The Underlying Principles of U.S. Policy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"and we are paying for that now with other challengers beginning to emerge (the UN and the EU)."

Interesting,so some paranoic Machiavelli wannabees already see the EU as a threat (and the UN ,which is truly ridicolous)? And maybe one that should be dealt with as the Soviet Union was? Wonderful.
If these are the leading priciples behind the US foreign policy then I do not see why our police forces should waste time and blood (see Machester the other day) to hunt down terrorists that are interested primarily in coming after you.
It would be better for our interests stopping hunting them in exchange for not being targeted.I think that a gentlemen's agreement would work nicely.The more harm they do to and the more they keep engaged the USA the better is for us,since Bin Laden is an insignificant threat compared to an hostile USA in anyway.
Before answering "we will bomb you" it is worth remembering that considered the size of the EU economy the ripercussions on the USA would not be nice.You have not yet dealt with Saudi Arabia despite the fact that is the main source of terrorism in terms of money,philosophy and manpower for similar considerations.
And the 9/11 then is not something that the rest of the world should condemn but rather it is a part of the game.And I would not raise an eyebrow the next time it happens.

I completely agree with how you propose the EU should respond. And no, we wouldn't have recourse to bomb you. But the EU is, at the moment, hardly a Nation-State. It is still in its formative period, and does not think with a single mind.

That means that it can be split, and if we are actively pursuing each other, albeit through nonmilitary methods, the USA may be successful in applying pressure to split the EU, while you are unsuccessful in opposing us.

If we fail, you centralize and reap the rewards and the dangers of being the Hegemon.

Of course, on the other hand, the very fact that the EU is tracking down terrorists for the USA and various EU member countries providing support for us, while at the same time your efforts to centralize, are stymied by such proposals as a dual-presidency, and in general your major role politically though not economically, is reduced, may be an indication of the success of US policy, or of bandwagoning?

It may be hated; it may also be right. Something to muse on...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And, yes, I do think the EU is a potential competitor to the USA and must be regarded as such. It probably won't be seriously for another fifty years at least, however.

OTOH, the UN can only be regarded as a hindrance. Diplomacy should be a function of direct contacts between nations with third parties serving as intermediaries.

(In theoretical terms the UN is also a power threat; but those terms remain highly theoretical.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'll reply to that post of your's later, Edi; I need to be off.

Why don't you post to the Board and query Stuart on his points directly, though? It would certainly be interesting to see how he responds at any rate.

[Admiral Piett]

I completely agree with how you propose the EU should respond.

No Marina, I was simply showing where realpolitk would lead us.I would prefer mantain good relationships with the USA but if I knew for certain that the USA,driven by their own paranoia,were to come after us I would favor any policy that would improve our situation.It would be mere self defence.
Since terrorism cannot win in anyway and dealing with it would have the priority for the USA over going after the EU then terrorism would make our own interests.Supporting it directly could trigger an US military reaction, but simply stopping to try to destroy it would not be enough for that, considered the enoumous economic trade off of even a brief war against the EU.So terrorism would gain time for us.
This is where you go with your theories.If you like the idea of risking to die because some italian policemen were told to look the other way by a government fearing the american hegemonic paranoia,be happy with that.
But ask to yourself: is this the best course of action,even for the US interests?

That means that it can be split, and if we are actively pursuing each other, albeit through nonmilitary methods, the USA may be successful in applying pressure to split the EU

That would require a considerable amount of cleverness,otherwise such policies would be counteproductive,nothing unites like a common enemy.
And I do not see the level of cleverness necessary in the US politicians.
Besides are you aware of the existence of non military methods in first place?
I get the impression that the mindset of many,if not the majority,of the US conservatives can be translated into "we have the biggest stick and we should use it on everyone who dare to look at us without begging for mercy at our feet and every other consideration is for those eurocowards".Clearly this is not a good starting point if you want to split an organization like the EU.Your incapability to think in terms other than military force is a flaw in a war against terrorism.Radical islam is an ideology, it is not a nation state you can bombard back in the stone age.It may have links with states but it is not a tool of the state X (that you can bomb), if ever the opposite is true.
But for some reason you prefer to ignore this,probably because it is more satisfying believing that the superior military power will solve all the problems."Arabs fear only force so let's bomb them all,they will stop supporting terrorism" seems a common and idiotic mindset.Certainly Afghanistan has not stopped Bali and is not going to stop what Al Quaeda is preparing for you.A known willingness to use military power if necessary is an useful tool, and some wars might be necessary,but this is not a replacement for everything in a war on terror.Intelligence is more important than bombs against terrorists.
Before I mentioned Saudi Arabia.But even assuming that the american tanks started to roll in the streets its cities do you think that it would be over? You have not been able to stop terrorists on your own soil, what makes you believe that you would be more succesful as occupying force in an hostile territory?

If we fail, you centralize and reap the rewards and the dangers of being the Hegemon.

Maybe.Or maybe not.We do not have the crystal ball.Maybe the EU will fail to arise independently from any US policy towards it.Maybe by when it will become a political entity it will be much weaker,in proportion, than today is compared to the USA.
Or maybe we will be locked in a cold war with the USA,building piles of weapons because every EU citizen will be scared to death by the american behaviour.
Again,would this be the best course of action even for the US interests?

Of course, on the other hand, the very fact that the EU is tracking down terrorists for the USA and various EU member countries providing support for us, while at the same time your efforts to centralize, are stymied by such proposals as a dual-presidency, and in general your major role politically though not economically, is reduced, may be an indication of the success of US policy, or of bandwagoning?

I would bet a lot of money that the dual presidency has more to do with EU internal dynamics rather than being the result of some american ultraclever tactics.Of course,if you prefer to delude yourself into believing the opposite...
Keep also in mind that nation building is a timeconsuming procedure.We cannot and we should not attempt to create an unified and centralized european state by tomorrow.These things have to happen gradually.The dual presidency has to be seen in this context.