better analogy, 'United States of Europe'.

Going to have an EU constitution, our very own EU army soon and I will be the first to cheer when we elect our first president.

Losing sovereignty?

What does sovereignty mean anyhow when all the power on this globe is in the hands of a few rich people, who can trash national currencies by whim if they wish to do so (see Mr. Soros vs. Itally).

No, I'm not saying that EU is the best thing possible but in my opinion it gives more power and protection of interest to the small European countries against the rest world than if it didn't exist (I'm from one of the smaller countries which doesn't have too much of a political or economical influence alone).

As for bullying members and prospective members, care to give an example?

If I'm going to respond to it I'd better quote it..some of us here have serious problems clicking links and reading the material therein.

Europe will not be like the "United States of Europe", it's just not possible.

They will be like the EUSSR.

As for "all the power on this globe is in the hands of a few rich people", that is false. Perhaps all of the power in Europe is in the hands of a few rich people...but that strengthens my point about the EUSSR.

So does the bullying, done by France to members and prospective members over their position on Iraq. The fact that they got away with doing it speaks volumes.

Europe will not be like the "United States of Europe", it's just not possible.

Arbitrary statement without supplying facts or reasons.


So does the bullying, done by France to members and prospective members over their position on Iraq. The fact that they got away with doing it speaks volumes.

You ignore the fact that both Poland and Hungary sent soldiers to Iraq and they still got accepted to the EU afterwards. Thus France's pressure didn't mean a flying fuck.

The EU will probably resemble the United States under "The Articles of Confederation" more than anything.
For it to resemble the USSR, or what you probably mean, the "Soviet Bloc" there would have to be a hegemonic control, political homogenity and placing of figureheads as leaders of smaller states.

So if you have some other criteria, please share it.

both Poland and Hungary sent soldiers to Iraq and they still got accepted to the EU afterwards. Thus France's pressure didn't mean a flying fuck.

To them...of course how it influenced other nations, who knows. It also takes nothing away from the fact that countries WILL use it as a tool to make other nations toe the "party line", and the fact that France did it without any consequences for themselves shows that the EU has nothing in place to stop it from happening.


For it to resemble the USSR, or what you probably mean, the "Soviet Bloc"

See what I mean about not being able to follow links?

It's also rather amusing that although I didn't say "USSR" anywhere in any of my posts, Professor thought he had to invent something to correct me on.

'They will be like the EUSSR.'

'I didn't say "USSR" anywhere in any of my posts'

- Actually, you did.
See.. two can play at being a twat, except you tend to take to it rather well.

And instead of flying off in to your right-wing American Europhobia blabbering, you may want to address the topic at hand, in being that is it necessary for Europe to unite, in order to survive as, well, relevant I guess is the word, in the future, especially with a shift in power, even away from the US.

'some of us here have serious problems clicking links and reading the material therein.'

- No kidding. Read the subject-post and topic before responding. It helps. Otherwise people might be in danger of taking you for what you are - an angry Europhobic American who's still sour over failing to garner complete international support for the Iraq war. Omgosh, the thought.

A timely article here about European work ethic here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=5FPZAGHNGQDBRQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQW JVC?xml=/opinion/2004/08/07/do0701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/08/07/ixop.html)

Everyone knows that Americans have much shorter holidays than Europeans. While German, Italian and French workers enjoy, on average, more than 40 days of holiday a year, the average American has to make do with just two weeks. But this is only part of a growing transatlantic disparity in patterns of work.

There are, for example, many more Europeans out of work than Americans; over the past decade, US unemployment has averaged 4.6 per cent, compared with 9.2 per cent for the EU. Another difference is in labour participation. Between 1973 and 1998, the percentage of the American population in employment rose from 41 to 49 per cent. But in Germany and France, the equivalent percentage fell to, respectively, 44 and 39 per cent.

Then there is the familiar European penchant for strikes. Between 1992 and 2001, the Spanish economy lost, on average, 271 days per thousand employees as a result of industrial action. For Denmark, Italy, Finland, Ireland and France, the figures lay between 80 and 120. The figure for America was just 50.Get up off your asses and work :p

The thing is - we can get off our arses.
You Americans, in the meanwhile, are too weighed down.

It clearly shows the Europhobia on this forum from particular bitter people, when such things are all they can ramble about.

The envy gets boring - try a new angle.

Fat arse. HAHAHAHA

Posting the member nations as a point of reference - I don't know the status of the Yugoslavian splinter nations off the top of my head.

EU15 Member States: Member States as of May 1, 2004: EU25:
Candidate Countries:

Austria (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#AUSTRIA)
Belgium (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#BELGIUM)
Denmark (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#DENMARK)
Finland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FINLAND)
France (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FRANCE)
Germany (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#GERMANY)
Greece (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#GREECE)
Ireland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#IRELAND)



Italy (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ITALY)
Luxembourg (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LUXEMBOURG)
The Netherlands (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#THE_NETHERLANDS)
Portugal (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#PORTUGAL)
Spain (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SPAIN)
Sweden (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SWEDEN)
United Kingdom (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#UNITED KINGDOM)




Cyprus (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CYPRUS)
Czech Republic (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CZECH REPUBLIC)
Estonia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ESTONIA)
Hungary (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#HUNGARY)
Latvia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LATVIA)
Lithuania (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LITHUANIA)
Malta (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#MALTA)
Poland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#POLAND)
Slovakia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SLOVAK REPUBLIC)
Slovenia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SLOVENIA)




Bulgaria (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#BULGARIA)
Croatia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CROATIA)
Romania (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ROMANIA)
Turkey (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#TURKEY)
Application Pending:


Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FYROM: FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA)



















It can't really progress much farther. Let's take a look at some of the aspects:

Economic: Monetary homogeneity hasn't been achieved yet. The pound is still in use in the UK. Not much of a problem, but evidence that total assimilation won't be tolerated.

Ethnic: Historical animosities between current and potential member states. Greece and Turkey (mainland and Cypriot strife) for one. Similar conflicts farther north in the Balkans.

Geographic: Belarus, Moldavia, and Ukraine will have an incredibly difficult time meeting the economic standards, should they want to join. Think the Baltic states, minus the foreign tourism (or major seaports, for the former two) to bolster their economies. There's a stumper.

The remainder of the Balkan states - Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, and maybe another I can't recall - see ethnic strife above.

In the southeast, going beyond Turkey, it's just not Europe anymore (though the Caucasus might be considered as such, it doesn't perceive itself this way.) No more expansion.

Military: This is a big one. An integrated force would be very problematic.

Would Germany, UK, and France (as well as Belgium, Austria, etc) abandon or vastly alter huge chunks of their military industries in order to standardize equipment across the EU? Laughable.

Would French troops grudgingly accept having a British general higher up in the leadership, or vice versa? Hard for me to judge. Poles and Germans? That's stretching it. Greeks and Turks? Gee, I wonder...

Would the various nations consent to having a central EU governing body determine their military commitments? I think that would be a resounding "Hell, no!"

In short, the EU works decently in managing economic relations and some human rights issues among its member states. I do not think it will - or can - progress very far beyond that.

The envy gets boring - try a new angle.Um.. envy what? :confused:


The thing is - we can get off our arses.Then do it.

http://www.debsfunpages.com/moresmiles/cool.gif

The thing is - we can get off our arses.
You Americans, in the meanwhile, are too weighed down.

It clearly shows the Europhobia on this forum from particular bitter people, when such things are all they can ramble about.

The envy gets boring - try a new angle.

Fat arse. HAHAHAHA
The hypocripsy of your words is drenching. I am American, but am I suppose a worldist. I pretty much enjoy the company of various folks from all over. Eve Online I hang out with all the bestest Euros. Lots of banter back and forth, especially since I am a Texan. But never spitefully said.

GAIN PERSPECTIVE. And then you will grow. If ya can't understand that then nothing can be done too help ya. Ever. I wish you had the company of some more open Americans on these boards. I hope your not as big of a idiot as you lower yourself too when debating the almight America Vs. All else.

I suppose spending 1/8th of my life in Europe helped me gain perspective and I wish any folks from anywhere else could travel around too gain perspective, but since you can't. Try your hardest not too be an idiot.

*puts his head in his lap and cries*
Blazemore...my words are SUPPOSED TO BE HYPOCRITICAL.
Whenever Crist0 or Akipt are brought in to an EU debate, they resort to useless and faceless bullshit. Which is about as meaningful as my saying every American is fat.

'Um.. envy what?'

- Of our holidays. Do try to keep up, pooky-pie.

Will, I do agree with you. Very much so. And that's sort of the point of the topic. It seems Europe could possibly never unite in to some sort of Superstate, as LL put it. There are more differences in Europe than there are between America and France. And yet that's the stiff. If Europe can't unite, what chance does it have in a power-shifting world? Let's face it, the rise of America and now the Far East put Europe out of the prestige-filled lime-light that it enjoyed for centuries, a long time ago.

But when you consider the differences that obstruct unification, think of these words by a French philosopher "No Frenchman would ever consider raising arms against a German ever again." And vice-versa. Europeans cross borders at will, when once they would only have done under arms.
The face of Europe and its nations has changed to a degree no one would have predicted, just within 50 years.
Who knows what the future holds?

Nothing.. if it's down to UKIP :P

Posting the member nations as a point of reference - I don't know the status of the Yugoslavian splinter nations off the top of my head.

EU15 Member States: Member States as of May 1, 2004: EU25:
Candidate Countries:

Austria (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#AUSTRIA)
Belgium (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#BELGIUM)
Denmark (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#DENMARK)
Finland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FINLAND)
France (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FRANCE)
Germany (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#GERMANY)
Greece (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#GREECE)
Ireland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#IRELAND)


Italy (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ITALY)
Luxembourg (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LUXEMBOURG)
The Netherlands (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#THE_NETHERLANDS)
Portugal (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#PORTUGAL)
Spain (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SPAIN)
Sweden (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SWEDEN)
United Kingdom (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#UNITED KINGDOM)


Cyprus (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CYPRUS)
Czech Republic (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CZECH REPUBLIC)
Estonia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ESTONIA)
Hungary (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#HUNGARY)
Latvia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LATVIA)
Lithuania (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#LITHUANIA)
Malta (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#MALTA)
Poland (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#POLAND)
Slovakia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SLOVAK REPUBLIC)
Slovenia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#SLOVENIA)


Bulgaria (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#BULGARIA)
Croatia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#CROATIA)
Romania (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ROMANIA)
Turkey (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#TURKEY)
Application Pending:

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#FYROM: FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA)















Candidate Countries:

Bulgaria (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#BULGARIA)
Romania (http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm#ROMANIA)


Ukraine, Turkey and the Yugos are only dreaming about it atm.

Would Germany, UK, and France (as well as Belgium, Austria, etc) abandon or vastly alter huge chunks of their military industries in order to standardize equipment across the EU? Laughable.

Would French troops grudgingly accept having a British general higher up in the leadership, or vice versa? Hard for me to judge. Poles and Germans? That's stretching it. Greeks and Turks? Gee, I wonder...

This is non issue. One word NATO. Most of EU is already a NATO member (if not all of EU) and using NATO standard gear, also there are British generals commanding French troops in some situations.

The headers didn't stick with the original format, Suma. My fault there Though Slovenia, which is listed among the member states, IS a splinter of Yugoslavia, northernmost one iirc.

As for NATO, well, it's not as relevant today as it was in the Cold War. And sure, there has been some standardized equipment - the 7.62x51mm rounds and later the .223s have been the standard ammunition for member nations. But when it comes to heavier stuff, there is much discrepancy. The Brits and Germans (and probably a few others) make their own lines of tanks, there is distinct and probably unmatching artillery, combat and transport aircraft, so on and so forth.

And yes, if there is a looming threat, national rivalry might be put aside in military leadership. Can you expect as much in prolonged peacetime?

Actually, you did.
EUSSR != USSR

Just because you want to ignore part of the acronym doesn't mean it isn't there Halo.


Read the subject-post and topic before responding. It helps.
Er...right back atcha?

Hello?

Maybe you aren't even reading what YOU write?

Ya know, because my post was about why the EU was more likely to evolve into the EUSSR instead of the USE, in response to Sumamael's post and more importantly, your own:


Will the future see the emergence of the United States of Europe?
So, that reading thing just bit you on the ass again.

I'm also curious how you equate the inability to follow links and read sources with your (false) accusation that I was hijacking the topic?



Otherwise people might be in danger of taking you for what you are - an angry Europhobic American who's still sour over failing to garner complete international support for the Iraq war.
Europhobic?

I don't think so.

Just because I think some Euros are incredibly stupid when it comes to certain things doesn't mean I have an aversion to Europeans as a whole...and I could care less about "complete" international support for the Iraq war.

As recent history has shown, with countries like France as friends, who needs enemies?

Nope, I'm happy with the 35 member countries of the coalition, I don't sweat naive or corrupt governments not supporting us.


Whenever Crist0 or Akipt are brought in to an EU debate, they resort to useless and faceless bullshit
Indeed, pointing out the dangers of belonging to a union where the stronger countries bully the weaker ones without facing any consequences and the sovereignty of your country is taken away piece by piece is "useless bullshit".

The headers didn't stick with the original format, Suma. My fault there Though Slovenia, which is listed among the member states, IS a splinter of Yugoslavia, northernmost one iirc.


I stand corrected.

Anyhow, I recently had to write a market research report, as school assignment, about Ukraine and Bulgaria (market of heavy construction machinery) so I had to look into the region a bit more closely.

Bulgaria will make it into member status with the next round of enlargement, a lot of sources state that they might make it before Romania. Their economy is booming, their legal system is EU compliant and they gone a long way stopping corruption.

Ukraine is an entirely different story, first the actual power is in the hands of the so called 'red directors' or oligarchs (or you can call it the maffia), corruption is through the roof, the economic and political reforms are only slowly or never implemented.
Secondly, Ukraine is playing a double game, trying to stay as close of an ally to Russia as possible while dreaming about joining the EU.
Of course this in direct contradiction with Russia's and Putin's vision of the area so this will be problematic as you can't ride two horses with the same arse.

So! /Bullshitting on, let's see how will the world look like in 2030!

(This is all tongue in cheek, don't get offended pretty please).

Europe: The new superstate has finally emerged, the american style of brainwashing school system was implemented so the new generations are all proudly looking up to the blue flag of stars and generally are darn good citizens! Oh yea and this could be only achieved because the rising sea levels (global warming) swallowed Britain.

North America: Mexico was added as the new federal state, sorry, they just simply didn't have enough agricultural workers and toilet cleaners anymore.

Middle East: The first islamic atomic bomb destroyed Israel (and sorry the messiah didn't come to rebuild the temple). The counterstrike wiped Iran and Jordan off the earth. The oil meanwhile run out thus the whole place lost it's magic and since the ever raging Jihad and the nuclear clouds killed tourism they are left to herd goats (once again).

Asia: North Korea's 203rd ballistic missle test gone wrong and hit Peking (ops!), the Chinese Big Brother grew tired of it and took control of the country (they were greeted as liberators too!).

Japan population has halved meanwhile (see the newspaper articles about the growning number of unmarried singles) but due to Sony's latest breakthrough in artifical intelligence (based on the research project called Everquest V) the dream of androids is a reality now....so who cares?

Africa: The cure for AIDS was found too late and anyhow the global warming made the whole place a big desert.

/Bullshitting off

'EUSSR != USSR

Just because you want to ignore part of the acronym doesn't mean it isn't there Halo.'

- That was my point, you bloody twat. That it WAS there. Ding dong, brain-waves to Crist0, come in Crist0. He's dead, Jim.

'Nope, I'm happy with the 35 member countries of the coalition'

- You mean the coalition that has more hot air than a point being made by Winterwang?

'Some nations originally on the White House list disavowed membership in the "coalition". Furthermore, significant opposition to the war exists in segments of the populations and Parliaments in many of the supporting nations. Adding to the complications, the Bush administration claimed to have the support of some 15 nations that wished to remain anonymous. This bloc has been dubbed by some "the shadow coalition" or, sardonically, "the coalition of the unwilling to be named."'

'After George W. Bush (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/G/George-W.-Bush.htm) (March 26 (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/March-26.htm), 2003 (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/2/2003.htm)) mentioned Warsaw (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/Warsaw.htm)'s contribution prominently in a speech, Poland (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Poland.htm) asked that its participation in the coalition not be used for "propaganda purposes."'

'The signatories to a letter of support for U.S. policy in Iraq before the invasion began (see Iraq disarmament crisis (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Iraq-disarmament-crisis.htm), U.S. plan to invade Iraq (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/U.S.-plan-to-invade-Iraq.htm)) were: Albania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Albania.htm), Bulgaria (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Bulgaria.htm), Croatia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Croatia.htm), Czech Republic (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Czech-Republic.htm), Denmark (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Denmark.htm), Estonia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Estonia.htm), Hungary (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/H/Hungary.htm), Italy (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Italy.htm), Lithuania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/Lithuania.htm), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/Former-Yugoslav-Republic-of-Macedonia.htm), Palau (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Palau.htm), Poland (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Poland.htm), Portugal (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Portugal.htm), Romania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/R/Romania.htm), Slovenia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Slovenia.htm), Spain (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Spain.htm), and the United Kingdom (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/United-Kingdom.htm).'


' list of countries among the willing include, accurate as of March 28, 2003...
Afghanistan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Afghanistan.htm), Albania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Albania.htm), Australia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Australia.htm), Azerbaijan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Azerbaijan.htm), Bahrain (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Bahrain.htm), Bulgaria (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Bulgaria.htm), Colombia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Colombia.htm), Costa Rica (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Costa-Rica.htm), Denmark (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Denmark.htm), the Dominican Republic (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Dominican-Republic.htm), El Salvador (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/El-Salvador.htm), Eritrea (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Eritrea.htm), Estonia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Estonia.htm), Ethiopia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Ethiopia.htm), Georgia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/G/Georgia-(country).htm), United Kingdom (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/United-Kingdom.htm), Honduras (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/H/Honduras.htm), Hungary (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/H/Hungary.htm), Iceland (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Iceland.htm), Israel (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Israel.htm), Italy (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Italy.htm), Japan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/J/Japan.htm), Kazakhstan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/K/Kazakhstan.htm), Kuwait (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/K/Kuwait.htm), Latvia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/Latvia.htm), Lithuania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/Lithuania.htm), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/Former-Yugoslav-Republic-of-Macedonia.htm), the Marshall Islands (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/Marshall-Islands.htm), Federated States of Micronesia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/Federated-States-of-Micronesia.htm), Mongolia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/Mongolia-(country).htm), the Netherlands (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/N/Netherlands.htm), Nicaragua (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/N/Nicaragua.htm), Palau (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Palau.htm), the Philippines (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Philippines.htm), Poland (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Poland.htm), Portugal (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Portugal.htm) (but parliament may censure the PM), Qatar (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/Q/Qatar.htm), Romania (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/R/Romania.htm), Rwanda (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/R/Rwanda.htm), Slovakia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Slovakia.htm), South Korea (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/South-Korea.htm) (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops), Taiwan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/Taiwan.htm), Turkey (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/Turkey.htm), Uganda (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/Uganda.htm), Uzbekistan (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/U/Uzbekistan.htm). '

- That is some list. AFGHANISTAN?! MONGOLIA?! MARSHALL ISLANDS?!?!?!
ROFLMAO!!! AZERBAIJAN?!?!?!!??!!?!?!?!!?! Not to mention the 8 US puppet governments on the list and, oh, how could I forget...

''Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/Former-Yugoslav-Republic-of-Macedonia.htm), Romania, and Slovenia are members of the Vilnius 10 (http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/V/Vilnius-10.htm), applying to membership in NATO, and committed to tying their political future to the United States.' (Had to italic that...it made me chuckle when thinking about your "France the Bully" speeches)'

"The Coalition of the Willing" looks like it's been glued together with sticky tape and pushed in to the arena by an American holding a water pistol. I'm pretty sure baby Jesus is crying. A lot.

' I don't sweat naive or corrupt governments not supporting us''

- AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH! See above. ROFLMAO!

But hey - well done. I hijacked me own thread. Props on that one.
On that note, back to the topic at hand..

'Oh yea and this could be only achieved because the rising sea levels (global warming) swallowed Britain. '

- Hey! Why do we get swallowed? Can't Crete be swallowed instead? :(

'North America: Mexico was added as the new federal state, sorry, they just simply didn't have enough agricultural workers and toilet cleaners anymore.'

- I don't think they could ever run out of either...

'Middle East: The first islamic atomic bomb destroyed Israel (and sorry the messiah didn't come to rebuild the temple). The counterstrike wiped Iran and Jordan off the earth. The oil meanwhile run out thus the whole place lost it's magic and since the ever raging Jihad and the nuclear clouds killed tourism they are left to herd goats (once again).'

- Is it me, or would that just suit them perfectly fine? :P However, you mis-calculated the 100 atomic bombs that would likely come flying in to the region from America. You know, no one hurts their baby.

'Asia: North Korea's 203rd ballistic missle test gone wrong and hit Peking (ops!), the Chinese Big Brother grew tired of it and took control of the country (they were greeted as liberators too!). '

- :D

'Japan population has halved meanwhile (see the newspaper articles about the growning number of unmarried singles) but due to Sony's latest breakthrough in artifical intelligence (based on the research project called Everquest V) the dream of androids is a reality now....so who cares?'

- Like... a sex bot?!

'Africa: The cure for AIDS was found too late and anyhow the global warming made the whole place a big desert.'

- It is a big desert anyway!

I have some skepticism that the EU will gel completely for many decades if it ever does, so the status quo will likely last for a long time.

As the more affluent (and in some cases smaller) EU member states begin to feel the economic strain of subsidizing larger and less productive member states, I predict some of them will begin to flirt with opting out of the whole thing. That will cause some stress with the poorer members when the gravy-train goes away.

Militarily, Europe will probably not need to standardize more completely as the trend has been reduced military spending for a long time. Coupled with a more pacifistic attitude and with no real external threat, I expect their militaries to further atrophy to the point it becomes a non-issue.

Basically I see Europe becoming less and less influential over time as China, India and possibly some other dark horses like Brazil begin to rise to take the center stage. But don't feel bad, I foresee the US on the decline as well compared to where we are now. Things change and we need to learn to change with them.

That's a rather optimistic view, Suma. I predict a full-blown global nuclear war well before then. (The major perk of pessimism is that if you're wrong, you're too happy to care.)

That's a rather optimistic view, Suma. I predict a full-blown global nuclear war well before then. (The major perk of pessimism is that if you're wrong, you're too happy to care.)
I don't really expect global nuclear war but you are right, the future looks a tad more grim than the picture I painted.

As the economic mesh between countries becomes more and more complex (due to outsourcing, sending jobs offshore, etc) I think the next war is going to happen due to an almost total collapse in one (or more) of the economic markets.

Many of the "old" reasons to go to war (Border disputes, succession) are highly unlikely. Out of the old bag of tricks, only the desire to obtain and exploit natural resources remains a likely contender.

That was my point, you bloody twat.
You don't have a point Halo.

Your posts resemble something a crack smoking chimp with Tourette's would come up with(although I may be insulting the chimp by comparing the two). You can't link source material, you are unable to follow other people's links, and you cannot even remember what you yourself have already posted let alone read what others post.

ie. "YOU SUCK!!!"

Nice one.

/sigh

Sudan massacres are not genocide, says EU (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html)

I especially love how the article quickly submerges itself into a Bush bashing. It's all Bush's fault afterall.

I didn't see any Bush-bashing per se. I think perhaps you are over sensitized to it.

Just my opinion but I believe the long term tensions twixt the member nations EU will prevent any formation of an Economic Superpower.

So weird, that a set of countries that takes me less time to get across than it does the states could still have such inbred irrational dislikes.

It'd be like the goodnatured dislike between states such as Indiana and Kentucky have for each other over Basketball prowess erupting into 100's of years of war.

Soon as ya'll can learn to put aside the irrational dislike of folks with basically the same genetic genepool as yourself and your family perhaps you'll be ready for the world stage as a Superpower, economic or otherwise.

Fandros

Nah Fandros, we don't need to like each other, we simply need an enemy we can all despise together. Vote 4 George Bush !! bring Europeans closer together omgosh :D

If all you have in common is the dislike of the Leader of the freeworld then you are sadly lost before you begun.

Common grounds and goals = to larger successes.....

Focus on hate and you get what you got since time began.

So, my opinion stands, Europe is too based and divided on really innane issues to ever really become one.

Fandros

I got to thinking - what is Europe's position in the New World Order?
New World Order? You a fan of showcase-wrestling!? Ack. Wonder what wrestler Europe would be!

Inane issues :D

'It'd be like the goodnatured dislike between states such as Indiana and Kentucky have for each other over Basketball prowess erupting into 100's of years of war.'

- It's so tragic, because he's serious.

No Halo, what's tragic is you miss the point.

I've lived in your world , you've seen movies about mine.

/wink Get the point yet cupcake??

Ya'll live in a small area and you treat each other with such disdain. In the same exact area of land, with a population that's more aggressive ( by ya'll's words) somehow we manage to avoid intrastate war at the drop of a bon bon.

Meanwhile gits like yourself feel fit to judge America by what we do worldwide, when you cannot even get out and rake your own damn backyard and keep your own hedges trimmed.

My point stands, ya'll are not ready to stand as a united world power. Hell to be honest I don't see the need to have ya'll form up in the form of a SuperRobot!!!

Fandros

Good natured basketball rivalry != 100's of years of bloody warfare.

It'd be like say...oh...virginia going to war with new york...never hap...oh wait!

First off, stop saying "y'all" Fandros. It hardly suits you.

Second, if you're seriously entertaining the puzzling idea that size makes you unable to grasp the hundreds and thousand years of history, struggle, and difference in such a diverse and conflicting continent as Europe, well, you're a poo-poo-head.
To compare them to states of America is about as retarded as my saying "POLAND AND FRANCE SHULD GET ON CUZ SUSSEX AND KENT GET ON FINE THX KK"

Infact, that's the most retarded argument I've heard for a while. Even tops the "Russians are European 'cause 80% of them speak English". And that's HARD to do.

Bah, grew up saying ya'll Halo. ;P

Still slips in from time to time.

Fandros

Y'all punk arse better believe it dawg! :P

No no no...Ya'll is a contraction of you + all. So you have to be referring to at least two individuals when you say it. ;P

Fandros

Broken English has structure now? Yeargh :(

It's really a regionalism native to the United States. It's not a real word.

Actually it is a real word, brought into being and such just as the word "ain't" was.

Thanks for playing.

Fandros

'Thanks for playing'


- Did I win anything? 0.o

Are you aware of the term 'colloquialism' ? Ain't and Ya'll are considered this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colloquial

They're conversational words, but using either of them in a written form is considered poor, unless you're trying to mimick speech/produce dialogue. And they're perfectly acceptable on a messageboard. But that doesn't change the fact that they're not words.

Mark Twain would agree.

So, once again the world makes alliances and trading blocs, only on a grander scale. The days preceeding World War I were all about setting up some system of "Us" and "Them", and the members of the "Us" team have the buddies we trade with as well as the "Them" crowd... and so on and so forth. Is history doomed once again to repeat itself, after narrowly adverting a World War 3 senario that would have more than likely sent the world back to the days after the fall of Rome as a best case example? The worst would the extinction of most forms of life beyond insects and bacteria. That was with 2 major players: Nato and the Warsaw Pact Soviet Bloc nations.

So, lets say we have a EU, who seems very much to want to have its sphere of influence be most, if not all of what lies west of the Ural mountains and perhaps Russia proper as well (Urals are full of mineral wealth and Siberia has vast oil reserves waiting to be tapped).

The United States, or maybe we could just call it the American Bloc, since Central/South America is getting close to getting its act together along with Canada already enjoying a modern society of prosperity, forms another.

China will no doubt emerge as being the powerhouse of Asia, in spite of Japan, who will have to play ball with China or face being dealt out of the poker game. Australia and New Zealand, while not being an Asian culture, will have to go along for the Chinese ride, as Oceana probably would not fair as well by themselves.

Africa could perhaps pull off some kind of loose common trading bloc, but they have the probably the hardest path to follow. If AIDS doesn't whipe most of them out, there is still the question of hunger, 2 billion and one ethnic groups speaking almost as many languages, lack of modern infrastructure etc etc. The list goes on. Africa has to find a strong niche that all its factions can agree with, and then pursue it. What that might be? Any good guess is fine.

That leaves India and the Middle East as the odd players out. Why India? Perhaps because India is in a good postion to really make out well by being almost a neutral ground. They are not really pursuing a manufacturing base, but are instead pursuing more of an intellectual route. For them it will be finance, engineering and other such solutions....for a price. They are geographically positioned to make out well with pretty much all parties, with Asian and EU markets as well as African trade being in general close proximity if you take geographical boundries into consideration. Plus, India is probably the most unique and homogenious of them all, which could suggest they might want to go it solo.

The Middle East. Ugh. If any place convinces every other player that we should all blow ourselves to hell over religion or oil, this place will be the Ground Zero. Even if all the other trading blocs find a way to happily get along in a civil manner, it will still be running on borrowed time unless this part of the world finds enduring stability.

So thats 4 big players, one neutral benifactor and one malafactor. Can something like that work, because History seems to say otherwise. Someone will piss off someone else over something that seemed important at the time, but was trival after 500 million people die. If the Tribes get bigger, can the wars be avoided or will the conflicts just get bigger....and more deadly? Eventually some Bloc will come up with some new energy source when the global petroleum reserves can no longer replenish fast enough to fill the demand. Eventually someone will find a way to negate the threat of nuclear arms, either by building a fail-safe defense against them or by developing a weapon so terrible it will make a 50 megaton weapon look like a bottle rocket. Destroy one city of mine and I kill your whole entire nation in scale. Either way it upsets that delicate balance of power that keeps the peace currently, which most call the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. If one of us screw over another, its a good bet we all are surely fucked, since we have done a fine job of developing the means to destroy with ease our delicate little rock we float around in space with, but no lifeboats in the event we scuttle it by mistake (or on purpose).

I just can't help but be sceptical. Even if the Earth gets its shit all one one sock and plays with one sheet of music for a while, what will humans do then? Mostly we have had a long, prosperous and distingished career of killing ourselves if someone looks at world history. Its mostly wars and the politics that lead up to said wars. Its in our very NATURE to be killers of our fellow human and everything else. Its in our culture, ranging from Medieval times to the current day movies, games and everything in between. What will fill that HUGE YAWNING VOID that was once occupied by the planning, defense and deterring the senseless slaugher of our fellow human we all seem to glorify and enjoy so much?

So, even if we spread to the planets and stars, who is to say there won't be some war with whatever the human colonists of Mars create verses Earth and so on and so forth? That is if we even get that far. I have my doubts. Chances are we will blow ourselves to hell, or all die of some super virus weapon of our own design long before that has the opportunity to come to pass. Perhaps maybe we might learn to enjoy simple productive lives of mutual trade, science, learning and faith as well. Who knows. I didn't want to end this post on a complete sourpuss note.

Lummus, that's a logical extrapolation of events. But one cannot predict too far into the future. A clear example of this is a book about a World War 3 scenario set in 1985, which was written in 1978.

There was no fault with the analysis in this book; the sequence of events was almost perfectly plausible. But the story parted from reality in 1979 - the author did not predict the overthrow of Pahlavi. This had direct consequences (not the least of them being an extra four years of Carter in the White House), which had more direct consequences, so on and so forth. In the end the extrapolated August of '85 saw a twenty-day conventional conflict raging across central Europe and the Pacific, culminating in a nuclear exchange.

We can debate the broad strokes of future global events until we're blue in the face, but this is an interconnected world where even a relatively localized event can have overwhelming results on all of humanity.

but this is an interconnected world where even a relatively localized event can have overwhelming results on all of humanity. Yes, how very true, and that is the part that scares the shit out of me and yet also provides some comfort. Making your enemy suffer carries high penalties in "The New World Order", as the whole world economy is so inter-dependant on which each of the players offer and the effect of the weapons upon the whole globe tend to be that rock cast into the ocean that makes the tidal wave elsewhere. The whole "Butterfly Effect" part of Chaos Theory, which is now popular science thanks to the movie speaks volumes to that. It is that and MAD and more that keeps the world from tearing itself apart currently, but how big of a variable can these super trading blocs handle? That is if they are also military blocs as well as trading partners? Typically you want to aid in the survival of what puts the bread and butter on your table, thus most trade agreements have some military implications too.

I can think of a few variables that could throw it all for a loop. I mentioned one...and its what I feel is the grand poohbah. Petroleum takes a long time to be created in nature. We burn dinosaur bones, extinct plants, animals and what remains of the imbodied energy of their existance to create heat. Heat that drives piston and spins turbines in order to create mechanical and electrical power. Oil is also in plastic, and..well, plastics are pretty much what EVERYTHING is made of now. We are shitting through this resource that took hundreds of thousands of millenia to create in nature fast, and there are more people buying cars and so on every day. As long as its fun to make more people, people that want to live forever, than you can bet the oil is gonna get spent faster than a soldier's paycheck at a redlight district. This will be game of musical chairs at this point, since someone will probably come up with a solution to the empending energy crisis and all those that did not have the means in place to handle it will ultimately face the total collapse of their economy and their society.

So what does a trade bloc do then? Invade the other in hopes of capturing the technology, or should Humanity hope the economic ripples are strong enough to encourage mutual sharing of the technology for the betterment and survival of all? Chances are, Europe and Asia stand to survive such a fuel crunch more readily, since alot of their development time was spent without cars, trucks, aircraft and the like so their urban centers are dense. Electric trains already connect most all places of economic and social importance. Its easier to make power generating turbines spin than it is to push pistons in a V8 engine or spin a giant turbo-fan engine around in order to make that thrust to life a huge airliner off the ground. America, with its spawl, is probably screwed, BUT, has much greater incentive to find a solution as a result, so chances are, they will pioneer any new fuels and energy sources. A market is a market though and that is HUGE leverage. If Sweden or Malaysia or whoever invents it, well then they hold all the cards and decide what game it is we all get to play. At least now the world has gotten so small that if one nation has all the moolah, chances are the rest of the world has gone down the clinker to the point where the money means nothing. There is nothing being made worth spending it on.

Another variable is religion. Not going to go there.

Last big variable is the global environment shitting the bed. Who gets to grow food is a direct result of anything such as that. Thats kinda a no brainer as to how it could strain any kind of happy world of trade, just like oil. If one member nation of a bloc holds the key to that, then what? If we can get past all that without killing ourselves, than by far we are the winners as a species. If one bloc says "pay up", and charges alot of money, well, you can bet it will lead to the other blocs getting fearful.

"Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering".

Yoda. Pretty damn smart for a digitally enhanced Muppet.

Anyway, life was easier when the global population was less than what the state of California now boasts, and the most deadly weapon wielded by man was a sword.

But that doesn't change the fact that they're not words.
A word is quite simply:

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning.

"ain't" IS a word, it simply isn't a word used in proper English