SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 72:
Line 72: + + + + + +
no edit summary
:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is 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 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)
:::So where do the borders and bogeymen lie? Look at the degree of economic co-dependency that has occurred, and in what direction it is 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 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)
::::Forget the UN and NATO. Those irrelevant institutions have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based '''entirely''' around the realist worldview that dominated geopolitical discourse prior to World War I. Yes, there will always be military alliances based on special interests. I do not care about special interests. I only care about intentions and national security repercussions. I am 100% convinced that Merkel and the EU bureaucrats are pursuing this EU army project with malicious intentions.
::::Those intentions are to (1) use military intimidation to discourage EU member states from leaving -- much like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact member states during the Cold War; (2) use military intimidation to force EU member states to give up the little remaining sovereignty they have to create a United States of Europe; and (3) create a European superpower to challenge both American and Russian influence in Europe, and possibly wage a large scale war on the United States and/or Russia should push come to shove.
::::The first intention alone would be sufficient for much of the world to declare Germany/Federal Europe a rogue state. The USSR was condemned by the free world during its invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Why should Germany/Federal Europe be treated any differently?
::::The second intention would've resulted in Germany/Federal Europe's neighbors and/or the other great powers declaring war on it in the old days. Germany of all countries should know this, given that it forcibly annexed either in part or in whole five different countries prior to Britain and France declaring war in 1939. I'm pretty sure the desire to pseudo-annex 24 different countries (the number of countries other than Germany itself participating in the PESCO agreement) though the use of fiat invoked by unelected bureaucrats is more than enough to conclude that Germany's foreign policy is spiraling completely out of control.
::::And the third intention? John Mearsheimer has pointed out [http://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642 here] that the fundamental national interest of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in either Europe or Asia that is capable of projecting power in the Western Hemisphere and surrounding the United States with hostile forces in its own backyard. This is the interest that was used to justify our war against Germany in World War I, our wars against Germany and Japan in World War II, and our Cold War against the Soviet Union. It is also similar to the interest that Russia is currently using to justify its Second Cold War with us. Furthermore, it is the interest that Mearsheimer believes we should be invoking to contain China (but not Russia, whom he sees as too weak to be such a hegemon). Why should we not invoke this interest against a Federal Europe? Not only would a Federal Europe be much stronger than Russia were it not for the latter's nukes, and not only would it be ideologically opposed to the American ideal, but it would also be hostile to us from the get-go, as mutual resentments would linger over the United States suddenly losing many of its allies due to the illegitimate decrees of unelected, left-wing bureaucrats that want the whole world to submit to their dark ideals.
::::Is that the world you want to live in? I hope not. The EU bureaucrats have already made it clear that they despise Trump and all he stands for, and his election means that we have forfeited our role as the leader of the West. They have already made it clear that they despise Putin and consider him a mortal enemy. And they have said that an EU army is more necessary than ever before to protect them from "threats." We all know what they consider to be threats. And the fact that they are willing to go this far to "counter" these "threats" says all we need to know about what they are and how potentially dangerous they are for both Europe and the rest of the world. I mean, forget Islamic migration. It is the bureaucrats who are the biggest danger coming out of Europe right now. --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (EDT)