](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Do you losers seriously believe that the Articles of confederation are anything like the EUs constitution? Do you even realise when the EU's contitution was made (hint: long after it was formed and irrelevant as far as your 'debate' goes)? The articles of confederation state that only the federal government may wield an army and obligate the states to support said army; the articles of confederation claims the USA as being a sovereign nation; the articles of confederation are only similar to the EUs constitution on the most basic level, yet you retarded apes persist in comparing the two.Uh, no. You are mistaken you slack jawed, half-witted neanderthal, the USA is a nation-state and the states that constitute it are comparable to the provinces of any other nation.You do realize that the global superpower (at present) is a union of federated states, right?
Hey tough guy! I don't know if you heard, but conventional militarys' are quickly becoming obsolete. You're an ignorant American pig who thinks pouring trillions into fraudulent arms contractors is anything to be proud of. Enjoy being 30th in 'best healthcare/education/qualityoflife/etc.', atleast you'll have the highest military expidentures!Nope. With about 500 million people and 27 countries, they're a mighty economic powerhouse (combined: #1), but they have yet the political will to unite in order to extend the EU's power into external affairs.
By ceding the responsibility of Europe's defense to NATO, which is under the guidance of the US, they make themselves heavily reliant upon the United States.
Even though the EU now has an EU president and foreign minister, seeing that the EU president is Herman von Rompuy, Merkel and Sarkozy can easily tell him to shut up, since they represent the two most populated and most influential countries of the EU. The EU president may just be great for photo opportunities, and that's more or less it.
The EU also has no unified military, nor do its people generally want such a thing. The citizens of the EU lack the enthusiasm for any foreign military excursion, which in my opinion is a good moral reason, but it will definitely hinder the EU's ability to become more than just a voice.
The EU members do not yet have the will to become a strong, united player on the international scene. Its countries are too divided on foreign affairs, and those countries' military forces all have different agendas with no supreme unifying commander.
The USSR was called a superpower. I guess it's kinda confusing for you, since only 50% of superpowers have ever not been nation-statesCan you call a union a superpower? I thought only nation-states could be superpowers (I guess there aren't hard and fast rules on this).
Don't worry, it's an easy fact to forget 
What the hell kind of interests are you talking about? They kinda gave up their colonies awhile ago, if that's what you're talking about...So if the EU is unwilling or incapable of projecting a unified economic, political, and militaristic power in international affairs, won't it have a hard time safeguarding its interests against rising economic and soon-to-be militaristic powers such as China?
They've been involved in Korea and Vietnam. All powers have avoided confrontation with each other, so your point is freaking stupid. Btw, China frequently and arbitrarily changes it's laws, which generally scares away more business than necessary - so no they are not soley concerned with selling stuff.I dunno about your assumption that china will become more militaristic, if they do it will only be in response to US power which is far far greater. Look at how China has behaved in the last few decades they have consistently avoided confrontation with other powers. What was the last military conflict china's been involved in? the Korean war? maybe the war with india? China is much more concerned with getting along with other countries so they can sell stuff.
This isn't true, it's just the delusions of an angsty 13 year old (AKA you).China will become more militaristic, and that is not only due to US power. They've been for the past decade gearing their military towards one more like the United States,' and they've been planning on projecting power in order to defend their interests, much like in the same manner the US does; however, they'll probably achieve a worrisome power projection capability in about 30-50 years. Without a military, they couldn't defend their interests.
Considering you have no evidence to support your claim either...Simply not being involved in recent military conflicts doesn't refute the fact that China will become a major power competitor to US and EU interests further down the road.
Materials released by the Galactic Empire say otherwise. I'll cite my sources when you can cite yoursAlso, China usually ranks as number 10 or 11 in exporter of armaments and is the number 1 recipient in arms exports, and those weapons are good enough evidence to say that China already has been become and eventually will be involved in military conflicts. And also the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission releases some very interesting materials that also support my claim.
Well now that I've succeeded in thoroughly owning all the dumbasses of this forum in this single thread, I believe it may be closed. Good day
