It has recently occured to me that the EU (European Union) could perhaps be seen as the ultimate factor in stopping Bush' s policy on Iraq, if possible, before the election in 2008. One of the reasons is probably the United State' s role in trade with the Union. While the Euro has exceptional value over the US dollar, much trade comes out of EU states (IE: diamonds from Belgium, cars from Germany, fashion from Italy and France) and into the United States. If the EU decided to put an economic embargo on all trades into the US as well as all US products into Europe, it could doom America' s economy. This is because Europe is enough of an oil-producing region that they could easily survive without the need of American oil (just look at nations like Sweden and Finland, who can fund Socialist-like governments because of an oil-powered economy). This also dooms the US dollar' s value due to lack of trade into the market. Another reason for the EU' s purpose in all this could be the support that Europe has given to the advancement in Iraq - both politically and military-based. With the help of nation' s like Britain, the US has been able to get European support - whether as troops or as foundation - in Iraq' s reconstruction. In 2004, the EU commission adopted support of an Iraq program in order to help fund them. At a conference in Madrid during that same year, over €200 million (estimated US$256 million) out of the community budget. The loans continued to flow into Iraq through the use of peacekeeping forces out of the EU army and committees being constructed in order to discuss sanctions with Iraq. Now subtract all this from Iraq' s reconstruction: you could lose more than 60% of the progress made. With Bush' s failure to have a more humanitarian-based policy, I am surprised the EU has declined all affairs with the US. Your opinions?
Yeah do that and the entire world gets thrown out of whack so bad that we'll have bigger problems on our hands than anyone can imagine. The EU is smart enough to see this. Also we make a lot of our cars here in the US, even though we do get some from Germany. Personally, I feel the EU is the only country with enough guts to actually help the US in Iraq. I give them credit for seeing the possible threat Iraq posed and opting to help the US.
The entire world goes out of whack? I understand what are saying, but I am saying just stop trans-atlantic market trade between the nations. They can still trade with other nations, just not eachother. Maybe I am just annoyed a little that Bush would go to Vietnam and come back saying that he still wants to lead the Iraq war, but the European Union now has to deal with it and I don' t think thats entirely fair. Even as allies, we dragged innocent allies into a quagmire.
Yes I am acknowledging that Europe could put the US in a bit of tight spot should they do that, what I was saying is that if they did the entire dynamics of all the other nations would get knocked out of whack and we would end having more problems then probably anything else we could anticipate. I can't say what since I am a biology and computer science major so my area of expertise is somewhat limited in this area. :lol:
And if the US were to turn the tables? Think of this scenario: The US president can legally suspend all money going out of the country for a period of up to 90 days, with an extension granted if Congress votes for it. Did you ever stop and think about how much American money and aid goes out to the world? Here's some numbers: - As of 2004, the US was providing some form of foreign aid to over 150 countries. - Europe recieved about 14% of US foreign aid in 2004, around 1% of the US's GDP for that year (one percent is actually a huge figure of money if you look at the US's GDP) Fourteen percent of foreign aid, with about 17% going to south-east Asia, about 40% going to the Middle East, and the rest going to South America, Africa, and mainland Asia. Quite a bit of money, isn't it? Fourteen percent for about twenty countries in Europe, as opposed to about 25 percent going to a region much larger and much more poor (Africa). 25 percent isn't even enough for Africa, because it's much, much less developed and a much larger region country-wise and land-wise. And yet Europe, a largely rich and developed region is getting more than half of what is going to a region that doesn't have enough? Seems to me that someone's getting a little too much to be complaining. But beside that, let's go back to the cutting off of aid to the rest of the world. See collapse of the less-developed regions that are largely dependant on foreign aid within a few months. The more developed governments in Europe just got a bit of a harder life money-wise. Like it or not, you're getting billions upon billions of dollars a year. That's billions upon billions of dollars that you don't get. What does the US get out of this? Oh, besides resolving most of its debt and being able to boost the economy ten-fold, we can work on our infastructure, put loads of money into education that needs to be there, and give more money for civil services so the pothole down the road will be fixed before I die. Hell, it sounds like a pretty good option to me. And if Europe were to do this first? There's quite a few billions freed up when we stop pouring money into Europe, not to mention the trade. Trade-wise, the US is Europe's biggest market, with China at a close second. China is the US's first, with Europe in second. Hell, boosting relations with China and the rest of the world wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it? Long story short: just because the EU has it good, you'd lose one hell of a market with the US and a hell of a lot of FREE money in aid that you get annually. You're not that independant from the US trade-wise, nor is anybody else. That's because the US is probably the biggest trade market for the world. We buy stuff that we could easily produce ourselves. We hand out MY (taxpayer) money like candy to people that may or may not need it. Pull the plug on that and watch what happens. I for one will be dancing in the streets. My life just improved ten-fold. Hell, I wouldn't have to pay as much taxes (try cutting the ones I pay in at least half) as I do now, when I have kids in school, they're getting a better education, and the pothole down the road is filled in. Sounds great.
we'll if that happened, i think america would turn the other cheek and give to the EU... several hundred nuclear missiles...
*Sigh* Here come all the patriotic comments about how the world needs America.. Ferret, you say we would lose such a huge market if this happened. Well, the same would be said to the US, and what White Tiger was saying is that it would affect America more. Its all down to personal views and opinions really. No-one can predict exactly what would happen should this problem come to reality; we can only speculate. Another thing too.. Why is it that in these type of discussions, nuclear weapons are always spoken of? We were talking of what would happen to the economy, not what would happen should Europe and the US go to war. Frankly though, I dont think even the US could take on the EU Just my opinion of course
Only difference is that we're not taking in 1% of Europe's GDP a year or selling stuff that's easily produced in Europe for prices that could be a lot cheaper or recieving aid like candy from Europe, are we? We (America) recieve aid from nobody (government-wise). However, we pass it out like candy to other nations. Pull the plug on that and watch the world fall down. Hell, value of the Euro (partially dependant on these billions of free money) would drop a bit, quite a few defense projects freed up and would either be scrapped (saving money) or placed in the Air Force, Navy, or Army/Marine Corps (putting them to good use), and quite possibly a few European governments would raise taxes a few thousand Euros a year to compensate (pissing off the majority of Europe). Oops, did we do that? Sorry, didn't think it'd hurt so much since the world "doesn't need America." And raising taxes still wouldn't do you much good, as it'd take a few years to make up for the amount that you'd receive in one year, unless you want to raise taxes so high that NOBODY would pay them, and that wouldn't be fun now, would it? And for America? Oh, value of the dollar goes up, better/more money into education (meaning better teachers, better materials, etc.), more scholarships for poor college students like me, more federal money going to the States (meaning more money into public services - infastructure), better responses/more able to respond if another Katrina comes along, lower taxes, more jobs available (seeing as we're not hiring Europeans and moving our shops to America [this trade you speak of]), more federal grants... I could go on and on. Some things aren't blind patriotism, they're the truth. Oh, did I mention we get some real good relations with the Chinese? If I didn't, well I did now. That and most of South East Asia would be doing jobs for American companies that were formerly done by Europeans (outsourcing etc.). Hell, pop a few of those businesses across the border and watch illegal immigration drop (More jobs = less people coming to America to find jobs). Columbia, Panama, most of South America is virgin ground in regards to US companies setting up shop down there. Make a few more friendly relations with Chavez's Venezuela and maybe we won't have him calling us "the devil" at the UN in New York. This is sounding like a pretty good deal to me. Market-wise: There are other places in the world besides Europe, you know this right? Only difference is that we (America) have many, many businesses giving Europeans jobs over there. Move them and we'll see who has the better market. Name a few European businesses that have production/second-sep manufacturing in America (this is basic stuff, not computers etc.). Not many, are there? Pull those out/Europeans kick them out, Europe lost tens of thousands of jobs (making the Euro fall, bad economic situation for those who were formerly employed by American countries...). Iraq: pour the money on in. Europe doesn't need it to bitch and moan about "Bush's" Iraq situation, but the Iraqis sure do need it to rebuild the country. Pretty well on its way in a few years, more Iraqis working and being paid steadily, little to no insurgency... Same deal with Afghanistan. The Israelis and Egyptians would get more aid as well. So would everyone else recieving aid from the US. More aid, better relations, more allies, less hatred... Sounding like America is being hurt yet? Whoever mentioned nukes: the US will not nuke ANYBODY unless there is a serious threat to the US via WMDs. And if the few European nations with nukes want to shoot off a few at America over an economic situation they caused (with European citizens packed ever so close in those cities you've got over there), we'd be looking at hundreds upon thousands of lives lost with one nuke. Be my guest. There was this thing called "mutually assured destruction" in the Cold War, which pretty much ensured the USSR didn't nuke the US and vise-versa. Same deal, except instead of nukes, it's a bad, bad economic situation for Europe. Bottom line: America does things for the world without receiving ANYTHING in return.
Good god, why even make stupid posts like this.. we all know ferret is going to own the thread. Just listen to ferret and stfu.
the US would be in better condition than europe if the two became disenfranchised. America has a lower population density and more natural resources.
