Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,634
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: + + + + + + +
→Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts?
::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 00:40, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Military alliances are created by, and to protect economic alliances. That's what NATO is. The EU has attained its highest level of economic integration its ever had. NATO itself will never be the EU's armed force (despite the fact globalists through Hillary Clinton tried to represent NATO as the armed force fighting wing of the United Nations). The proposal is essentially to formalize a system already in place - NATO members already use standardized equipment and training. Politically it translates into making each European member a national guard or home guard force with contingents ready to be called for service outside that states borders.
::As I see it, the problem is more with NATO's command structure than with any threat to a member states sovereignty. Simply because the UN Security Council "authorizes" NATO to perform an action should not kick them into action. A big argument in 1980s and 90s was "democratic nations do not attack each other or cause aggressive wars", yet France, the UK, and the US, allegedly democratic nations, waged aggressive war against Libya under the cloak of NATO and the UN Security Council.
::So yes, there is a concern about nation states retaining sovereignty. Your argument seems to be if European states fully integrate, they will trample each other. If they don't, they retain the ability to trample each other.
::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction is it headed. Military cooperation, co-ordination, intergration or whatever term you wish, is simply another (excellent) example of Schumpeter's process of creative destruction, constantly reinventing itself to become more efficient. What's lacking is improvements in a system of checks-and-balances at the top. History has now proven corrupt politicians in democratic regimes, hungry for poll ratings and ambitious for personal success, can co-opt the UN Security Council and NATO defense alliance to wage aggressive war. I see this as the focus of the main problem. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:03, 22 April 2018 (EDT)