It may be that the goal envisioned by the author has to do with un- or half-stated assumptions. E.g.,
the late 1970s and early 1980s, when political leaders in Europe were deeply concerned that a war-weary US could retreat and leave its old-world partners unprotected
...the European Atlanticists believe Europe needs protection, now. But, this time they don't blame a Carter II for 'abandoning us' (which in itself is interesting retro-history), but seem to imply Europe stupidly forgeting about its defenses?...
Now, this is the author. As for NATO's real goal: to keep vassals pliant, of course. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
...the European Atlanticists believe Europe needs protection, now.
I once added up the EU troop numbers and compared with the russian. It appears it was at the since deleted Boom! Headshot! diary and googlecache seams to have moved on, but anyway my point was that in number of soldiers EU and Russia is quite equally matched.
An EU with a one-for-all clause should be able to make any conventional invasion an even match or at least uneconomical, especially if NATOs common command is replaced with one for the EU. The french nukes should be enough to deter from nuclear attack.
So I do not understand what we would be needing protection from. The US? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Every major war since then has had no winner, except the ones who stayed out of it and thus didn't get their work force and industrial plant depleted by it.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
