Old Europe Vs New Europe
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">France/Germany vs the Contintent</div> France and Germany have taken it upon themselves to be the offical representitives of Europe. This arrogant appraoch to diplomacy has created a rather large rift in Europe itself- New Europe, specifically Eastern European and Iberian Countries, vs Old Europe- France, Germany and the self serving social elites. France and Germany are putting economic gains over their security because it infuriates them to have a foreign power (the US) in control of their continent, especially when that continent once controlled the world. They have taken it upon themselves to wage a PR war in the US, trying to depict the US as an Imperialist Warmonger with no allies. Well, if thats true, we've learned from the most imperialistic, war hawk people on the planet. Seems their liberal, revisionist history forgot about Slavery, Colonization, and the 3rd Reich, and Middle Eastern exploitation (the very source of today's problem).
Of course, NE vs OE is setting up a large division. France and Germany are trying to wipe out NATO with the EU. That will fail, of course, since they need the US for any kind of stable security. Thats what Eastern Europe and Iberian countries realize.
<a href='http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-081013-9767r' target='_blank'>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200303...10-081013-9767r</a>
Portugal sides with US.
Spain also co-sponsored the recent resolution with the US/Britain.
Eastern Europe is still thanking us for freeing them from totalitarianism.
Whats going to happen? I personally see France and Germany as gaining irrevlance in the world community. They will on function as trade partners with no strategic relationship with the US. France should be off the Security Council, if the League of... errrr United Nations remains as a viable diplomatic option.
Of course, NE vs OE is setting up a large division. France and Germany are trying to wipe out NATO with the EU. That will fail, of course, since they need the US for any kind of stable security. Thats what Eastern Europe and Iberian countries realize.
<a href='http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-081013-9767r' target='_blank'>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200303...10-081013-9767r</a>
Portugal sides with US.
Spain also co-sponsored the recent resolution with the US/Britain.
Eastern Europe is still thanking us for freeing them from totalitarianism.
Whats going to happen? I personally see France and Germany as gaining irrevlance in the world community. They will on function as trade partners with no strategic relationship with the US. France should be off the Security Council, if the League of... errrr United Nations remains as a viable diplomatic option.
Comments
First off, if you talk about Europe, as in 'the european people', you'll have to realize that there is <i>no</i> country that's truly 'new Europe'. In the British population, for example, there's only 19% supporting a war without the UN, which is currently the most probable alternative, and the support for a war with UN backing dropped from 62% to 54% during the last <i>week</i>. (Source: <a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239628,00.html' target='_blank'>Spiegel.de</a>).
Blair is losing even the support of his own party - the New-Labour friendly 'Tribune' recently titled "Tony, it's time for you to go.", for example.
Similiar movements are seen in Spain, in Portugal, and in the East European states, where people place higher values on a membership in the EU with its definite and long-lasting economic advantages.
Second, apart from France and Germany, there are numerous other governments, most notably Russia, the Benelux states, and the Scandinavian states, which oppose a new resolution.
Now, for your further assumptions:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seems their liberal, revisionist history forgot about Slavery, Colonization, and the 3rd Reich, and Middle Eastern exploitation (the very source of today's problem).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I (German citizen) am majoring in history, and let me tell you, our educational system (as much as I usually hate it) forgot about none of those.
That's why I know, for example, that slavery was still practiced in the States when the majority of Europe had already abolished it.
As for colonization and the inevitably and always mentioned Third Reich, they're both dealt with at length (Hitlers reign occupies about two years of history classes on our schedules). I can't really see what they have to do with the actual subject, though.
On the Middle Eastern exploitation, I'm readily agreeing that there were lots, and I mean <i>lots</i> of mistakes made there, mainly by the British Empire, which possessed big parts of it, but hey, they're New Europe, aren't they?
I don't know very much about the American educational system, but I trust they told you about the war between Iran and Iraq, the origin of both sides weaponry, and about who delivered mustard gas and anthrax to the regime of Hussein in the first place?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->France and Germany are trying to wipe out NATO with the EU.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you feel like discussing the current situation of the NATO at length, I'll be happy to open a seperate thread, sufficent to say in here that big parts of the Pentagon have been talking about the uselesness of the NATO for years now, and that the EU, as mainly economic union which has no joint army or other defensive structure at this point (although the American administration tried for decades to change this), is in no way a threat to the NATO.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That will fail, of course, since they need the US for any kind of stable security. Thats what Eastern Europe and Iberian countries realize.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me a simple question: Security from whom?
Don't believe that I side with the actions of the French and German governments, which I both despise with a passion. I know that both have strong economic interests that influence their stances - just like the US government -, I know that they tried to threaten other countries into siding with them - just like the US government -, I suspect that they're corrupt corporate entities which don't depend on their people, but their election funding - just like the US government.
The fact remains however that the bigger part of Europes population - which includes some of the biggest economic forces on this planet - oppose the war, and for once, I completely agree with the majority.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stable security? My impression is that it's the US government who's rocking the boat right now. They insist on leading a war that many people and government are against. They insist on doing it in spite of UN approval. I fear that US gov't is trying to wipe out UN by forcing everyone into accepting a war against Iraq (whom can be seen as no threat to USA - the Al Qaeda connection is still pure conjecture).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whats going to happen? I personally see France and Germany as gaining irrevlance in the world community. They will on function as trade partners with no strategic relationship with the US. France should be off the Security Council, if the League of... errrr United Nations remains as a viable diplomatic option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely. I think many countries are uncomfortable with US's strong arm diplomacy. If you are opposed to a war vs Iraq, you might very easily view USA as the main culprit. And France/Germany as the saviours. They fear the destruction of the UN, the only diplomatic weapon the world has vs USA at the moment.
Now Russia has put a veto down against a new resolution in the UN. There will perhaps be a war against iraq since the us gov't seems hell bent on fighting that war, world support or not. I still cannot figure out WHY exactly it is so important. I believe the threat of Iraq vs. USA is exagarated hugely - but clearly Iraq isn't a good neighbour. And I'd love to see Saddam evicted. If the motives are as forward and simple as Colin Powell let me believe, I'd be amazed. Ie. "Saddam is a bad guy who supports Al Qaeda. He must fall for the sake of Mankind (and not just US)". At best I attribute the US Gov't ulterior motives, at worst I suspect them for being dangerously paranoic and out of touch with reality.
/me gets out his 'Up yours, Nem!' t-shirt and covers himself in baby oil for an edge in the wrestling match. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
First off, is it your opinion Nem that the majority always rules, and that governments should do what their people say based off of opinion polls? Because if that's true (to gather up your various history lessons), Eisenhower never would have forced the American southern states to end segregation and legalized racism via the use of the US Army and Federal prosecutors and judges. He was clearly going against the vast majority of popular opinion in those states by lettings little black girls go to a white school without being attacked by a mob - was he wrong to disregard popular opinion and do what was right? Without dismissing the analogy, simply answer the question, as it's the tennet of your argument.
Passing the blame for the mideast off on the British is easy (and certainly the UK is overall the biggest culprit in why we have these mideast problems today, thanks to the Balfour Agreement, Afghani meddling, Indian Colonization, etc.). However, it was Germany that backed a lot of the crazy Mullahs in the 30's and 40's that led to much of the religious revival fanaticism and jihad attitude we deal with today. And France and Russia... hell's bells, they have meddled their politically and economically for a 100 years straight. Out of the all the nuclear weapons producing plants in Iran and Iraq made in the last 25 years, the manufacturers were Germany, Russia/Soviets, and France. And that's all. As for who provided mustard gas and material for making anthrax? That would also be german and french industry as well. I don;t know about Russia, but considering how often they hand out nukes to Korea and Iran, it wouldn't surprise me.
Europe is the reason for the condition of the Mideast. We are reaping the whirlwind of 200 years of european sowing in that area. If you start nosing around, you end up seeing that nearly every single hotspot, wartorn region, and other hellhole on earth is a former European colony. Except where the UK wiped out all the original inhabitants and installed their own people, aka USA, CA, AU, NZ, etc. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now with the EU what they tried to do is balance the world power. Problem is they are too late. The US controls too many economic key points in Europe and all over the world so all of the europe countries are directly linked to US policies and they depend on them. You cant say no to your bread factory if you want bread.
Now the US wants war, as they dont want to pay a billions of dollars army so they can target practice for ever. And if you all know history then you know that war is the absolute best thing to pump up an economy and the US economy really needs some pumping up right now.
Ok, i'll admit that WWII was extreemly helpful in fixing a little economic problem known as The Great Depression, and indeed it seems to have helped in other instances as well. But what would <i>really</i> help the economy is an advisory commity with a friggin' clue. Basic Kanesian economic theory suggests that a governemnt with a recessed economy should: A)Lower taxes (for all classes, not just the rich, not just on stock dividens, and not in the form of a rebate), and B) Increase government spending. While war is one way to accomplish B, there are less destructive ways, and A hasn't even been addressed correctly by the current administration yet.
Does it hurt, pulling facts out of your **** like that? If it were about Oil, we would have:
Lifted Sanctions
Attacked Saudi-Arabia
Just declared war on the countries hosting our troops. They're already there, we'd win in a second.
But I digress.
/me puts on an identical shirt as Monse, greases up, and tags in for the match.
Nem- I'm not trying to generalize the people. There are many old/new people groups in all of Europe. However, the governments of Europe that are against the US are typically of that Old Europe vein and, as such, have chosen to attack the US for trying to solve the problems they themselves started. New European nations may disagree with the US, but the core of the disagreement isn't Anti-Americanism, but rather policy. Germany has long been critical of Israel. Granted, a Zionist movement was in the works before the Nazis, but they certainly expedited the sepratists movement. France has just been historically duplicitious. 'Save us from the Germans!' 'Screw you, we're going to extort massive funds from Germany despite your wishes. ' 'Save us from the Germans!' Get your military out of our country!' 'Help us in Vietnam' 'Screw your monetary system'.
As for slavery, yes, the US may have had slavery longer than most European states (France being an exception. Lifted in Rev, reinstated with Napoleon.) However, Europeans were the founders, primary funders and primary beneficiaries of the institution of slavery.
NATO does not have a military purpose anymore, but it certainly has a diplomatic and political role in the region.
Security from whom? Its obvious the nature of warfare is chaning. There won't be anymore large scale wars like WW2 or even Vietnam. Small, regional conflicts with global consequences. Europe is benefitting from the War on Terror, even if they oppose it. Haven't you seen all the recent arrests of Al Qaeda members planning attacks on European cities? We're taking out the infastructure that lets them threaten YOUR country.
You're welcome!
*EDIT*
As for Iraq/Iran...
The US doctrine at the that time, considering the crumbling soviet union, was to establish regional superpowers who would control an area's politics that would result in a favorable climate for the US. Iraq was one such country.
And the way I see it, we made a mess with Iraq. We're cleaning it up. I think Europe should take notes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US should send a few history teachers to the Middle East. After a few hours of teaching (hint: mention the Crusades at least once), the Middle Easterners would realize that Europe is their real enemy, and America would be safe.
Europe controlled the world by military force and screwed everything up. Now the US is dealing with it. It has EVERYTHING to do with what is going on today.
The US, by contrast controls the world by Economic and cultural means. I highly suggest anyway looking for the truth on this matter read 'Whats so Great about America' by Dinesh D'Souza. The US doesn't station armies in countries to force those governments into adopting Pro-US policies, or establishes ceremonial governments for our own interest. Instead we, use access to our economic prosperity to get support, such as Chile. Even beyond the economy is the more powerful cultural draw. Walk into a hotel in Bangladesh and you're likely to hear the bellhop humming the theme to Titanic. The draw to America isn't just material- its the whole idea of living here. If you're born in the 3rd world, birth is destiny. In America, birth is nothing. You choose your life. That is an incredibly powerful idea that enraptures youth and frightens the control instruments of other countries, be them religious fascists or washed up superpowers.
I'll concede that Bush has actly arrogantly, but there is a reason to that. He and his cabinent (and I agree) that Clinton's excessive concessions to foreign interest, combined with impotent military threats, diminished the ability of the US to advance the causes of Freedom and Prosperity. He's showing the world that their opinions really don't matter anymore, so that the US doesn't need to act like an agressive nation to advance their interests.
Oh, and you look like a idiot by saying "Wow, you're so wrong you must be stupid" and then proceed to say nothing backing it up, leaving only vague generalizations, hoping that the reader will fill in the arguments you couldn't think of on you're own. BAM!
Sounds like someones got washed up superpower syndrome.
EDIT
Orcist- Yes, the US had made mistakes. But unlike Europe, we're trying to correct them. It was a mistake arming Saddam against Iraq. We're trying to fix it. And I'd hardly equate bombing civilians with the massive genocides Europeans have accomplished throughout the years. The Americas, India, China, Africa, Austrailia.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How . . . does . . . this . . . absolve . . European . . . nations . . . of . . using. . . . the . . . . same . . . tactics . . . . especially . . . when . . . they . . . are . . . so . . . critical . . . . of . . . the . . . . US . . . and . . . . judge . . . them . . . by . . . standards . . . . that . . . they . . . . themselves . . . do . . . not . . . measure . . . up . . . to . . . ?
EDIT:
Josiah Bartlet, please ignore the real causes of today's problems and just ease your pain by blaming America. As the inheritor of Western Civ, which Europe has disowned, we are blamed for the policies you began. Oh, and next time you post please try to say something intelligent. That should expedite the debate a bit.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 11 2003, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 11 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First off, is it your opinion Nem that the majority always rules, and that governments should do what their people say based off of opinion polls? Because if that's true (to gather up your various history lessons), Eisenhower never would have forced the American southern states to end segregation and legalized racism via the use of the US Army and Federal prosecutors and judges. He was clearly going against the vast majority of popular opinion in those states by lettings little black girls go to a white school without being attacked by a mob - was he wrong to disregard popular opinion and do what was right? Without dismissing the analogy, simply answer the question, as it's the tennet of your argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very interesting and far-fetching topic you're touching here, but before I start adressing it, let me note that the intention behind the polls I posted was first and foremost to prove that the division in 'New' and 'Old Europe' as created by Donald Rumsfeld is misleading - even the 'newest' of the european countries is opposing the war, after all.
Now, for the points you made. I'm aware that there are lots of examples against guiding politics by the popular opinion - the matter of fact is however that for each of them, there are millions of contrary examples - we are both living in democracies, which are <i>based</i> on the majorities opinion. Every day you and I live is an example in favor of the popular descision.
Was Eisenhower right to enforce an end of segregation? Surely.
As Ghandi said "If you're right and the whole of the world is against you, you're still right.". But this doesn't change a thing about the general validity of the democratic principle, which, as crappy as it may be, is the best system humanity came up until now (let's hope Zergling doesn't read this...).
Leaving the theory and returning to the subject at hand, if you're hell bent on an institutions opinion, the European Parliament, the highest democratic representative of Europe and currently held by the conservatives, recently issued a descision after which military actions against the Iraq were not to be taken by any member state unless a new UN resultion on the topic is passed.
So, following the representative path, Europe is still pretty 'old'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Passing the blame for the mideast off on the British is easy (and certainly the UK is overall the biggest culprit in why we have these mideast problems today, thanks to the Balfour Agreement, Afghani meddling, Indian Colonization, etc.). However, it was Germany that backed a lot of the crazy Mullahs in the 30's and 40's that led to much of the religious revival fanaticism and jihad attitude we deal with today. And France and Russia... hell's bells, they have meddled their politically and economically for a 100 years straight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the word 'mainly'. I don't doubt that every European country is to blame, I was just again trying to show how old the 'New Europe' really is, which you confirmed yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europe is the reason for the condition of the Mideast. We are reaping the whirlwind of 200 years of european sowing in that area. If you start nosing around, you end up seeing that nearly every single hotspot, wartorn region, and other hellhole on earth is a former European colony. Except where the UK wiped out all the original inhabitants and installed their own people, aka USA, CA, AU, NZ, etc. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I love such discussions, they're becoming intelectual masturbation when the topic at hand is of contemporary nature - the people on both sides of the fence are burried. Nobody alive can be blamed for their misdoings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Out of the all the nuclear weapons producing plants in Iran and Iraq made in the last 25 years, the manufacturers were Germany, Russia/Soviets, and France. And that's all. As for who provided mustard gas and material for making anthrax? That would also be german and french industry as well. I don;t know about Russia, but considering how often they hand out nukes to Korea and Iran, it wouldn't surprise me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little distinction is in order here. Yes, the majority of the producing facilities were built by European <i>corporations</i>, although at least some links into governmental circles have to be suspected - I know for example of a CDU politicain who apparently covered such deals.
Most of the people responsible for these projects are either in jail, or on the run (one former CEO is allegedly hiding in the Philipines).
The actualy source weaponry, however, was supplied by the Pentagon during the time in which it armed Husseins army, and guess who was responsible for the Anthrax deal? Donald Rumsfeld.
I am of the opinion that prior to 09/11/2001 the USA probably would have let Al Qaeda members carry out attacks against European cities because they felt they were only responsible for passing the intelligence along and let those countries worry about their own security and protection of their citizens. But after 09/11/2001, I think the attitude of the USA has changed to realize that by not looking out for others is just too dangerous after that gut-wrenching day. So, now it seems they are taking a much more pro-active stance, hit 'em before they hit us stance. If anyone wants to blame anyone for USA policy change, you should look to see why tyrants and dictators were and are allowed to flourish. Oh wait, that's been mentioned as to why Europe was brought up...
Check yourself, foo~!
*throws on the grease*
Let's get ready to rrruuuUUUMMMBLE! <--- in a debate, of course...
That's my real point. I guess I didn't communicate that properly.
And until the europeans were thrown out of the mideast by world opinion and the weight of their world wars, no, the US did not meddle in mideast affairs. Remember that the US had been mostly regional and isolationist up until WW2. These mideast problems were caused by european incompetence and colonialism, mixed with the local's own religious zealotry and power struggles.
As for your last point, it's not necessary to say 'yes, we are bad, BUT YOU'RE BAD TOO! NEENER!'. All governments can be bad. All. Without exception. They all do bad things. It's one of the few metaphysical absolutes out there (ok, not really, but I've never seen a blameless one, because they all use humans). Answering our points with that response is just ducking the issue. The point of this thread is about the 2 versions of europe and how that group of countries have affected the world. It's not about the US. There are other US-bashing threads to go write in <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ...
Come on, Nem . . . that's a rather convenient philosophy, especially when you're talking about assigning blame. If it's still applicable to blame a former US administration (Yes, I know there is a lot of cross over, but it's not complete) for providing arms to the Middle East, then you simply can't draw a line in the sand and say "Everything beyond this point is immaterial", even when it is directly responsible for creating the environment which sent the US and Soviets scurrying to bolster their regional influence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point of this thread is about the 2 versions of europe and how that group of countries have affected the world. It's not about the US. There are other US-bashing threads to go write in <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we've had the same discussion because on any topic, Europe blames America, America blames Europe, and the original topic falls to "You're worse!" "No, YOU'RE worse" back-and-forth-- though most Europeans want to develop a gaping blind spot prior to WWII, and most Americans are perfectly happy to ignore large parts of the following 50 years.
RIGHT NOW these european nations are doing it. 25 years ago we might have helped Hussein with his army, since we would do anything to keep our mortal enemies the Iranians contained. To use your argument about the past, that is entirely immaterial. RIGHT NOW we are trying to undue that mistake (which we admit to). RIGHT NOW european nations are making nuclear weapons for the Iranians, pumping iraqi oil, and doing who know's what else that will be in our kid's history books, while simultaneously preaching peace with crocodile tears. How on earth do you reconcile that, europe?
(edited to make more damned sense)
there is no europe as there is an US
europe is NOT a country
europe is a CONTINENT
and there is no new or old europe, thats fairly stupid
there is west and east europe but no new and old europe
europe - a continent, never did anything
and talk country specific pls as ww2 is not europe's fault !
and monsieur evil your colonialism arguement is really not valid
as the US was born out of colonialism
and colonialism actually first started and was based on discovery and exploration, characteristcs of the human makeup
while US attacking other countries certainly is not
i give 2 thumbs up to the US for making such a large army and lets be realistic this is the only reason the US can afford to meddle and police the worlds affairs.
and i read one of the posts saying america saved everyone in ww2
pffff excuse me
i think britain saved ww2
and you might say that britain had fell without US sending food and equipment there but the thing is if britain fell US would have definetly fallen.
so US was something like lets help them fight so we dont have to.
wich is why US developed such a large army since then
anyways i still think US is going to iraq solely for economic reasons - oil
and the terrorism hunt or whatever is really for you, the citizen as terrorism cannot hurt a country as a whole but demorilize its people. bush does have to "hunt" down bin laden if he has any hopes of re-election doesnt he.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nem- I'm not trying to generalize the people. There are many old/new people groups in all of Europe. However, the governments of Europe that are against the US are typically of that Old Europe vein and, as such, have chosen to attack the US for trying to solve the problems they themselves started. New European nations may disagree with the US, but the core of the disagreement isn't Anti-Americanism, but rather policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many members of the German and French government did you talk to before declaring them (and by your logic, by this also 'us', the citizens of Germany and France) anti-americanistic?
A year ago, Germany was regarded one of the closest allies of the US. People on both sides of the Atlantic shed tears for the victims of 9/11. Germany practically ended its tradition of non-war-invovlement that had been in place since the end of WW2 to help in Bushs 'War on Terror'. Twelve months later, the exact same politicans are anti-americanistic. What the hell?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany has long been critical of Israel. Granted, a Zionist movement was in the works before the Nazis, but they certainly expedited the sepratists movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty much boiling with rage right now, because the only way I can read this is that you're calling this whole country quasi-fascist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to elaborate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->France has just been historically duplicitious. 'Save us from the Germans!' 'Screw you, we're going to extort massive funds from Germany despite your wishes. ' 'Save us from the Germans!' Get your military out of our country!' 'Help us in Vietnam' 'Screw your monetary system'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A <i>short</i> glimpse in a history book of your choice will show you that France was about to invade Germany twice during the time before the War, but was held back by England, which followed the appeasement policy.
For further historical discussions, open seperate threads, and start adding arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NATO does not have a military purpose anymore, but it certainly has a diplomatic and political role in the region.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The NATO is a militaric union. If its only purpose is diplomatic, it has already lost its purpose and should be replaced by a diplomatic union.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Security from whom? Its obvious the nature of warfare is chaning. There won't be anymore large scale wars like WW2 or even Vietnam. Small, regional conflicts with global consequences. Europe is benefitting from the War on Terror, even if they oppose it. Haven't you seen all the recent arrests of Al Qaeda members planning attacks on European cities? We're taking out the infastructure that lets them threaten YOUR country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This could get lengthy, and I see the rest is posting like wild, so I'll shorten this and assume the point to be valid (which I don't believe it is).
Then, however, please tell me how the United States can help the European countries in keeping their security. The destruction of the Al-Quaidas infrastructure was apparently not all that successfull, seeing how right now, there is currently an "elevated" danger of terrorist strikes even in YOUR country.
Anti-Terror warfare is, as you said yourself, no matter of large armies, but of small units and intelligence networks, of which Europe has lots.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for Iraq/Iran...
The US doctrine at the that time, considering the crumbling soviet union, was to establish regional superpowers who would control an area's politics that would result in a favorable climate for the US. Iraq was one such country.
And the way I see it, we made a mess with Iraq. We're cleaning it up. I think Europe should take notes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:purple'>*Nemesis Zero points at the 'Upcoming War in Iraq' thread, where he answered on this assumption numerous times.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany and France have established the EU to give themselves power. The whole charter is designed to support the French and Germans on the international stage. They are using the economic incentives of the EU to extort Foreign Policy compliance from would-be member nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, check your sources.
Apart from the fact that Western Germany wasn't even one of the first members of the Montan Union which later became the foundation of the European Union, Robert Schuman, the architect of the EU, clearly had a further ar prevention in mind when working on this system.
France and Germany considered each other arch enemies at the time. The idea of a kind of conspiracy can just not be held. As for the charter aimed at the needs of both countries, explain to me why Germany and France are paying the most in and recieving the least from the EU. Following that logic, Ireland would have to have created the EU to increase its economic growth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Europe controlled the world by military force and screwed everything up. Now the US is dealing with it. It has EVERYTHING to do with what is going on today.
The US, by contrast controls the world by Economic and cultural means. I highly suggest anyway looking for the truth on this matter read 'Whats so Great about America' by Dinesh D'Souza. The US doesn't station armies in countries to force those governments into adopting Pro-US policies, or establishes ceremonial governments for our own interest. Instead we, use access to our economic prosperity to get support, such as Chile. Even beyond the economy is the more powerful cultural draw. Walk into a hotel in Bangladesh and you're likely to hear the bellhop humming the theme to Titanic. The draw to America isn't just material- its the whole idea of living here. If you're born in the 3rd world, birth is destiny. In America, birth is nothing. You choose your life. That is an incredibly powerful idea that enraptures youth and frightens the control instruments of other countries, be them religious fascists or washed up superpowers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This can be subdivided in two parts - Dollar Imperialism (which is the term you're describing by the way the US are 'controlling') and the American Dream.
<i>Dollar Imperialism:</i>
You basically assume this to be a benevolent, non- or at least less violent method of ruling the world, as opposed to the previous 'European' Imperialism.
I'm actually quite happy you used Chile as example.
Chile, once one of the richest and most prosperous countries of Southern America, experienced a coup d'état at the 11th September of 1973 (oh the irony). A man called Augusto Pinochet, directely supported by the government of the USA, seized power in the formerly democratic country and began one of the most horribvle reigns in recent history.
Today, years after the end of the dictatorship of Pinochet, but not after the end of the influence of the Dollar Imperialism, which, as you said, gave Chile "access to our economic prosperity to get support", Chile is bankrupt. Nobody is allowed to obtain more than a thousand dollars per month, the economy is broken, famine plagues the country.
There is no such thing as a good and working rule of a single power over the rest of the world, no matter by whom.
<i>The American Dream:</i>
One of the most beautiful and at the same time silliest dreams in the world.
80% of the American wealth is in the hands of 20% of its population.
Every black in the urban ghettos, every arab who was imprisioned after 9/11 without of charges, every latino-American will tell you that birth is just as much destiny in the US as anywhere else.
I'm willing and happy to elaborate on this topic, but not in this frame, OK?
<b>Bathroom Monkey:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While I love such discussions, they're becoming intelectual masturbation when the topic at hand is of contemporary nature - the people on both sides of the fence are burried. Nobody alive can be blamed for their misdoings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on, Nem . . . that's a rather convenient philosophy, especially when you're talking about assigning blame. If it's still applicable to blame a former US administration (Yes, I know there is a lot of cross over, but it's not complete) for providing arms to the Middle East, then you simply can't draw a line in the sand and say "Everything beyond this point is immaterial", even when it is directly responsible for creating the environment which sent the US and Soviets scurrying to bolster their regional influence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a distinct difference between something that happened more than half a century ago, and something that happened twenty years ago: In the second case, the persons to blame can usually still be brought to justice.
I can't be blamed for what happened fifty years ago in my country, nor can anyone else born after that date. A discussion about (p.e.) the Third Reich and its crimes can be held and should be held, but one can not assign blame to anyone in there and then draw direct conclusions to contemporary events, whereas I can blame Rumsfeld for supplying the Iraq with Anthrax and then draw a direct conclusion to contemporary events - because the same actual person is involved.
By this, I do under no circumstances mean to neglect the grave mistakes of European colonialism, as I'll never neglect the terrible event called 'Shoah', but in the context of a debate about actual politic, and the 'New Europe' - 'Old Europe' discussion is one of them, they just don't have any argumentative value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point of this thread is about the 2 versions of europe and how that group of countries have affected the world. It's not about the US. There are other US-bashing threads to go write in <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we've had the same discussion because on any topic, Europe blames America, America blames Europe, and the original topic falls to "You're worse!" "No, YOU'RE worse" back-and-forth-- though most Europeans want to develop a gaping blind spot prior to WWII, and most Americans are perfectly happy to ignore large parts of the following 50 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nicely summed up.
I'll post this now, because I figure you're at page five by now, and i don't want to miss connection completely. More to come as soon as I can muster the strength.
[edit]<b>MonsE:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still maintain that european intransigence in the US' roll in the middle east is entirely due to their businesses running their governments; just like businesses run the governments in almost all democratic republics. In this case, it's euro governments having euro businesses build nuclear bombs for terrorist countries while simultaneously saying that we should not attack these terrorist countries in the region. Saying that the governments aren't at fault, it's the businesses is naive nonsense. Your governments were bought a long time ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We both completely agree here.
Basically, we both believe that some 'government inc.'s are trying different stuff, and that some of them are 'accidentaly' doing the right thing, only that we can't find consensus about which of them happen to do the right thing, correct?
Then, we're at least in this topic standing on the same side, because then Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, China, and the USA are equally bigot.
Elf Acquitaine is pumping Iraqian oil, Lookheed is preparing for new all-time highs in their arms sections.
Germany tried to stay neutral territory in the War on Terrorism, the Pentagon is training the next Bin Laden in a Hungarian village.
To us, there can be no New or Old Europe, but simply some political scumbags, and the question what to do about Hussein - which isn't to be debated in this topic.[/edit]
By the way, I hereby promise never to write this much in a single post again. Good night.
Yes, Europe is a continent. Yes there is east and west. New and Old are terms used to describe the traditional roles of certain countries in Europe. Old refers to previous super powers and those countries which were primarly involved in Europes 'achievments'. New is most often used to describe those nations recently freed from Socialism or nations that are emerging from the acceptance of their new role in the world.
Nem:
Theres a lot there to respond to so I'll probably do this peicemeal, since i don't have time for a lengthy response now.
First, thank you for demonstrating the logic of Anti-Americanism in Europe and the Radical Left. You are judging America on a Utopian standard, and not a real world standard. Though we may have an unequal distribution of wealth (which I think is perfectly fine in my opinion, so long as those who want to move up can), we still have greater freedoms and choices than any culture in history.
The American Dream does it exsist. It isn't a 1 generation process, which you seem to assume it is. Chances are, if you ARE born in a poor socioeconomic class, you won't move all the way up to the top, IF you have the hard work and dedication to move up. To say that it doesn't exsist is a slap in the face of every immigrant descendant in America. Personally, my great grandparents came to America like the rest of the Irish: poor. My grandparents lived in lower class city areas. My parents lived in middle class philadelphia and lower class suburbia. I live in Upper Middle class suburbia. Its a gradual process. And the American dream is not only in America. Its become the hallmark of liberal, capitalist democracies like America.
Birth is Destiny isn't the American dream. Its a trademark of the life granted if one dreams the American dream. If I lived in India, my parents would choose who I married, choose my future profession, and ultimately choose my life. I'd rarely leave my home area, not out of lack means, but out of lack of reason to. In the Islamic world, my life would be chosen for me as well. If I were a woman, I'd be expected to learn to be a good wife and mother, to be submissive to my husband, when my parents finally pick him out.
You blurred 2 great attributes of America into 1 and essentially denied there exsistence: Social Mobility and Personal Choice.
And I need to agree with Monse- I'm more irritated at the hypocrisy of Europe. I'll admit, Germany is no where near as bad as France is. Whereas Germany has always been a good ally, and this current tiff is an abberition, France has never accepted anything the modern US has done, unless its been getting Germans out of Paris. I can understand if this were a policy disagreement, but France (and to a certain extent Germany) have put economic gain (France is one of Iraq's best trading partners) ahead of the security of the United States.
And yes, there was an outpouring of sympathy for the United States, until the US wanted to address the causes of Islamic Fundamentalism rather than try to prevent direct actions.
Oh, and Sorry about the Germany/Israel comment. I meant France, I confused my sources. France has encouraged the growth of radical Islam through the government funding of Mosques and education centers, despite the seperation of Church and State. Frances was also the site of numerous mini-riots and violence against Jews. I'm thinking specifically of an instance where a group of French men chased after a Hebrew school bus, pelting rocks at it. You guys are quasi-socialist, not fascists :-P Gotta love that 50% income tax. But thats a different topic. Oh, and nothing I'm writing is intended as a personal attack, though I am writing some rather nasty and generalized things about Europe . We can't hope to see issues impartially if we use emotions in the analysis, something most people (including myself) tend to do.
Secondly, I wanna say this: Imperialism sucks. Whether by the US, Europe, or any other country, Imperialism sucks. If you ask me, the US and Europe countries are basically the same when it comes to this. I hate them all equally for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The American Dream does it exsist. It isn't a 1 generation process, which you seem to assume it is. Chances are, if you ARE born in a poor socioeconomic class, you won't move all the way up to the top, IF you have the hard work and dedication to move up. To say that it doesn't exsist is a slap in the face of every immigrant descendant in America. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then they should consider themselves slapped. The whole principle of becoming rich and "living the American dream" is fundamentally scewed. It is assumed that everyone can be rich. How can that be? There just isn't enough money for everyone to be a millionaire and still have that money be worth something. Remember what happened the last time everyone got rich? GREAT DEPRESSION!
France, however, their politicians have a knack of baking their own cakes. I think France policy alone is the greatest reason to a LACK of unity in europe. Half of EU members seem to support US policy on IRAQ, other half does not. They really have this power game running for Africa. Why they even invited the scorned Mobuto to a meeting in their country, in spite of him not being welcome in EU. H4x!
France has very much "ownership" feelings of EU since they were the creators of it originally. I doubt they will make themselves useless all of a sudden.
Yes, the American Dream is like a huge Pyramid Game. It's a nice illusion to live by, but for most it IS an illusion. The power to do what you want when you want (or the belief that you can do) seems to me to be a corrupting thing. But that's digressing a bit from this thread's topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nem, the main problem with your Chile example is that it occurred under the watch of a known criminal, Richard Nixon. Anything that lying POS touched went to hell. You can't use him as the example of 225 years of American governmental style. His was an abberation, which has led to the average US citizen's mistrust of government in general. I would still classify him and his 6 years in office as the exception to the rule. More importantly, it was Dollar Capitalism that ended the cold war, no matter what your commie (<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) friends want to believe. The russkie desire for Levis jeans and Pamela Lee overcame what the threat of nuclear conflaguration could not. It's the same reason we won all the Vietnam battles, lost the war, then won the peace and have that country begging for coca cola and nikes. I'm really not going anywhere with this except asking that you take off your May Day-colored glasses <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And darnit, are they still teaching people that Europe is a continent? How exactly is that the case? Eurasia is a continent, Europe is a bunch of people that want to look down on their neighboors and pretend they live on a different landmass. It's ridiculous. I am hereby declaring my cubical a continent.
Not a continent. Not a continent. Not a continent. Not a continent. Not a continent.
The American dream thing is of course not an illusion, and to say otherwise is just to show off how jaded a teenager you are, or how little experience you have in the world. There are far more upwardly mobile US citizens than downwordly. Hell, in a recession our economy is still growing, and people are still moving above their born stratas. My parents were working class and their combined incomes add up to about 1/4 of my current one. I wanted to be successful, and America gives you that capability if you really want to be. Before you go about a bunch of poor black people that you've never met, come work with a bunch of guys I've worked with who started off in bad ghettos or housing projects and had the wherewithal to pull themselves out. They wanted it, and they got it. You can do that in America, or in any free society.
Gah. Totally off-topic now. Get back to the bit about europeans being hypocritic swine, I liked that bit much better...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, Europe is a continent. Yes there is east and west. New and Old are terms used to describe the traditional roles of certain countries in Europe. Old refers to previous super powers and those countries which were primarly involved in Europes 'achievments'. New is most often used to describe those nations recently freed from Socialism or nations that are emerging from the acceptance of their new role in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terms used by <b>who</b>? Noone uses those terms. People use 'Western Europe' and 'Eastern Europe'. And socialism is still very much alive the world over, thank you very much. What they were freed from was Soviet oppression and dictators, not a political movement.
Also MonsE (can I call you MonsE? You call me Orc <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), if Europe is not a continent, then what is it? It's not comparable to the US, as Europe is a group of country's varying strongly in culture, language, governments, political movements, etc. America is... well lets face it, a collection of former colonies from European country's. (Even though divided into states, still one country with one government.) All with the same language (aside from minorities), and culture... Well lets not get into that <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> (no offence, of course. But then again, after seeing an admin calling an entire continent (yes, continent continent continent <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) a 'hypocritic swine' I don't think this can be considered offensive.)
And I just like getting people riled up with the swine bit.
I love europeans - if it wasn't for you prosecuting my ancestors, saying their religions were false and their customs unacceptable, and in the case of the scotsmen actually arresting them and sending them to the penal colonies in what became Georgia, I wouldn't be an American today. So thanks fellas! Too bad your folks all toed the line, or you'd be over here too...
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
omg, check your facts, we (the freaky deaky Dutch) never did that. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
btw, there isn't such a beast as a "European". (most) Americans are anglo-saxons, but Europe's just a lot more diverse and that's why we still are independent countries instead of a true "union".
The binding factor is that they are all a part of Western civilisation, but - to me - that also includes the US, Canada, Australia and New zealand.
O no, you just managed to opress most of Africa.
What on earth are you talking about? We only had 1 colony in Africa, blame the French and British!
..
<i>Indonesia</i> is where we did the oppressing <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Europe IS a CONTINENT
its NOT an UNION of countries
its NOT a country
its NOT a culture
and when you say Europe you either refer to the land mass or you refer to all the countries on that land mass wich have almost NOTHING in common
not languages, not culture, not nothing
there is no US vs Europe struggle for power or i donno what else i've read here
because Europe is not a country
EU (European Union) is a union of countries !!!
EU is NOT Europe
more than that EU is a union of INDEPENDENT countries (as in they each do wt f they want when they want - so dont think its like the US divided into states cause its not) in west europe
you know west and east europe ... one is to the left the other to the right
and there is no new and old europe ... geez