Karl B, I think your image of the EU is a bit rosy. I don't see any organization in which France plays such a prominent role as being disposed towards assisting the U.S. The fact is that we are even now getting support from much of Europe. I think we'd lose some of that support if power was centralized in the E.U., because the EU likely would be paralyzed by the same dissension that currently girps the U.N.
Some countries like England still hesitate and sometimes undermine this construction, now the eastern countries seem to follow this dangerous path.
Which proves the point. The strongest U.S. allies are the ones most reluctant to join in the EU that France is trying to create. They understand that France does not intend the EU to be a brother to the U.S. -- it intends it to be a rival or competitor. Thanks, but we'd rather have those countries as independent allies rather than federated neutrals.
I don't forget the US attitude towards Turkey a few weeks ago. What attitude was that? There was grumbling, but our government did not rebuke them publicly, and expressly stated that we still considered Turkey an ally. Which was a damn site more friendly that Chirac's comments to eastern Europe.
The USA also owes us a lot, by all the ppl that emigrated and made the USA bigger.
By the same logic, France owes North Africa a huge round of thanks for all that immigration. Sorry, but Europe was not benevolently stocking the U.S. with people out of pure altruism. You were basically getting rid of your malcontents. Which may explain why we don't always get along so well.
Karl B., if that EU was headed up by someone who thought like you, or Blair, or Aznar, you might be right. But I think the primary effect would be to further separate us from our allies on the continent.