DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Wtf?

I think we're misrepresenting the meaning of "threat"
1) an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2) one that threatens
3) an indication of something impending (ie, "threat" of rain)
Or more broadly: "An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response"

What exactly is "damaging" or "evil" about a unified European federal system that wasn't "threatening" about a unified North American continent (at least the parts under US jurisdiction)? How is this going to possibly constitute a "threat" to US security or interests? How is their internal unity an act of coercion with negative externalities?

Yea, I don't trust any of them except for the United Kingdom. Can't trust these little countries.

UK didn't want the Euro, but the rest of these little crappy countries were so eager for it, so if one of them wants to go to war with us, they all probably would, except for the UK who insisted they keep their currency system.

You have no idea what you are talking about, check out this little blurb on the matter:

"All one has to do is look at the HISTORY of the Unification of Europe and WHO the agitators and players were and are today to see that it is a threat to not just European countries and their own populations but ours!

The Socialist movement has made the UNIFICATION of the Continent one of the KEYSTONES of the global Socialist agenda. With Karl Marx and the Internationals along with international finance on one (controlled)hand and agitated rabblerousing masses and maleable and obedient press on the other(controlled)hand, the unification of Europe began in earnest at the turn of the Century and has not stopped since.

The World Parliamentarians and the Socialist International itself have been at the forefront of first demanding and then operating the machinery of the unification.

"With the American schemers of Col. House's Inquiry at Versailles , the Socialist march to the unification stepped up speed. The PLANNED Financial draining of the European middle class through banking redistribution(through the central bankers Central Bank-the Bank for International SettlementsBIS) and inflation of currencies predictably layed the groundwork for yet another demand for strong(CONTROLLED) "leaders" and another controlled conflict to justify further installation of the United Europe.

The chaos and tyranny and horror of the European Theatre of the war, along with the rise of the SOCIALIST Soviet Union Empire and the creation and threat of nuclear weapons, was not only the impetus used to create the Socialist-engineered United Nations but also to Winston Churchill and the rest of the SOCIALIST Europeans(led by Unifier Eminence Gris French Socialist stalwart and schemer Jean Monnet) to start the Movement to Unify Europe in Geneva in '46."

This little coalition is also looking to expand? Oh, well looks like someone is trying to be like the United States.

I actually find the European Union to be a serious threat to myself and my family.

In what sense are they threatening you and your family?

Germany didn't want it either. They had a stable currency of their own. I'm not sure what significance their benchmark currency has on foreign relations and warfare. Consider that the dollar is used by a much larger percentage of the globe than the Euro and that very rarely does that influence foreign policy and almost never does it successfully incite warfare. Nor the amount of supposed disproportionate influence that say, France or Spain might have over Italy and Poland to get them all to go to war, aggressively, with anybody in particular. Much less with us.

This is idiotic base fear at best.

Germany is the worst of them all. Hitler easily influenced them to kill millions of Jewish people. Easily influenced by anything and anyone. Everyone is jealous of the United States for every reason except our healthcare system.

What does that have to do with the present economics and politics of Europe?

How exactly can you replace a currency like that and where can you manufacture it?

It's not hard to "replace" or manufacture a currency. All you have to do is write a law decreeing what legal tender is acceptable and have people follow it.

Yes, I understand that. How can you physically replace it though, if you have over a trillion in the economy?

The history of unification of Europe also has some other benefactors:
1795: Age of Reason written by none other than Thomas Paine advocated for a unified government.
1949: formation of the NATO treaty alliance, thereby granting extraordinary levels of cooperation and unity between the various factions of Europe for the common purpose of mutual defence
1945: The ITO is founded as an institution of regulating and removing trade barriers between nations, the later GATT and WTO organisations are modeled on this basis and have largely eliminated many non-agricultural trade barriers and tariffs. This is an inherent model for the movement of trade goods and labour across borders within the EU.

They don't physically have trillions of dollars in the economy. The M1 measurement is never anywhere near the entire amount in circulation. It's usually about 1-2% in the US.

Otherwise, what Zack said, you phase it in and have banks collect the old bills. There are still $1 bills that are actually silver certificates in circulation out there from the 60s and 70s but are acceptable as legal tender.

Well, they would have to design the currency and then once it’s created, you simply introduce it to the economy. Obviously it’s going to take some time, but what the government would do is do large exchanges and stuff. Let’s say there is a trillion in the economy. Banks have the majority of that money, so they will just simply keep exchanging the money until they exchange the majority of it. However, during all of these, the new currency still has the same value as the old currency.

Get a life. The EU was formed to compete with the rest of the world trade-wise. The emergence of China as one of the biggest consumer populations is more of a threat to us than Europe ever was.

My not-so-humble opinion.

And our primary education system, our roads, our crime rates, the death penalty……

You may want to check the recent election results for almost any European country (Greece being the lone exception). They all went further to the right economically while in the midst of their own economic meltdowns and troubles. While they all have more socialistic policies and taxation systems than America in some form or another (Ireland is the one Euro country ranked above the US on measures of economic freedom), there are very few European countries that would be aptly described as "socialist", at least in any manner which we ourselves could not be so described (welfare states, regulation, and taxation). Virtually none of the former socialist republics in Eastern Europe have stayed that way and some (Czech/Slovakia and the Caspian and Baltic states) have gone full speed ahead "capitalism."

If you wish to attempt to re-fight the ideological affronts of the Cold War era, you'll have to find a better target than the European Union to play your enemy. They're on your side of the line already.

lol papadawg, how does debating about whether the European Union is a threat to the U.S. relate to not having a life?

Because if you believe it is a threat, and a danger to your life/lifestyle, you're worrying about something about as likely as an massive asteroid collision or a tornado hitting your house and reassembling it into a working computer. It's a wonderfully rich fantasy world. There are lots of novels on the subject (1984 is one such example). But not so much in the way of realism.

Put into perspective the entire EU spends roughly half of what we do for national defence. The entire list of countries. And to presume they would be able to attack us with that undersized, underfunded force also assumes that each country would wish to do so and that there might be some cause to do so. As much as Europeans might sometimes complain about wacky American sentiments and behavior, they're also not historically likely to oppose us with threats or force in the modern age. It is preposterous to assume that they even could at this point.

Just like that guy who quit his job in order to prepare for the year 2012.

Hate to burst your bubble Sal (actually I like it really) but the EU isn't going to be launching a nuclear first strike against you or your family anytime soon. In fact I could safely say it's never going to happen.

From a viewpoint here in the UK the European Union is a rather insipid, dull and somewhat distant bureaucracy with a big-headed notion that they know better than the man on the street in Paris, Cologne, London, Dublin or wherever. It's often the butt of jokes and derision in the tabloid press- some of it unjustified I must say. It's certainly no socialist superstate.

Now personally I'm all up for for a united Europe- one where the ordinary citizens are united around a common set of beliefs and goals which are shared naturally, without coercion.

The major problem we have in challenging the EU over here is that the arguments against it are couched in narrow-minded nationalist rhetoric by flag waving fuddy duddies, global conspiracy theorists (ahem), little Englanders, xenophobes and in some cases outright racists. This is a bit of a bind, to put it mildly!

BTW Sal, are you seriously suggesting Churchill was a socialist? Methinks you should read a bit more about the man.

how come this is under religious debates?

Thanks for informing us of this error.