The EU doesn't "allow" the US to be the dominant military power. It just is by virtue of its size. Neither did i say the US "prevents" the EU from forming a military bloc. The EU is made up of separate and distinctive states which are not natural political bedfellows and there would be large obstacles to overcome before such a project were to become reality. That the US discourages such moves, though, is not really debatable.
The Us is large because we have spent on defence. The EU militaries are small because they have not. You did imply that we, the US, seeks to prevent EU military growth. Show me how the US discourages growth of any EU military. Since this is not debatable, it should be a fairly easy thing for you to prove.
So the rest of the world wants the US to police it? Are you really sure about that? The EU heads of government may want the US to work with the international community to intervene in global conflicts (although frequently this differs from the views of actual EU citizens) but the old world order is not acceptable any more. Africa, Asia and South America have had their fill of Western European and American interference and exploitation.
The EU wants the US to act as police, as I said albeit they don't make public acknowledgement. I love the way you attempt to make it sound nicey nice. The interveneing you speak of is costly, both materially and in human life. The "old world order" is not only still acceptable, but neccesary and you are naive to think otherwise. Dictators love mambsy pambsy western leaders. They tend to make bold moves while weak leaders try to play footsie. That thugs like Chavez hate western ideologies is hardly a reason to stop applying pressure.
What do you look for in a policeman? I'd wager if your local copper came round and turned a blind eye to your neighbour committing a whole host of criminal acts and then threatened to shoot you because you'd dropped some litter you wouldn't be too happy.
This tirade is not making much sense. The US military is used to protect both domestic and foreign interests for not only ourselves, but for our so called allies to maintain a global economic stability. The point again is that the work needs to be done, but the lions share is done by the US. What the EU elite want to do is have their proverbial cake (US military paying the way) and eat it too ( point the hypocritical arrognat finger of indignation)
Would you expect your policeman to then arm your neighbour with a whole array of military hardware aimed at you? Or would this be a new way of "keeping thuggery and arms trading under control"?
You once again make no sense. You throw out a silly analogy that is much too simplistic and serves no [purpose other than to peddle left -wing propaganda.
You may have noticed the debates which rage constantly on the subject of gun control on the board. It is often claimed that in order to keep the government in check you need a strong well armed citizenry. Well, the world community seem to have come to the same conclusion and are actively arming themselves with nuclear weaponry in order to prevent unwarranted and intrusive policing by a self appointed corrupt policeman. Like it or not America is not seen as a guardian angel and hasn't been for some considerable time.
They are arming themselves because they either want to rule the world because they adhere to some fanatical celestial calling to do so, or because as in the case of N.Korea, they hope to control their economic well being.
America is not seen as a guardian angel because she is unfairly trounced on by leftist intellectuals who are either naive, arrogant, or a combination of both. Nations who have only recently experienced freedoms, such as a number of European Eastern Block nations, appreciate the work and determination of the US, because they have not been so long and far removed from tyranny.