AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited March 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Mar 12 2003, 03:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Mar 12 2003, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The biggest problem is, why for example would Finland(fairly succesful and "rich" country) want to share its resources with poorer European countries? US never had this problem, because it was one and whole from the beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know, I seem to remember a little tiff between the "united" states a little while ago....O yeah! Now I remember! CIVIL WAR! The "united" states are hardly ever united when you really look at it.
The southern states in particularly have historically considered themselves to be seperate entities from the rest of the country, and today, with capitalist institutions on the go so much, the States have resorted to open warfare and competing for Factories and such with tax cuts, free land, and the like, just so all the good jobs aren't taken down to mexico.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Mar 12 2003, 03:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Mar 12 2003, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know, I seem to remember a little tiff between the "united" states a little while ago....O yeah! Now I remember! CIVIL WAR! The "united" states are hardly ever united when you really look at it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> excuse me you did say "CIVIL WAR" didnt you ?
well civil war can only be inside one country so the US was 1 country and excuse me but the US does have a central government with more power than any individual state doesnt 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-->and excuse me but the US does have a central government with more power than any individual state doesnt it ?
well there is no such thing in Europe <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Errr, correct. Which was my original point on why the EU is doomed to failure in its current evolution. Thanks!
<!--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 was trying to say that even if the European States became "United" it would solve nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't agree. Typically, uniting squabbling peoples tends to solve things. Can you elaborate more?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for your analogy about europe... where do you think Jammer picked up the habit? The whole world was 'discovered' and renamed by europeans. According to europe, at least... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well if you go to somewhere where europeans discovered and renamed something and ask what this place is called you will get the europeans renamed version
while if you go to europe and ask where new and old europe is you will most likely be called stupid and get a kick in the butt
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 04:14 PM)</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--> I was trying to say that even if the European States became "United" it would solve nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't agree. Typically, uniting squabbling peoples tends to solve things. Can you elaborate more? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OK, maybe it would solve something, but it certainly wouldn't make a European think he's a "European" instead of a Frenchman or Italian, and pretty soon you're there is gonna be quibling between the former states, and then you're gonna have a war on your hands. Total amount of stuff solved=not much.
Well Allurhive, I'm glad you came around to seeing it my way <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Johny Cage, you seem to be incredibly worked up over this. The point of old or new europe is (if you go back and read this whole thread) something <i>I never said</i>. My point is that I do not distinguish between any parts of europe, as you're all bound by the same history. My point is that europe as a whole is badly behaved group of countries with a long history of hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe. What we as Americans find so irritating, and what Jammer brought up so well originally, is that after 3000 years of horrible behavior, european people finally feel some guilt over it; however, ignoring your recent past and suddenly protraying the US as a demon and europe as a saint is ludicrous. As I've said before, it's the hypocricy that erks us. That and the fact that you're often so patronizing about it. To us, and to the 'new EU' (not new europe) members of eastern europe. France has the gaul (get it, get it?) to tell us that iraq should not be invaded as it simultaneously invades the ivory coast. That's just an example, because I hate france, but you get my drift.
Talk to jammer about old/new europe, that was his point. Mine is just about europe.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ahhh. Good point! I should have explained the colonialism issue better: we revolted and threw the europeans (british) out 228 years ago though, and were really not a unified colony for very long. Most european colonies were under the boot of your continent (heh heh) for hundreds of years though, all the way up into the 80's in many cases of Africa, but certainly into the late 40's for most others. That's 300 to 400 years of not having self-rule; it's no surprise that most former colony's governments are, to this day, cesspools. All they ever learned of rule came from the barrel of a gun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I know this is rather old, but it simply caught my eye.
Somehow I find that your analogies are severly lacking here Monse. Reading it your way, I get the impression you think of the USA as of the many colonies conquered and suppressed by the "bad" european countries. As far as I know, the USA was founded by settlers from europe which didn't want to bear the oppression from afar ANYMORE. Its not as if they were a seperate, free country to begin with like most other colonies. Now, I'm not going to say anything about the colonies thing was good or that europe is not to blame for ALOT of the bad things happening these days, but get this straight:
You are not an opressed state that broke free from a reign of terror imposed on it by nations far away. You are simply a nation of EUROPEANS that wanted their own country and were joined by whole bunch of people across the world because you managed to break free and establish a solid power base.
You are not a victim, you are part of us.
DISCLAIMER: All above personalizing was merely for rethoric purpose, as I couldn't care less about nations, countries and borders in general, we're all just human.
I can see your point, and I didn't want to give the impression that Americans feel victimized by europe or like we have the rights to complain like the canadian inuit, american indian, or australian aborigine. Not my thought at all. Actually, you will find me posting my thanks to europe for oppressing my ancestors in europe and forcing them to move to the new world elsewhere in the discussion forums.
However - it is a true statement that US colonialists were oppressed and broke away accordingly from britain.
However, to say we are part of you (of 'us' as you put it), is to have a lack of understanding about america. The melting pot is not just hyperbole, it's a good description of the country. It's very, very heterogenous, and getting more so all the time. To say America is a nation of europeans was only correct a long time ago. No more though, and likely never again, as the migrations to the US from europe have slowed to a trickle. It's been 225 years europe, your lease is long since expired, and we are not your wayward children.
And honestly, I'd have to give the UK credit or blame for most early things american. They were our shapers originally. But there have been too many waves of immigration since then to make it so black and white.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 09:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 09:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point is that europe as a whole is badly behaved group of countries with a long history of hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe. What we as Americans find so irritating, and what Jammer brought up so well originally, is that after 3000 years of horrible behavior, european people finally feel some guilt over it; however, ignoring your recent past and suddenly protraying the US as a demon and europe as a saint is ludicrous. As I've said before, it's the hypocricy that erks us. That and the fact that you're often so patronizing about it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, gee, hate to double post here, but I lack the ambition to re-edit that post to contain this quote as well.
Point taken, europe is a bunch of countries behaving bad to downright sick over the course of its history. But, you admitted yourself, that slowly europe is trying to learn from its mistakes.
Now, to get to the point, maybe... just MAYBE the USA is right NOW doing everything you described as part of europes past, to be specific "hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe"? Could it be then that this is one of the reasons europe is concerned about some US decisissions, seeing how they made all these mistakes before (and god, it were alot)?
Trying to be the saint in this thing definitely is not the right way to go for europe, but don't you think that saying "Hey, don't do that ****, we tried and it only makes matters worse" to the US is the samrt thing to do, if you have already made many mistakes and try to avoid having them happen again?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I've said before, it's the hypocricy that erks us. That and the fact that you're often so patronizing about it. To us, and to the 'new EU' (not new europe) members of eastern europe. France has the gaul (get it, get it?) to tell us that iraq should not be invaded as it simultaneously invades the ivory coast. That's just an example, because I hate france, but you get my drift. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol @ France. We agree on something at least (though I specifically dont like their politicians I dont nurture a general francophobia). Now you must separate between what the average Joe says and thinks about America. Now I come from an upbringing where America Bashing was the grown-up's favourite pastime and we kids where playing "Evil Polluting Capitalist vs. Freedom Fighters". Really, we did, except we called EPC for a specific company around here (oil and gas naturally). And all things East Bloc was goody goody. Well except for my math teacher. She had actually been to moscow at the Olympics and was quite razzed about not being allowed to go anywhere alone. I think she snapped out of it then. That aside, I know how ridiculously blue eyed those grownups where.
And that aside aside, the point for my whole post, there's no reason for the next person I meet on the street to feel like a hypocrite because he or she questions the idea, the motives behind US's wish for a war versus Iraq. It wasn't HIM or HER who invaded former colonies or butchered 1000s or 10000s of civilians in far away countries in the sake of territory and power. When Germany refuses to be in any kind of war, or even support it, I know why. When France does it, they're just being cocky (The symbolic gaul **** if you want). They = gov't. Average Jarre Frenchman may know something may not know something about his own government's hypocracy. Still, he can have his own opinion and be entitled to them and they can be very valid!
Alas, almost everyone carries an opinion of the EU, and all they hear from politicians is that centralized government in Europe is BAAAAAAAAAAAD BAD BAD BAAAAAAAAAAD. Not really why, but why ? Because those politicians are the ones that will lose most if a centralized government will be instigated. It will never. France will insist on the official european language must be french, that the first president will be a frenchman (and that he will sit for 12 years) and German plus UK will refuse and it wont go anywhere anyways.
So the way to do it now is to align more culturally and economically. Slowly will grow up a new generation of politicians who will have much to gain from the new system. And work harder for it. For now I think most importantly that EU's foreign policy should be decided upon on consensus. Throw 15 foreign ministers into the same room. No one leaves untill consensus is reached. No one is allowed to act independantly. It's really embarassing to hear how they bicker and squabble on open screen as a supposed "Union". Geez. Last time was Yoguslavia - EU was almost paralyzed and didnt do squat as a collective, but small piecemeal operations under UN.
<!--QuoteBegin--Call:1800-MESSIAH+Mar 12 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Call:1800-MESSIAH @ Mar 12 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Trying to be the saint in this thing definitely is not the right way to go for europe, but don't you think that saying "Hey, don't do that ****, we tried and it only makes matters worse" to the US is the samrt thing to do, if you have already made many mistakes and try to avoid having them happen again? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Excellent point! What will mucking about in the Middle East do THIS time that didn't fail previously? Well history isn't DOOMING it to failure. That's what we got history for, teaching us to try new stuff sometimes. So what ever sneaky plans US has drawn up for this war, they better make sure the end result is different from what earlier european colonialist powers did in the Middle-East. We really don't need another ****-up as the creation of Israel was for the political climate of the Middle East was.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, to say we are part of you (of 'us' as you put it), is to have a lack of understanding about america. The melting pot is not just hyperbole, it's a good description of the country. It's very, very heterogenous, and getting more so all the time. To say America is a nation of europeans was only correct a long time ago. No more though, and likely never again, as the migrations to the US from europe have slowed to a trickle. It's been 225 years europe, your lease is long since expired, and we are not your wayward children. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, darnit, looks like we agree after all and I was preparing for a mouth-washing with long lasting discussion <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You are right, of course, that the USA today is not comparable to what it was before, but there is no point in denying that it was founded mainly by european people (british, if you like). Although I have to admit there must have been some sort of difference in mentality back in the days of the begining, otherwise the people woldn't have left europe in the first place.
As for the wayward child part... you know how parents are, they just can't let go... especially if their children got rich and famous and could give them some of their money... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Call:1800-MESSIAH+Mar 12 2003, 11:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Call:1800-MESSIAH @ Mar 12 2003, 11:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are right, of course, that the USA today is not comparable to what it was before, but there is no point in denying that it was founded mainly by european people (british, if you like). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm britain didnt create america. There was a lot of warring going on there. French colonies, british colonies, swedish colonies, spanish colonies, dutch colonies. I think they were the only ones left with any power before they got tipped into the sea.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 12 2003, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 12 2003, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Call:1800-MESSIAH+Mar 12 2003, 11:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Call:1800-MESSIAH @ Mar 12 2003, 11:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are right, of course, that the USA today is not comparable to what it was before, but there is no point in denying that it was founded mainly by european people (british, if you like). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm britain didnt create america. There was a lot of warring going on there. French colonies, british colonies, swedish colonies, spanish colonies, dutch colonies. I think they were the only ones left with any power before they got tipped into the sea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It most certaintly did. He meant not as "america" as you think of a civilized contenent, but the "USA".
Britian created "USA", inadvertantly at that, but created it nonetheless.
And just because I feel like telling you all, America was first settled by the Spanish.
Before we get into discussing wich country created the USA any further, let me explain, that I know how America was founded (had history after all) and only put that because Monse was speaking of the British involvement. So... back on topic... eh, whatever that was <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Mar 12 2003, 03:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Mar 12 2003, 03:52 AM)</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-->Do you realize that America has much more to gain by breaking up Microsoft and allowing a TON of competition to fight for it than to let a big **** company wax fat?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just don't get it. True, the system would benefit by allowing competition, but the powers-that-be wouldn't. They would have no more large corporations to give them money, and guess who appoints the upholders-of-the-law? The said powers do, of course! The whole system is corrupt. From the head of it, to the lowest level.
<!--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-->And, politicians don't go into higher politics(like the Supreme Court) just to be courrupted. It takes YEARS on end to get there, not to mention a certain degree of luck. If a person was aiming to be a Justice, they wouldn't be aiming for money. Far more powerful things to do than hoard money. You do realize that, don't you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I doubt anyone goes into anything just to be corrupted, but it happens, and when it does, the rest of the US has to deal with it. And even if they weren't corrupt, there's always someone inteh chain of comand that is.
<!--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-->Man, not that I am trying to attack you here, but honestly, you are just some angry teenage kid who hates the world(or most of it), aren't you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Does that matter? Does that make my opinions any less valid? HELL NO. You'll not hear me deny that I am an angsty teenager disallusioned with the system, but you'll also not hear me care about motive. Not just mine, ANYONE'S. Motive doesn't matter, facts do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Not only would the system benifit from the breakup of microsoft, but the powers would also.
Instead of having one big company giving them money, it will become many small companies giving them money. And contrary to what you think, an industry that is "donating" cash to a politician is much more profitible than a single corporation.
It may be corrupt, but corrupt in favor of growth, thankfully.
Amd while there is always that one person who is corrupt, those people never last for long.
And finnally, it doesn't matter your age or baises, but it definatly explains your logic.
I'm not trying to make everyone talk about the subjects I have put below - I would just like to get back to the topic that this thread was created to deal with.
One does wonder why it is really important if Europe is really a continent or not, why does it matter that Europeans have done bad things in the past, and does it really matter who formed the United States
They are not part of the discussion at hand which is about Europe, the peninsular if it really matters that much, and its politcal split.
Prehaps maybe some discussion on why there seem to be such differing views between the countries, prehaps some views from Europeans as to what their countries seem to be saying about things.
Maybe some ideas from Non-Europeans as to why they think this has happened, how it could be resolved.
How this split could affect the idea of a single EU foreign policy and the European Rapid Defence Force.
Could this be the end of the EU as we know it?
Could this European "problem" have major consequences upon the United Nations?
Would this split in Europe make the United States think twice about its course of action, or will it continue on regardless.
And maybe - just maybe a bit about the history of Europe as long as it relates to the political split.
That was the discussion - any chance of people getting back to it?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 12:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point is that europe as a whole is badly behaved group of countries with a long history of hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since you are obviously a clever chap, you realize that you are talking about things of past. Imperialism was a product of its own time. You can't fault european countries for doing it because by the standards of that time, it wasn't wrong in the sense that we now see it. It continued for longer than it should have been necessary. However, like all systems, imperialism had its momentum and stopping it wasn't a matter of simply proclaiming it wrong. Even with its foundations gone, people who profited from it tried to hold on to it.
However, the way I see it, USA inherited the European legacy. By actively becoming the leading western faction, US claimed control over the foreign interests of now bankrupt and beaten Europe. Too bad that the world went into the Cold War which forced US to play the global game of chess with USSR. Newly independent states were the happy winners for the contest where they chose the pawns.
So I'm not claiming that US is to blame for the state of the world. But neither is Europe. European imperialism laid the foundation, economical imbalance, power politics of the Cold War and the share of roles in global economy finished the job. So, yes, in the end, Europeans are to blame. There were very, very bad men among them in those times. If they just hadn't gone through with imperialism, all would be peachy. We would probably have the world's oldest democracies in the Middle-East. However, I would like to put my money on the theory that times back then were that the strongest and fittest put the weaker and less adept under their heel. Europeans were those guys. But people responsible lived in a completely different world and are long gone.
Okay, guess I'll try to be on topic here for once.
Let's start off with what caused this whole thing, which is incidently the first thing I do not understand about this it all, the war in Iraq. It came to me as an utter suprise when it was suddenly anounced that the USA were going to be pushing matters in Iraq. There has not been any talk of it before, the War on Terrorism ruled the media, incarnated as the bombing of Afganisthan. When it was over there was about two weeks of silence about matters in the middle east, except of course for the occasional Isreal reports, and then suddenly everyone's attention shifted to Iraq, as the USA brought the War on Terrorism to Iraq. I'm not trying to blame anyone here, I just don't understand it. Why now?
Now, why is Europe split about this? Simple: We're talking about war here. Many people in Europe were already indifferent about the war in Afganisthan, but it was supported mainly due to the terrible incident on 9/11, which gave the USA the oppotunity to play its sympathy card. Now, in Iraq, many people fail to see the connection to the War on Terrorism and it all seens as if the US was pushing matters to hard. There are those countries who still stand besides the original plan and those who don't because they do not see a justified connection to the War on Terrorism or see other alternatives.
How the sentiment in Europe in general is, I can't really tell you. If I can believe the media, even in those countries, whose governments support the war, there is a strong following against the war. Here in Germany I can definetly say that most people do not support this war. Many people who said nuke Afganisthan off the map are now accusing the USA off "going for oil" or similar things. I do not even know one person in Germany that would support the war, personally that is.
Now, since we all know public opinion doesn't matter to the politicians, the question arises, what do the powers tha be think (and no, I'm not talking about the dev team here)? This leads me to the second thing in this recent crisis which came as a shock to me. The government somehow seems to think the same way I do for once. I was utterly supprised to here that there would be absolutely no support in Iraq in case of a war. As I said, I do not know, why the German government opposes this so strongly, but I am happy that it does. Since I don't even know what makes my own government tick, don't even start about France or Russia.
One thing that worries me though is the part that Britain has played thus far. While the USA claim that Sadam is an evil dictator, threatening the world at large, I have not yet heard anything likewise from the British side. It almost looks as if they choose to side with the USA no matter what. God, it didn't even hear a British politician say "Sadam is evil" yet. They just seems to be going along without stating their view.
Now, about this "New Europe", "Old Europe" stuff. I still didn't quite grasp what was meant with that. So far the only thing that determines wether a country is old or new Europe is its sentiment concerning the war in Iraq. Everyone who does as the US says is New Europe and everyone who dares oppose is Old Europe? Is this what it really is supposed to mean? Because if it does, I will gladly claim to be as Old School European as it gets.
So, this is my view on things, without actually bringing much of my view into it. As you see I am fairly clueless when it comes to reasons as I do not trust the media or the government, especially when it agrees with me. Something about all of this severly looks like "Devil's Advocat"... then again, I didn't see Al Pacino yet... Feel free to enlighten me with what it all really is like. I'm especially fond of any worldwide conspiracy you can tie into this... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Mar 12 2003, 05:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 12 2003, 05:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> couldn't be more wrong.
Not only would the system benifit from the breakup of microsoft, but the powers would also.
Instead of having one big company giving them money, it will become many small companies giving them money. And contrary to what you think, an industry that is "donating" cash to a politician is much more profitible than a single corporation.
It may be corrupt, but corrupt in favor of growth, thankfully.
Amd while there is always that one person who is corrupt, those people never last for long.
And finnally, it doesn't matter your age or baises, but it definatly explains your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> NO NO NO!!!!
If there were many companies all competing fairly, why would they need to give money to politicians? If the system works, there is ne need for corruption! But the system doesn't work, there will always be a trust in some form, and that trust will always have to skirt the law to stay in power, and as the final link in the chain, there will always be someone at the top level to take the money, or, failing that, a million subordonates doing the job of the man at the top.
<!--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-->Since you are obviously a clever chap, you realize that you are talking about things of past. Imperialism was a product of its own time. You can't fault european countries for doing it because by the standards of that time, it wasn't wrong in the sense that we now see it. It continued for longer than it should have been necessary. However, like all systems, imperialism had its momentum and stopping it wasn't a matter of simply proclaiming it wrong. Even with its foundations gone, people who profited from it tried to hold on to it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
France is in Africa RIGHT NOW flexing its muscles in the ivory Coast, a former colony. This very second. It's not in the past, it's happening. The Russians (who will undoubtedly be in the EU within the next 5 years, but can certainly be considered europeans) are in Chechnya right now slaughtering people. Right now. Britain in the falkland islands? Should I go on about the end of imperialism?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the US policy towards Iraq. I have no problem with us freeing people from horrible dictatorships and leaving democracy in our wake (germany, italy, japan, etc.), but I wish we applied it more evenly to the world - not just when it was also economically and militarily feasible. Fortunately the US has been good about leaving those countries with their own working government after removing the scum and rebuilding their infrastructure. But europe? Self interest first no matter what, and only out of the country when the natives throw you out, or you've sucked it dry and don't want it anymore.
Historically at least. Perhaps I'm wrong for the future. Just going off 3000 continous years of Continental examples...
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the US policy towards Iraq. I have no problem with us freeing people from horrible dictatorships and leaving democracy in our wake (germany, italy, japan, etc.), but I wish we applied it more evenly to the world - not just when it was also economically and militarily feasible. Fortunately the US has been good about leaving those countries with their own working government after removing the scum and rebuilding their infrastructure. But europe? Self interest first no matter what, and only out of the country when the natives throw you out, or you've sucked it dry and don't want it anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We've been good about leaving countries we "free from horrible dictatorships"? Don't make me laugh!
First off, the only people we've "freed" have been in Cuba and the Phillipeens, and I'm pretty sure Spain wasn't a "horrible dictatorship", and we sure as hell didn't leave them alone to their own devices, we only left when we were kicked out.
And then we freed Hawaii from......um.......the horrible......PINEAPPLE KING! Yeah! That's the ticket!
Yeeeeeaaahhhhh allurhive... ehhh, what? Seriously dude, when 10 people post interesting and insightful comments, and then you post weird jibberjabber without using any grammar or basic grasp of english, it screws the thread up. Either start making sense and not typing in all leet caps, or I'm going to have to pull your posting rights from the discussion area. You basically violate the topic rules every time you post...
The US has a fairly good record for freeing countries which we invade (generally after they invade their neighbors) <i>with our standing army</i>, yes. The CIA has an absolutely horrible track record for botching "regime change" operations. The war in Afghanistan might not have been necessary if the CIA hadn't mucked about supplying weapons to Afghan insurgents during the Soviet occupation. What the heck was the original topic of this thread? I've forgotten and I just read this whole thing today...
All the things I thought of replying to MonsE have already been said now... Ah well.
To get back on to the original topic;
What do you think of New Europe. I think it's great, and I hope that their addition to the EU will help them develop and become as wealthy as the other European country's. Because THAT is what the EU is all about. Not to unify Europe (except in currency, but even the euro is not obligatory), not to replace any military organization, it's all economic & supportive. It is about sacrifice for the rich country's (there are huge consequences for lets say dutch farmers who now have more competetion) so that other European countries can develop. Where's the greed in that?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 06:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 06:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> France is in Africa RIGHT NOW flexing its muscles in the ivory Coast, a former colony. This very second. It's not in the past, it's happening. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't have that much knowledge about the situation in Ivory Coast, but from what I've gathered, French actions in Ivory coast are supported by the Security Council of UN, African Union and US. Of course they are in there because they are protecting their interests, but also because there are still 12 000 French citizens in the country. French troops are there trying to enforce peace. Yes, the reasons for it are their own interests, but still, that's what they are trying to do.
<!--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 Russians (who will undoubtedly be in the EU within the next 5 years, but can certainly be considered europeans) are in Chechnya right now slaughtering people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, in my opinion Russians can't be considered European. Yes, they are focusing on the work with EU and Nato and they are leaning more to their west than east, but Russia is still a country that spans through the whole Eurasian continent.
About Chechnya, well it sucks. But it is a domestic crisis and therefore the way international community can affect Russian policy towards it, is very limited. Russia is dealing with a domestic crisis, Chechnya isn't independent and the way Russians like to see it, all they are doing is killing terrorists. It is wrong in so many levels, but since it is a domestic situation, there's not much you can do about it. And they have been criticised about it, but what else there is to do?
<!--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-->Right now. Britain in the falkland islands? Should I go on about the end of imperialism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have some recollection about Falklands being on the papers in the recent past, but don't really remember what it was about. Care to enlighten me?
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, I seem to remember a little tiff between the "united" states a little while ago....O yeah! Now I remember! CIVIL WAR! The "united" states are hardly ever united when you really look at it.
The southern states in particularly have historically considered themselves to be seperate entities from the rest of the country, and today, with capitalist institutions on the go so much, the States have resorted to open warfare and competing for Factories and such with tax cuts, free land, and the like, just so all the good jobs aren't taken down to mexico.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
excuse me you did say "CIVIL WAR" didnt you ?
well civil war can only be inside one country so the US was 1 country
and excuse me but the US does have a central government with more power than any individual state doesnt it ?
well there is no such thing in Europe
well there is no such thing in Europe <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Errr, correct. Which was my original point on why the EU is doomed to failure in its current evolution. Thanks!
<!--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 was trying to say that even if the European States became "United" it would solve nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't agree. Typically, uniting squabbling peoples tends to solve things. Can you elaborate more?
...
and I still believe Europe is a continent!
well if you go to somewhere where europeans discovered and renamed something and ask what this place is called you will get the europeans renamed version
while if you go to europe and ask where new and old europe is you will most likely be called stupid and get a kick in the butt
wanna prove me wrong ?
And I don't agree. Typically, uniting squabbling peoples tends to solve things. Can you elaborate more? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, maybe it would solve something, but it certainly wouldn't make a European think he's a "European" instead of a Frenchman or Italian, and pretty soon you're there is gonna be quibling between the former states, and then you're gonna have a war on your hands. Total amount of stuff solved=not much.
Johny Cage, you seem to be incredibly worked up over this. The point of old or new europe is (if you go back and read this whole thread) something <i>I never said</i>. My point is that I do not distinguish between any parts of europe, as you're all bound by the same history. My point is that europe as a whole is badly behaved group of countries with a long history of hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe. What we as Americans find so irritating, and what Jammer brought up so well originally, is that after 3000 years of horrible behavior, european people finally feel some guilt over it; however, ignoring your recent past and suddenly protraying the US as a demon and europe as a saint is ludicrous. As I've said before, it's the hypocricy that erks us. That and the fact that you're often so patronizing about it. To us, and to the 'new EU' (not new europe) members of eastern europe. France has the gaul (get it, get it?) to tell us that iraq should not be invaded as it simultaneously invades the ivory coast. That's just an example, because I hate france, but you get my drift.
Talk to jammer about old/new europe, that was his point. Mine is just about europe.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Okay, I know this is rather old, but it simply caught my eye.
Somehow I find that your analogies are severly lacking here Monse. Reading it your way, I get the impression you think of the USA as of the many colonies conquered and suppressed by the "bad" european countries. As far as I know, the USA was founded by settlers from europe which didn't want to bear the oppression from afar ANYMORE. Its not as if they were a seperate, free country to begin with like most other colonies.
Now, I'm not going to say anything about the colonies thing was good or that europe is not to blame for ALOT of the bad things happening these days, but get this straight:
You are not an opressed state that broke free from a reign of terror imposed on it by nations far away. You are simply a nation of EUROPEANS that wanted their own country and were joined by whole bunch of people across the world because you managed to break free and establish a solid power base.
You are not a victim, you are part of us.
DISCLAIMER: All above personalizing was merely for rethoric purpose, as I couldn't care less about nations, countries and borders in general, we're all just human.
However - it is a true statement that US colonialists were oppressed and broke away accordingly from britain.
However, to say we are part of you (of 'us' as you put it), is to have a lack of understanding about america. The melting pot is not just hyperbole, it's a good description of the country. It's very, very heterogenous, and getting more so all the time. To say America is a nation of europeans was only correct a long time ago. No more though, and likely never again, as the migrations to the US from europe have slowed to a trickle. It's been 225 years europe, your lease is long since expired, and we are not your wayward children.
And honestly, I'd have to give the UK credit or blame for most early things american. They were our shapers originally. But there have been too many waves of immigration since then to make it so black and white.
Uh, gee, hate to double post here, but I lack the ambition to re-edit that post to contain this quote as well.
Point taken, europe is a bunch of countries behaving bad to downright sick over the course of its history.
But, you admitted yourself, that slowly europe is trying to learn from its mistakes.
Now, to get to the point, maybe... just MAYBE the USA is right NOW doing everything you described as part of europes past, to be specific "hurting itself, its neighbors, and people just minding their own business on the other side of the globe"?
Could it be then that this is one of the reasons europe is concerned about some US decisissions, seeing how they made all these mistakes before (and god, it were alot)?
Trying to be the saint in this thing definitely is not the right way to go for europe, but don't you think that saying "Hey, don't do that ****, we tried and it only makes matters worse" to the US is the samrt thing to do, if you have already made many mistakes and try to avoid having them happen again?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol @ France. We agree on something at least (though I specifically dont like their politicians I dont nurture a general francophobia). Now you must separate between what the average Joe says and thinks about America. Now I come from an upbringing where America Bashing was the grown-up's favourite pastime and we kids where playing "Evil Polluting Capitalist vs. Freedom Fighters". Really, we did, except we called EPC for a specific company around here (oil and gas naturally). And all things East Bloc was goody goody. Well except for my math teacher. She had actually been to moscow at the Olympics and was quite razzed about not being allowed to go anywhere alone. I think she snapped out of it then. That aside, I know how ridiculously blue eyed those grownups where.
And that aside aside, the point for my whole post, there's no reason for the next person I meet on the street to feel like a hypocrite because he or she questions the idea, the motives behind US's wish for a war versus Iraq. It wasn't HIM or HER who invaded former colonies or butchered 1000s or 10000s of civilians in far away countries in the sake of territory and power. When Germany refuses to be in any kind of war, or even support it, I know why. When France does it, they're just being cocky (The symbolic gaul **** if you want). They = gov't. Average Jarre Frenchman may know something may not know something about his own government's hypocracy. Still, he can have his own opinion and be entitled to them and they can be very valid!
Alas, almost everyone carries an opinion of the EU, and all they hear from politicians is that centralized government in Europe is BAAAAAAAAAAAD BAD BAD BAAAAAAAAAAD. Not really why, but why ? Because those politicians are the ones that will lose most if a centralized government will be instigated. It will never. France will insist on the official european language must be french, that the first president will be a frenchman (and that he will sit for 12 years) and German plus UK will refuse and it wont go anywhere anyways.
So the way to do it now is to align more culturally and economically. Slowly will grow up a new generation of politicians who will have much to gain from the new system. And work harder for it. For now I think most importantly that EU's foreign policy should be decided upon on consensus. Throw 15 foreign ministers into the same room. No one leaves untill consensus is reached. No one is allowed to act independantly. It's really embarassing to hear how they bicker and squabble on open screen as a supposed "Union". Geez. Last time was Yoguslavia - EU was almost paralyzed and didnt do squat as a collective, but small piecemeal operations under UN.
Excellent point! What will mucking about in the Middle East do THIS time that didn't fail previously? Well history isn't DOOMING it to failure. That's what we got history for, teaching us to try new stuff sometimes. So what ever sneaky plans US has drawn up for this war, they better make sure the end result is different from what earlier european colonialist powers did in the Middle-East. We really don't need another ****-up as the creation of Israel was for the political climate of the Middle East was.
Gee, darnit, looks like we agree after all and I was preparing for a mouth-washing with long lasting discussion <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You are right, of course, that the USA today is not comparable to what it was before, but there is no point in denying that it was founded mainly by european people (british, if you like). Although I have to admit there must have been some sort of difference in mentality back in the days of the begining, otherwise the people woldn't have left europe in the first place.
As for the wayward child part... you know how parents are, they just can't let go... especially if their children got rich and famous and could give them some of their money... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hmm britain didnt create america. There was a lot of warring going on there. French colonies, british colonies, swedish colonies, spanish colonies, dutch colonies. I think they were the only ones left with any power before they got tipped into the sea.
Hmm britain didnt create america. There was a lot of warring going on there. French colonies, british colonies, swedish colonies, spanish colonies, dutch colonies. I think they were the only ones left with any power before they got tipped into the sea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most certaintly did. He meant not as "america" as you think of a civilized contenent, but the "USA".
Britian created "USA", inadvertantly at that, but created it nonetheless.
And just because I feel like telling you all, America was first settled by the Spanish.
So... back on topic... eh, whatever that was <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You just don't get it. True, the system would benefit by allowing competition, but the powers-that-be wouldn't. They would have no more large corporations to give them money, and guess who appoints the upholders-of-the-law? The said powers do, of course! The whole system is corrupt. From the head of it, to the lowest level.
<!--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-->And, politicians don't go into higher politics(like the Supreme Court) just to be courrupted. It takes YEARS on end to get there, not to mention a certain degree of luck. If a person was aiming to be a Justice, they wouldn't be aiming for money. Far more powerful things to do than hoard money. You do realize that, don't you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt anyone goes into anything just to be corrupted, but it happens, and when it does, the rest of the US has to deal with it. And even if they weren't corrupt, there's always someone inteh chain of comand that is.
<!--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-->Man, not that I am trying to attack you here, but honestly, you are just some angry teenage kid who hates the world(or most of it), aren't you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that matter? Does that make my opinions any less valid? HELL NO. You'll not hear me deny that I am an angsty teenager disallusioned with the system, but you'll also not hear me care about motive. Not just mine, ANYONE'S. Motive doesn't matter, facts do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Not only would the system benifit from the breakup of microsoft, but the powers would also.
Instead of having one big company giving them money, it will become many small companies giving them money. And contrary to what you think, an industry that is "donating" cash to a politician is much more profitible than a single corporation.
It may be corrupt, but corrupt in favor of growth, thankfully.
Amd while there is always that one person who is corrupt, those people never last for long.
And finnally, it doesn't matter your age or baises, but it definatly explains your logic.
One does wonder why it is really important if Europe is really a continent or not, why does it matter that Europeans have done bad things in the past, and does it really matter who formed the United States
They are not part of the discussion at hand which is about Europe, the peninsular if it really matters that much, and its politcal split.
Prehaps maybe some discussion on why there seem to be such differing views between the countries, prehaps some views from Europeans as to what their countries seem to be saying about things.
Maybe some ideas from Non-Europeans as to why they think this has happened, how it could be resolved.
How this split could affect the idea of a single EU foreign policy and the European Rapid Defence Force.
Could this be the end of the EU as we know it?
Could this European "problem" have major consequences upon the United Nations?
Would this split in Europe make the United States think twice about its course of action, or will it continue on regardless.
And maybe - just maybe a bit about the history of Europe as long as it relates to the political split.
That was the discussion - any chance of people getting back to it?
I don't know - maybe I missed the point.
Since you are obviously a clever chap, you realize that you are talking about things of past. Imperialism was a product of its own time. You can't fault european countries for doing it because by the standards of that time, it wasn't wrong in the sense that we now see it. It continued for longer than it should have been necessary. However, like all systems, imperialism had its momentum and stopping it wasn't a matter of simply proclaiming it wrong. Even with its foundations gone, people who profited from it tried to hold on to it.
However, the way I see it, USA inherited the European legacy. By actively becoming the leading western faction, US claimed control over the foreign interests of now bankrupt and beaten Europe. Too bad that the world went into the Cold War which forced US to play the global game of chess with USSR. Newly independent states were the happy winners for the contest where they chose the pawns.
So I'm not claiming that US is to blame for the state of the world. But neither is Europe. European imperialism laid the foundation, economical imbalance, power politics of the Cold War and the share of roles in global economy finished the job. So, yes, in the end, Europeans are to blame. There were very, very bad men among them in those times. If they just hadn't gone through with imperialism, all would be peachy. We would probably have the world's oldest democracies in the Middle-East. However, I would like to put my money on the theory that times back then were that the strongest and fittest put the weaker and less adept under their heel. Europeans were those guys. But people responsible lived in a completely different world and are long gone.
Let's start off with what caused this whole thing, which is incidently the first thing I do not understand about this it all, the war in Iraq. It came to me as an utter suprise when it was suddenly anounced that the USA were going to be pushing matters in Iraq. There has not been any talk of it before, the War on Terrorism ruled the media, incarnated as the bombing of Afganisthan. When it was over there was about two weeks of silence about matters in the middle east, except of course for the occasional Isreal reports, and then suddenly everyone's attention shifted to Iraq, as the USA brought the War on Terrorism to Iraq.
I'm not trying to blame anyone here, I just don't understand it. Why now?
Now, why is Europe split about this? Simple: We're talking about war here. Many people in Europe were already indifferent about the war in Afganisthan, but it was supported mainly due to the terrible incident on 9/11, which gave the USA the oppotunity to play its sympathy card. Now, in Iraq, many people fail to see the connection to the War on Terrorism and it all seens as if the US was pushing matters to hard. There are those countries who still stand besides the original plan and those who don't because they do not see a justified connection to the War on Terrorism or see other alternatives.
How the sentiment in Europe in general is, I can't really tell you. If I can believe the media, even in those countries, whose governments support the war, there is a strong following against the war.
Here in Germany I can definetly say that most people do not support this war. Many people who said nuke Afganisthan off the map are now accusing the USA off "going for oil" or similar things. I do not even know one person in Germany that would support the war, personally that is.
Now, since we all know public opinion doesn't matter to the politicians, the question arises, what do the powers tha be think (and no, I'm not talking about the dev team here)? This leads me to the second thing in this recent crisis which came as a shock to me. The government somehow seems to think the same way I do for once. I was utterly supprised to here that there would be absolutely no support in Iraq in case of a war. As I said, I do not know, why the German government opposes this so strongly, but I am happy that it does.
Since I don't even know what makes my own government tick, don't even start about France or Russia.
One thing that worries me though is the part that Britain has played thus far. While the USA claim that Sadam is an evil dictator, threatening the world at large, I have not yet heard anything likewise from the British side. It almost looks as if they choose to side with the USA no matter what. God, it didn't even hear a British politician say "Sadam is evil" yet. They just seems to be going along without stating their view.
Now, about this "New Europe", "Old Europe" stuff. I still didn't quite grasp what was meant with that. So far the only thing that determines wether a country is old or new Europe is its sentiment concerning the war in Iraq. Everyone who does as the US says is New Europe and everyone who dares oppose is Old Europe? Is this what it really is supposed to mean? Because if it does, I will gladly claim to be as Old School European as it gets.
So, this is my view on things, without actually bringing much of my view into it. As you see I am fairly clueless when it comes to reasons as I do not trust the media or the government, especially when it agrees with me. Something about all of this severly looks like "Devil's Advocat"... then again, I didn't see Al Pacino yet...
Feel free to enlighten me with what it all really is like. I'm especially fond of any worldwide conspiracy you can tie into this... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not only would the system benifit from the breakup of microsoft, but the powers would also.
Instead of having one big company giving them money, it will become many small companies giving them money. And contrary to what you think, an industry that is "donating" cash to a politician is much more profitible than a single corporation.
It may be corrupt, but corrupt in favor of growth, thankfully.
Amd while there is always that one person who is corrupt, those people never last for long.
And finnally, it doesn't matter your age or baises, but it definatly explains your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
NO NO NO!!!!
If there were many companies all competing fairly, why would they need to give money to politicians? If the system works, there is ne need for corruption! But the system doesn't work, there will always be a trust in some form, and that trust will always have to skirt the law to stay in power, and as the final link in the chain, there will always be someone at the top level to take the money, or, failing that, a million subordonates doing the job of the man at the top.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
France is in Africa RIGHT NOW flexing its muscles in the ivory Coast, a former colony. This very second. It's not in the past, it's happening. The Russians (who will undoubtedly be in the EU within the next 5 years, but can certainly be considered europeans) are in Chechnya right now slaughtering people. Right now. Britain in the falkland islands? Should I go on about the end of imperialism?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the US policy towards Iraq. I have no problem with us freeing people from horrible dictatorships and leaving democracy in our wake (germany, italy, japan, etc.), but I wish we applied it more evenly to the world - not just when it was also economically and militarily feasible. Fortunately the US has been good about leaving those countries with their own working government after removing the scum and rebuilding their infrastructure. But europe? Self interest first no matter what, and only out of the country when the natives throw you out, or you've sucked it dry and don't want it anymore.
Historically at least. Perhaps I'm wrong for the future. Just going off 3000 continous years of Continental examples...
We've been good about leaving countries we "free from horrible dictatorships"? Don't make me laugh!
First off, the only people we've "freed" have been in Cuba and the Phillipeens, and I'm pretty sure Spain wasn't a "horrible dictatorship", and we sure as hell didn't leave them alone to their own devices, we only left when we were kicked out.
And then we freed Hawaii from......um.......the horrible......PINEAPPLE KING! Yeah! That's the ticket!
To get back on to the original topic;
What do you think of New Europe. I think it's great, and I hope that their addition to the EU will help them develop and become as wealthy as the other European country's. Because THAT is what the EU is all about. Not to unify Europe (except in currency, but even the euro is not obligatory), not to replace any military organization, it's all economic & supportive. It is about sacrifice for the rich country's (there are huge consequences for lets say dutch farmers who now have more competetion) so that other European countries can develop. Where's the greed in that?
I don't have that much knowledge about the situation in Ivory Coast, but from what I've gathered, French actions in Ivory coast are supported by the Security Council of UN, African Union and US. Of course they are in there because they are protecting their interests, but also because there are still 12 000 French citizens in the country. French troops are there trying to enforce peace. Yes, the reasons for it are their own interests, but still, that's what they are trying to do.
<!--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 Russians (who will undoubtedly be in the EU within the next 5 years, but can certainly be considered europeans) are in Chechnya right now slaughtering people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, in my opinion Russians can't be considered European. Yes, they are focusing on the work with EU and Nato and they are leaning more to their west than east, but Russia is still a country that spans through the whole Eurasian continent.
About Chechnya, well it sucks. But it is a domestic crisis and therefore the way international community can affect Russian policy towards it, is very limited. Russia is dealing with a domestic crisis, Chechnya isn't independent and the way Russians like to see it, all they are doing is killing terrorists. It is wrong in so many levels, but since it is a domestic situation, there's not much you can do about it. And they have been criticised about it, but what else there is to do?
<!--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-->Right now. Britain in the falkland islands? Should I go on about the end of imperialism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have some recollection about Falklands being on the papers in the recent past, but don't really remember what it was about. Care to enlighten me?