<!--QuoteBegin---Driftwood-+Mar 13 2003, 10:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Mar 13 2003, 10:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me? Russia is indeed European, and very much so. They have played an important role throughout european history since the early medieval times. They acquired a buttload of dirt east of the urals, true, but the quintessential Russia is an european country. The political and cultural bulk of Russia has always been west of the Urals. Things might change of course. But as for now Russia is more tied to western europe than rest of Asia.
<!--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-->
<!--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-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's so bollocky! Tibet's suffering from the same kind of "reasoning". "Oh, it's domestic. Sorry chaps, my hands are tied. Have a nice oppression!"
<!--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 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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas
Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims. In early 1982 the Argentine military junta led by Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri gave up on long-running negotiations with Britain and instead launched an invasion of the islands. The decision to invade was chiefly political: the junta, which was being criticized for economic mismanagement and human rights abuses, believed that the “recovery” of the islands would unite Argentines behind the government in a patriotic fervour. An elite invasion force trained in secrecy, but its timetable was shortened on March 19, when a dispute erupted on British-controlled South Georgia island (1,000 miles [1,600 km] east of the Falklands) between Argentine salvage workers and British scientists stationed there. Naval forces were quickly mobilized.
<cut a lot of trite war details>
The British captured some 11,400 Argentine prisoners during the war, all of whom were afterward released. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed—including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano—while Britain lost 256. Scores of Argentine aircraft of various types were destroyed, most while on the ground, and the British lost 10 Harrier jets and more than two dozen helicopters. Military strategists have debated key aspects of the conflict but have generally underscored the roles of submarines (both Britain's nuclear-powered vessels and Argentina's older, diesel-electric craft) and antiship missiles (both air-to-sea and land-to-sea types). The war also illustrated the importance of air superiority—which the British had been unable to establish—and of advanced surveillance. Logistic support was vital as well, because the armed forces of both nations had operated at their maximum ranges. (See also Naval warfare: The age of the guided missile.)
Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher converted widespread patriotic support into a landslide victory for her Conservative Party in that year's parliamentary election.
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 13 2003, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 13 2003, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Excuse me? Russia is indeed European, and very much so. They have played an important role throughout european history since the early medieval times. They acquired a buttload of dirt east of the urals, true, but the quintessential Russia is an european country. The political and cultural bulk of Russia has always been west of the Urals. Things might change of course. But as for now Russia is more tied to western europe than rest of Asia.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While Russia is more tied to Western Europe, it doesn't change the fact that it spans from the Pacific to Baltic Sea. Their culture and society is more western than asian, but they are not european in the sense I understand the term. It comes down to geography.
<!--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's so bollocky! Tibet's suffering from the same kind of "reasoning". "Oh, it's domestic. Sorry chaps, my hands are tied. Have a nice oppression!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you suggest international community should do? Protest? We've done that. Criticise? We've done that. It's one thing to realise that Chechnya is a domestic crisis and therefore tough one for international community to deal with and thinking the situation in Chechnya is ok. It is not ok, but what should we do? Russia hasn't asked international community for approval, it hasn't asked UN for support. Tell me, what should be done about Chechnya?
<!--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-->Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't ask what happened turing the Falkland war since I'm well aware of it. I asked what is happening there right now that has British as the culprit.
<!--QuoteBegin---Driftwood-+Mar 13 2003, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Mar 13 2003, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While Russia is more tied to Western Europe, it doesn't change the fact that it spans from the Pacific to Baltic Sea. Their culture and society is more western than asian, but they are not european in the sense I understand the term. It comes down to geography.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well your sense is a minority then. Besides the countries east of the urals are called different names aren't they? Irkutsk. Yakutsk. Sibirien. What would you call the Roman Empire then, not European? It spanned asia minor, africa and europe. You are aware that geography plays second fiddle to politics right? The mongol hordes, having possessions in europe, russia and far asia, where they not from Asia then?
Even if Denmark could geographically claim that Denmark = all territory down to Hamburg, that ain't going to do us much good. Russia has annexed huge parts of territory east of Urals, they didn't always own this.
<!--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-->What do you suggest international community should do? Protest? We've done that. Criticise? We've done that. It's one thing to realise that Chechnya is a domestic crisis and therefore tough one for international community to deal with and thinking the situation in Chechnya is ok. It is not ok, but what should we do? Russia hasn't asked international community for approval, it hasn't asked UN for support. Tell me, what should be done about Chechnya?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"THEY" seem hell bent on assaulting a sovereign state as Iraq. Why not move into Tibet and dislodge the Chinese?
<!--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-->Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas I didn't ask what happened turing the Falkland war since I'm well aware of it. I asked what is happening there right now that has British as the culprit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"NOW" equals 1982. It's practically modern times, Britain is still there as a conquering power, basically.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 11:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> where an I useing all these "leet caps" you speek of? In the post you are refering to I only use two words in caps, and that was merely ment to convey the words as I would speak them.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 12 2003, 08:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 12 2003, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ehhhhhhhh, ok? Let me try to figure all this out...
I have no idea what the first sentence means. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was refering half-jokingly to this: <!--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 my first decree is to make Immocolata my Secretary of State, and Fam Minister of Ponce.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meaning that even if you have your own continent(Monsinia or whatever), it still belongs to USA. Got it now?
<!--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-->Are you saying you want europe to be one big country in the second paragraph? I don't understand it.
In the third paragraph - I think that's why you came up with the EU. And of course the US has a problem with distributing wealth between the states. We have a finite budget and a lot of state senators, governors, and representatives all crowding around for their slice of the pie. To think otherwise is to not understand the US congress...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I think Europe would naturally be better if it would unite to one bigger nation. What I meant, was that it would be most natural for European countries to unite slowly. So for example this new country called Europe, would have several smaller states(for example UK would be one state), and they would keep their autonomity, but would slowly melt in to eachother and would start speaking same language, same laws, same economy etc. The main problem naturally is, that most countries don't want to share their resources with others. GREED, you know? That is the biggest problem why it is difficult for Europe to unite.
<!--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 have no idea what anything in the last paragraph means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have several times asked why all Europeans don't have the same language and why we have dozens of small countries, when we could be one economical superpower. I just made a counter-question: Why USA, Canada and Mexico won't unite in to one country, that speaks the same language etc. You got it now? Or do I need to make it even more simplier for you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Whatever country you're from, I suggest not telling us, so as not to embarrass other european boardmembers, as they are rolling their eyes at you right now and cursing through clenched teeth about how you're undermining all their arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So they are embarassed because one european guy expressed his ideas half-jokingly little poorly due to the lack of time? Are you embarassed if you don't understand some Americans comments clearly? I don't represent the whole Europe here. Even if my post didn't open to you(although I think its fairly well understandable, guess moderators brains are one of their kind <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->), it doesn't mean that im undermining all their arguments. And are you saying that if I would disagree with other Europeans on something, I shouldn't say it but just praise their ideas only because we are from same continent(Europe is continent now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)?
(I'm loving this battle between Imma and Drift! /me gets out popcorn and settles in to watch the sparks fly.)
<!--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-->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? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To Orc's point: Where's the greed? It opens up borders, removes all tarrifs, and increases the size of the marketplace by 500 million people. It's a short term loss in competitiveness for a megamassive long-term gain for EU big business. The entire point of the EU is about economics, and that makes about nothing BUT greed.
On to Driftwood: Western europeans have a bad habit of dismissing the Russians as non-european asian mongol descendents. There's no real basis in this other than rather hereditery racism of all those invasions from the east that always started in Russia. But go to Moscow or St. Petersburg - Russia is certainly european in culture. The russian federation and descendents of the USSR? Certainly much more asian. But we're talking about russia. I'll let Immacolata keep working you over on the Chechnya thing, as it highlights the european double-standard of:
"Russia invades a neigboring country which it claims is owned by it. Proceeds to occupy and fight over it brutally (there are a dozen warcrimes cases pending against Russia right now in the hague, and in their own courts mind you). Primary European reponse? 'Stop that! Oh well, they didn't stop, let's just go on abot our business, as it doesn't affect our oil contracts or trade partners, and who cares if a bunch of asians beat up on other asians anyways (to drift's point that russians are dismissed as 'not truly european')."
Now, US threatens to invade a country. With the history of the US, you are fully aware that there will not be a need for warcrimes tribunals or a UN force of observers to make sure mass rapes and mass graves of children aren't occuring. The US has in its mind some legitimate beefs, and while they can be disagreed with, they have some historical merit (Iraqi WoMD, prior invasions of its neighbors, threat to world energy supply, destabilization of mideast by doing smart things like paying palestians terrorist families $25,000 per human-bomb attack, represses own people with mustard gas, etc.). Primary European response? 'This will not stand and we will veto anything you do, cut trade ties, etc. Because we have oil contracts there you might screw up, Iraq is our largest middle-eastern trading partner, and you will also uncover all the remaining chemical weapons we built for them.'
As for Dread: If Canada and Mexico asked us to become the 51st and 52nd states, we'd probably say 'sure'. They don't want to (don't forget that they have the european-descendent habit as well), and because we are so huge (and already have an EU-like structure you may have heard of called NAFTA), it's not a big deal to us. It's a bad analogy though, because there are no individual european countries that are in any way like the US in terms of size and economics. That's why you formed the EU in the first place. Each one of them is like one of our better states, but we have 50 of those already. And since English is one of the official languages of the US, Canada, and Mexico already, that argument is still not applicable.
Allur: Go look at lots of your previous posts to see what I mean. Don't make me embarrass you by quoting them all.
Edited to make it 500 million people (did more reasearch <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and to fix spelling, grammar
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 13 2003, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 13 2003, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well your sense is a minority then. Besides the countries east of the urals are called different names aren't they? Irkutsk. Yakutsk. Sibirien. What would you call the Roman Empire then, not European? It spanned asia minor, africa and europe. You are aware that geography plays second fiddle to politics right? The mongol hordes, having possessions in europe, russia and far asia, where they not from Asia then?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact that the roots of Russia are in its western parts and that it has a long history of being active in the european politics doesn't change the fact that it is not european in the sense that its immediate sphere of influence isn't limited to Europe. Western parts of Russia can be called european but the country as a whole simply isn't european. It is a country that has immediate interests throughout the Eurasian continent. Its focus is on the Europe but it is still an actor in the Asia.
Introduction of Roman empire and Mongols is interesting. I have a little hard time understanding how they have anything to do with the subject at hand but I'll try to answer anyway. Core of the Roman empire was in Europe. Possessions in Africa were focused on the north coast, Asia minor was a secondary part of empire. So yes, Roman empire was european in the sense that majority of it was located in Europe. However, there was no such thing as "being european" in those times. Mongols were from Asia, and majority of their empire was located in Asia. However, at its largest their empire can't be described as simply asian.
Finally, I have no idea why we are arguing whether Russia is european or not. Could we please stop? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->"THEY" seem hell bent on assaulting a sovereign state as Iraq. Why not move into Tibet and dislodge the Chinese?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does that answer my question? I repeat: What should be done to Chechnya that hasn't already been done? You quite clearly stated that my idea of Checnya conflict was "bollocky". Could you elaborate?
About this thing with Tibet. Well, international community has gone to great length with the diplomatic path. However, China doesn't feel like giving up. You say THEY should dislodge the Chinese. I assume THEY refers to US. You better mail George about it. I'm sure they would have dislodged Chinese years ago if they had just thought of it. Good thinking there.
Seriously, Tibet is caught between the rock and the hard place. Everyone else but China thinks they were sovereign and that their rights should be respected. However, how are you going to dislodge the Chinese if they don't feel like leaving?
<!--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-->"NOW" equals 1982. It's practically modern times, Britain is still there as a conquering power, basically.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Falklands are an age old regional dispute. If you would have read your own quote, you would have noticed that in 1982 it was Argentina that tried to wretch Falklands from British. I have a little hard time understanding how British are there as a conquering power due to the happenings of year 1982 since the islands have belong to them since 1833.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 03:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To Orc's point: Where's the greed? It opens up border, removes all tarrifs, and increases the size of the marketplace by 300 million people. It's a short term loss in competitiveness for a megamassive long-term gain for EU big business. The entire point of the EU is about economics, and that makes about nothing BUT greed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You want drift? You got drift! Here's topic drifting onto EU argiculture subsidiary. That's my particular. Uh. Wotchacallums in english? We call them "pole horses". Wossname. Whatever, EU has some pretty horrid argricultural subsidies. It's like the world's largest unemployment project. Billions of €'s are poured into a much too expensive argicultural sector, where farmers are paid money to own agricultural land. Yep. Nice little cheque in the mail from EU each year based on how many acres you own. This superbly stupid system is based on greed. And a fear of what the heck we're going to do with all those idle hands if argricultural subsidies where cut. This is a rare occurence where france aren't blocking it for everyone, since just about any country in the EU has a large farming sector that benefits immensely from the subsides. I don't know if you have any thing this crazy in America, but for the love of Omnipotent Entities, I cannot have any high hopes for the EU untill economical sanity settles here again. So there's tariffs, there's taxes to pay for a strange strange agricultural system that produces food which is many many times more expensive than in the rest of the world. And that kind of hidden subsidies means that farmers from outside EU have difficult time selling their produce to EU. Since our super expensive stuff is half-way paid for by ourself even before we see 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-->Now, US threatens to invade a country. With the history of the US, you are fully aware that there will not be a need for warcrimes tribunals or a UN force of observers to make sure mass rapes and concentration camps aren't occuring. The US has in its mind some legitmate beefs, and while they can be disagreed with, they have some historical merit (iraqi WoMD, prior invasions of its neighbors, threat to world eneegry supply, destabilization of mideast by doing smart things like paying palestians terrorist families $25,000 per human-bomb attack, represses own people). Primary European reponse? 'This will not stand and we will veto anything you do, cut trade ties, etc. Because we have oil contracts there you might screw up, Iraq is our largest middleeastern trading partner, and you will also uncover all the remaining chemical weapons we built for them.'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if there wont be a NEED for one, why fear it? Frankly I do not believe any human being (Solely based on nationality) to be above committing atrocities. The dogged resistance to a world war crime tribunal by the US is understandable. It is an attempt to curb US military power by making sure they can't go and do what the **** pleases them. Such as declaring afghan soldiers for "illegal combatants" and locking them away in containers for an infinite period totally ignoring the rules of war. Illegal combatants? That's bollocks. Their are rules for the treatment of PoW's, how ever atrocious they have been or what cause they are following. That Guantanmo stunt is cheap, that's really cheap. Shame on them! So with this tendency by the US to make their own rules, I'd be really really glad to have a war crime tribunal.
<!--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-->It's a bad analogy though, because there are no individual european countries that are in any way like the US in terms of size and economics. That's why you formed the EU in the first place. Each one of them is like one of our better states, but we have 50 of those already. And since English is one of the official languages of the US, Canada, and Mexico already, that argument is still not applicable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I think the EU was created with Stability as the primary goal, economy playing an important role there of course. But it was primarily to tie together uncomfortable neighbours I think.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 05:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On to Driftwood: Western europeans have a bad habit of dismissing the Russians as non-european asian mongol descendents. There's no real basis in this other than rather hereditery racism of all those invasions from the east that always started in Russia. But go to Moscow or St. Petersburg - Russia is certainly european in culture. The russian federation and descendents of the USSR? Certainly much more asian. But we're talking about russia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not claiming they are mongol descendent non-europeans. I'm just trying to argue that while western parts of Russia are european, that isn't the case with other parts of the Russian Federation. As a whole, it just isn't european. If Russia was to break up and the historical Russia would become independent from the eastern parts, then it would be european.
It seems this argument is partly born from badly defined terms. I'm not referring to Russia as in historic Russia. I'm referring to Russia as the Russian federation. People in Vladivostok don't probably feel themselves very european.
<!--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-->"Russia invades a neigboring country which it claims is owned by it. Proceeds to occupy and fight over it brutally (there are a dozen warcrimes cases pending against Russia right now in the hague, and in their own courts mind you). Primary European reponse? 'Stop that! Oh well, they didn't stop, let's just go on abot our business, as it doesn't affect our oil contracts or trade partners, and who cares if a bunch of asians beat up on other asians anyways (to drift's point that russians are dismissed as 'not truly european')."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Situation in Chechnya comes down to the fact that they weren't sovereign. Ways foreign powers can affect a country dealing with an internal crisis are limited. In theory, it is same as if California was to go for independence and the rest of the states would stop them using military power. What other options rest of the world would have but to keep the political pressure on the US government?
<!--QuoteBegin---Driftwood-+Mar 13 2003, 03:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Mar 13 2003, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not claiming they are mongol descendent non-europeans. I'm just trying to argue that while western parts of Russia are european, that isn't the case with other parts of the Russian Federation. As a whole, it just isn't european. If Russia was to break up and the historical Russia would become independent from the eastern parts, then it would be european. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Russia spans two continents, then. What is your point with that argument? Russia has always been an important player in european politics, economics and religious life. You can argue till the day River Euphrat dies up about Russia not being European, it is still a major player on the continent, and will always excert a large influence on the EU, be it member or not. It has also been a major player in the areas between Russia and India, where Georgia, Checznya, Kazakhstan etc. are. What do you want to use the statement "Russia isn't really european" to? What purpose does it serve in our on-going debate?
<!--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-->Situation in Chechnya comes down to the fact that they weren't sovereign. Ways foreign powers can affect a country dealing with an internal crisis are limited. In theory, it is same as if California was to go for independence and the rest of the states would stop them using military power. What other options rest of the world would have but to keep the political pressure on the US government?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's say a large part of the Californians declared the state independant, formed a government and called upon the world to aid them fight the oppressors? Civil wars are a muddy thing, and I believe no country should be able to get away with referring to "internal business" as an excuse to not have any one interferring.
I rather thought NATO was for uncomfortable neigbors, but that's me hair-splitting. I consider economics to be the ultimate stabilizer though, as all wars are at their basis caused by economics. All wars. Another one of my metaphysical certitudes... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
To answer your question, yes we do have farm subsidies, but our situation doesn't sound as out of control as all that. America is the breadbasket to the world, so it's less necessarry for us to subsidize except under crop-conditions created by weather and seasonal problems.
And drift, we weren't arguing russia being europe - you were! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Heh, meaning, we were trying to show the european double-standard when it comes to the behavior they are decrying in the UN right now. They probably just feel that those damned slanty-eyed russians ain't not no real europeans (at least, that's how they'd say it if they were american rednecks), and who gives a **** if asians beat up asians. Ditto for China-Tibet. Europe just doesnt seemed concerned with most of Asia anymore, ever since Indonesia stopped being a major oil supplier
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 13 2003, 06:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 13 2003, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What do you want to use the statement "Russia isn't really european" to? What purpose does it serve in our on-going debate?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm using it against MonsE's argument: Russia is doing nasty things in Chechnya, therefore some of the europeans are doing nasty things in Chechnya. Do you consider that since Russia is in your opinion european, europeans are currently occupying Chechnya with armed forces?
<!--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-->Civil wars are a muddy thing, and I believe no country should be able to get away with referring to "internal business" as an excuse to not have any one interferring.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but how do you do it in real life? I ask for the third time, what do you think should be done about Chechnya?
<!--QuoteBegin--miezekatze+Mar 13 2003, 04:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (miezekatze @ Mar 13 2003, 04:05 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-->Yes, I think Europe would naturally be better if it would unite to one bigger nation. What I meant, was that it would be most natural for European countries to unite slowly. So for example this new country called Europe, would have several smaller states(for example UK would be one state), and they would keep their autonomity, but would slowly melt in to eachother and would start speaking same language, same laws, same economy etc. The main problem naturally is, that most countries don't want to share their resources with others. GREED, you know? That is the biggest problem why it is difficult for Europe to unite.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>** Nuked **</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now what's with all that cussin all of a sudden? Take your Be nice pills and come back in one day!
You will be surprised to find that even Americans are very different people if you met many of them face to face. They do have certain similarties such as language (and tendendy to talk WITH BOOMING VOICES - at least the tourists around here do. Why?). But of course no one want EU to be McDonaldizified, but I see no intrinsic value in us being so bloody different we can't be in the same room as each other, or have super many stupid trade barriers and foreing ministers running in each their direction when ever an international crisis occur.
<!--QuoteBegin---Driftwood-+Mar 13 2003, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-Driftwood- @ Mar 13 2003, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm using it against MonsE's argument: Russia is doing nasty things in Chechnya, therefore some of the europeans are doing nasty things in Chechnya. Do you consider that since Russia is in your opinion european, europeans are currently occupying Chechnya with armed forces?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Europeans are, yes. Just not MY Europeans, it's some of the OTHER europeans. It's not EU menbers, it's non-eu members. And as MonsE points out, Western Europe gives a hoot about what goes on to the east. Alas. Russia is playing dirty in Checznya. We can't just start saying they aren't really european any more because they start hammering away in Caucasus.
<!--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-->Yes, but how do you do it in real life? I ask for the third time, what do you think should be done about Chechnya?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I say they stop killing each other and have an election, run by a third party like UN, or EU. Or someone. Those areas where the majority wants independence will become independant. Those areas where the majority wants to remain Russian, will remain russian. The devil takes the rest. But it beats the mess going on right now. The assets in the state will be divided into the two factions. Russia will pay war reperations to the new chechznya for the damage they have done.
It would be fitting if EU stopped sticking it's head in the bushes each time someone fires a shot in anger... and start taking some regional responsibility - IN CONSENSUS (Which basically means to gag the french foreign minister and hide him in a closet untill the crisis is over). It doesnt matter if or if not Chechznya is a part of Europe, but the country busy mucking about is indeed. And EU should put heavy diplomatic pressure on Russia demanding they stop and find a peaceful compromise.
This is why Immacolata is my Secretary of State in Monsinia... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 13 2003, 06:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 13 2003, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I say they stop killing each other and have an election, run by a third party like UN, or EU. Or someone. Those areas where the majority wants independence will become independant. Those areas where the majority wants to remain Russian, will remain russian. The devil takes the rest. But it beats the mess going on right now. The assets in the state will be divided into the two factions. Russia will pay war reperations to the new chechznya for the damage they have done. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now, how do you bypass the fact that Russia isn't willing to let go of Chechnya and considers it a part of itself? I asked how you would do it in real life, not how it would be best in your opinion. Russia shows no sign of letting go of Chechnya. Until that changes, hope of free elections is zero. It takes more than diplomatic pressure to change Russia's opinion.
Exactly! Where are the sanctions? The trade embargos? The cut-off of any possibility of EU membership? Of NATO Membership?
Ohhhhh, wait. Even though those would all have Russia turning on a dime, all those things would also cost europe money... hmmm... This is exactly the same kind of horrible attitude that had Bush Sr. giving China most favored nation status after Tianemem Square. I guess it's just different if you're a european government and people's.
Reading through this topic, I saw people living in the most warlike continent of the last two millenia (there's no denying there) and people sitting on the biggest slab of land ever to be taken from its native inhabitants by the means of genocide (and before you open your mouth, check Google for 'Wounded Knee') exchanging accusations about whoms region has the more horrible history.
"You are a greedy, selfish conglomerate of post-imperialist states, you suck" - "No, your government plays and played chess with the lives of millions. <i>You</i> suck!"
People, I've got news for you - we <i>all</i> suck. Hard. Germany, Italy, France, Russia, America, China, Great Britain; no country that ever had power didn't abuse it, and let's don't kid ourselves - those which had none just didn't get the chance of abusion.
Some American forum members recently complained rightfully about the tremendous America-bashing going on in here. Now I see some of them bashing Europe (And especially France, which I, as the one of us living closest to the French border, can tell you is just as good or bad a country as any other.). It's just as ridiculous. Unless a historical event has direct ties to the topic at hand, and face it, 90% of those cited in here don't have any, or can serve as valid analogy, they're just absolutely useless in the context of the discussion and just make it possible to bash 'them', with 'them' being any group that a) can be brought to a common denominator (such as nationality, history, or the breathing of oxygen) and b) doesn't intersect with the group defined as 'us' (which, again, can be brought to any common denominator such as nationality, history, or the breathing of oxygen). Honestly, I'd rather call it quits and go on discussing, as opposed to arguing.
Ironically, this whole issue is however closely connected with the original topic.
Some of you asked themselves where the terms of 'Old' and 'New' Europe came from. They were coined by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference shortly after the first (rather mild) doubting of the Iraq war from the side of Germany and France. Rumsfeld called both countries the "remaints of an Old Europe" which was in the danger of being left behind.
One may stand to that assumption however one wants (and I figure you all read my first post, so I won't have to repeat myself here), but it's interesting to think about Rumsfelds motives behind this remark, which undoubtely made consensus about a war much more unlikely (and as much as I hate him, I acknowledge that Rumsfeld is a clever enough man to realize that).
To me, this was one of the steps put into practice to get the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' - paradigm of the current US administration into the socio-political frame, because it made way for the 'country-bashing' we observe in this thread from the light 'pubparlor' it used to be into the serious discussion. Being 'against' the US' governments plans means that a kind of 'total cultural war' is waged against 'you' ('you' being any group that...). French Fries (which were actually created in Belgium) become 'Freedom Fries'. 'Your' goods, or at least those which can be easily recognized as such, are being boycotted. And 'you' are anti-americanistic. Period. Not that there would be any real prove or something, but you are. Instant scapegoat.
Not to get too off topic, but I support Russian actions in Chechnya. Correct my if I'm wrong, but it would be like having Flordia be a mostly Jewish state, and have that state give birth to a large Jewish terror movement and demand its independence. Both sides have been incredibly brutal in how they carry out the war, and I don't think either side wants a compromise. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong....?
EDIT Bravo Nem. Well said.
And looking at the 'Who's browsing' thing, I see the most active members of this threat. Things is gonna get hot...
EDIT 2 Alright, thanks Nem. Its more like a Russian Vietnam in the sense that you had an ethnic population struggling for self empowerment throughout time, always fighting off some new ruler. Vietnman had the Han, the Ming, the Qing, the Japanese- 2000 years of control.
The ethnic conflict we witness in Cechya is older than Russia, and older than the Soviet Union. The Chechs fought for independence since they were occupied by the Zars. I'm not siding with them, but it's not as if a part of Russia was trying to rebel.
Nem missed my last post about tianemem square, I guess, and certainly my overall theme. It's not that I feel America is blameless and Europe is the devil. It's that I feel that europe has recently begun to adopt a bad american habit: forget all about your past (no matter how recent), because this very second is all that matters. And if you aren't personally affected by something via your wallet, it doesn't matter either. Those are two very stereotypical American attitudes that many euros love to harp on, but the way I see it, it's the current state of affairs on The Continent as we speak. And that also goes back to the topic at hand. Europe is operating exactly like the US was in the 1920's in Asia: if someone messes with our trade, we'll come a'runnin'. Otherwise, go **** yourself. I think Nem and I can agree on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 04:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 04:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is why Immacolata is my Secretary of State in Monsinia... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What, because I pimp good prostitutes ?? (I'm still unsure if Ponce means the same to you as it does to me <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Exactly! Where are the sanctions? The trade embargos? The cut-off of any possibility of EU membership? Of NATO Membership?
Ohhhhh, wait. Even though those would all have Russia turning on a dime, all those things would also cost europe money... hmmm... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Where is the strong american response to Chechnya?
Sanctions? What kind of sanctions can Europe pass over Russia?
Trade embargos. Yes, they cost money and money doesn't grow on trees. Trade with Russia is important to many European states, for example my own homeland, Finland. It's easy to ask for trade embagos from that side of the Atlantic. Do you honestly believe that small countries would be willing to muck their relations with Russia over a trade embargo that doesn't even have good chances of succeeding? Europeans are not free to act as the world police in the similar fashion as the States.
Denying possibility of EU-membership? Or Nato-membership? Nato is more the business of your country, but what would be the response if EU stated that Russia betters stop their vile ways or they won't let it become member of their club in the future? Russia will retain some of its strength in the future and it doesn't need EU-membership. The possibility of Russia becoming a member in EU is just that, a possibility. They don't need it and currently they don't even want it.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 03:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Europe is operating exactly like the US was in the 1920's in Asia: if someone messes with our trade, we'll come a'runnin'. Otherwise, go **** yourself. I think Nem and I can agree on that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yup, we can, provided that by 'Europe', you mean 'Europes governments', which are, as we already established, bought ****. But it has very few things to do with the original topic as I see it (check the second part of my post.).
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 13 2003, 04:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 13 2003, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some of you asked themselves where the terms of 'Old' and 'New' Europe came from. They were coined by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference shortly after the first (rather mild) doubting of the Iraq war from the side of Germany and France. Rumsfeld called both countries the "remaints of an Old Europe" which was in the danger of being left behind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aaah! What a sharp mind you have. I now understand how "damaging" that comparisson has been. So Rumsfeld acidic remark about Old and New europe really just served the whole purpose by forcing all "shruggers" to take a stance, either FOR or AGAINST. Clever, clever indeed.
MonsE, I think you'd want Nemz as your Minister of Just about Anything Else in Monsinia. He's smart!
<!--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-->Where is the strong american response to Chechnya?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're not talking about America, we're talking about europe. Can we not just endlessly 'I know you are but what am I', and answer the actual question? Yes, America is just as bad for not giving sanctions. But we're also not the ones trying to block US attacks on Iraq using the exact same arguments!
As for not willing to sacrifice trade relations even though the country your trading with is behaving evilly - that explains why Iraq has $650 million a year in trade with France. Your argument may be true, but it sure is a gross way to run a country. My point is, europe cannot occupy the moral highground with Iraq, yet simultaneously allow the same behavior in its own ranks with Russia. We are returning to my favorite word:
<!--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-->MonsE, I think you'd want Nemz as your Minister of Just about Anything Else in Monsinia. He's smart! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. Although he would likely end up being stuck in something like the Dept. of Wildlife Preservation, as he can't stand government and is quite a hippy <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Mar 13 2003, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 13 2003, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ... And back into country bashing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nem, how was I just said bashing? I'm begging, pleading, down on my knees asking for people to realize that governments are hypocrites. It just so happens the governments are related to countries. I would think you'd agree, as that's the central tennet of every single argument you ever supply <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: and even Nemesis calls it a continent. He's soooooo old europe... lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Excuse me? Russia is indeed European, and very much so. They have played an important role throughout european history since the early medieval times. They acquired a buttload of dirt east of the urals, true, but the quintessential Russia is an european country. The political and cultural bulk of Russia has always been west of the Urals. Things might change of course. But as for now Russia is more tied to western europe than rest of Asia.
<!--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-->
<!--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-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's so bollocky! Tibet's suffering from the same kind of "reasoning". "Oh, it's domestic. Sorry chaps, my hands are tied. Have a nice oppression!"
<!--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 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?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas
Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims. In early 1982 the Argentine military junta led by Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri gave up on long-running negotiations with Britain and instead launched an invasion of the islands. The decision to invade was chiefly political: the junta, which was being criticized for economic mismanagement and human rights abuses, believed that the “recovery” of the islands would unite Argentines behind the government in a patriotic fervour. An elite invasion force trained in secrecy, but its timetable was shortened on March 19, when a dispute erupted on British-controlled South Georgia island (1,000 miles [1,600 km] east of the Falklands) between Argentine salvage workers and British scientists stationed there. Naval forces were quickly mobilized.
<cut a lot of trite war details>
The British captured some 11,400 Argentine prisoners during the war, all of whom were afterward released. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed—including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano—while Britain lost 256. Scores of Argentine aircraft of various types were destroyed, most while on the ground, and the British lost 10 Harrier jets and more than two dozen helicopters. Military strategists have debated key aspects of the conflict but have generally underscored the roles of submarines (both Britain's nuclear-powered vessels and Argentina's older, diesel-electric craft) and antiship missiles (both air-to-sea and land-to-sea types). The war also illustrated the importance of air superiority—which the British had been unable to establish—and of advanced surveillance. Logistic support was vital as well, because the armed forces of both nations had operated at their maximum ranges. (See also Naval warfare: The age of the guided missile.)
Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher converted widespread patriotic support into a landslide victory for her Conservative Party in that year's parliamentary election.
Copyright © 1994-2002 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
So basically it's some islands that a nation has conquered from another nation and won't give back. Nothing new in that, really.
While Russia is more tied to Western Europe, it doesn't change the fact that it spans from the Pacific to Baltic Sea. Their culture and society is more western than asian, but they are not european in the sense I understand the term. It comes down to geography.
<!--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's so bollocky! Tibet's suffering from the same kind of "reasoning". "Oh, it's domestic. Sorry chaps, my hands are tied. Have a nice oppression!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you suggest international community should do? Protest? We've done that. Criticise? We've done that. It's one thing to realise that Chechnya is a domestic crisis and therefore tough one for international community to deal with and thinking the situation in Chechnya is ok. It is not ok, but what should we do? Russia hasn't asked international community for approval, it hasn't asked UN for support. Tell me, what should be done about Chechnya?
<!--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-->Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't ask what happened turing the Falkland war since I'm well aware of it. I asked what is happening there right now that has British as the culprit.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well your sense is a minority then. Besides the countries east of the urals are called different names aren't they? Irkutsk. Yakutsk. Sibirien. What would you call the Roman Empire then, not European? It spanned asia minor, africa and europe. You are aware that geography plays second fiddle to politics right? The mongol hordes, having possessions in europe, russia and far asia, where they not from Asia then?
Even if Denmark could geographically claim that Denmark = all territory down to Hamburg, that ain't going to do us much good. Russia has annexed huge parts of territory east of Urals, they didn't always own this.
<!--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-->What do you suggest international community should do? Protest? We've done that. Criticise? We've done that. It's one thing to realise that Chechnya is a domestic crisis and therefore tough one for international community to deal with and thinking the situation in Chechnya is ok. It is not ok, but what should we do? Russia hasn't asked international community for approval, it hasn't asked UN for support. Tell me, what should be done about Chechnya?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"THEY" seem hell bent on assaulting a sovereign state as Iraq. Why not move into Tibet and dislodge the Chinese?
<!--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-->Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas
I didn't ask what happened turing the Falkland war since I'm well aware of it. I asked what is happening there right now that has British as the culprit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"NOW" equals 1982. It's practically modern times, Britain is still there as a conquering power, basically.
where an I useing all these "leet caps" you speek of? In the post you are refering to I only use two words in caps, and that was merely ment to convey the words as I would speak them.
I have no idea what the first sentence means. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was refering half-jokingly to this:
<!--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 my first decree is to make Immocolata my Secretary of State, and Fam Minister of Ponce.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meaning that even if you have your own continent(Monsinia or whatever), it still belongs to USA. Got it now?
<!--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-->Are you saying you want europe to be one big country in the second paragraph? I don't understand it.
In the third paragraph - I think that's why you came up with the EU. And of course the US has a problem with distributing wealth between the states. We have a finite budget and a lot of state senators, governors, and representatives all crowding around for their slice of the pie. To think otherwise is to not understand the US congress...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I think Europe would naturally be better if it would unite to one bigger nation. What I meant, was that it would be most natural for European countries to unite slowly. So for example this new country called Europe, would have several smaller states(for example UK would be one state), and they would keep their autonomity, but would slowly melt in to eachother and would start speaking same language, same laws, same economy etc. The main problem naturally is, that most countries don't want to share their resources with others. GREED, you know? That is the biggest problem why it is difficult for Europe to unite.
<!--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 have no idea what anything in the last paragraph means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have several times asked why all Europeans don't have the same language and why we have dozens of small countries, when we could be one economical superpower. I just made a counter-question: Why USA, Canada and Mexico won't unite in to one country, that speaks the same language etc. You got it now? Or do I need to make it even more simplier for you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Whatever country you're from, I suggest not telling us, so as not to embarrass other european boardmembers, as they are rolling their eyes at you right now and cursing through clenched teeth about how you're undermining all their arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So they are embarassed because one european guy expressed his ideas half-jokingly little poorly due to the lack of time? Are you embarassed if you don't understand some Americans comments clearly? I don't represent the whole Europe here. Even if my post didn't open to you(although I think its fairly well understandable, guess moderators brains are one of their kind <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->), it doesn't mean that im undermining all their arguments. And are you saying that if I would disagree with other Europeans on something, I shouldn't say it but just praise their ideas only because we are from same continent(Europe is continent now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)?
<!--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-->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? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To Orc's point: Where's the greed? It opens up borders, removes all tarrifs, and increases the size of the marketplace by 500 million people. It's a short term loss in competitiveness for a megamassive long-term gain for EU big business. The entire point of the EU is about economics, and that makes about nothing BUT greed.
On to Driftwood: Western europeans have a bad habit of dismissing the Russians as non-european asian mongol descendents. There's no real basis in this other than rather hereditery racism of all those invasions from the east that always started in Russia. But go to Moscow or St. Petersburg - Russia is certainly european in culture. The russian federation and descendents of the USSR? Certainly much more asian. But we're talking about russia. I'll let Immacolata keep working you over on the Chechnya thing, as it highlights the european double-standard of:
"Russia invades a neigboring country which it claims is owned by it. Proceeds to occupy and fight over it brutally (there are a dozen warcrimes cases pending against Russia right now in the hague, and in their own courts mind you). Primary European reponse? 'Stop that! Oh well, they didn't stop, let's just go on abot our business, as it doesn't affect our oil contracts or trade partners, and who cares if a bunch of asians beat up on other asians anyways (to drift's point that russians are dismissed as 'not truly european')."
Now, US threatens to invade a country. With the history of the US, you are fully aware that there will not be a need for warcrimes tribunals or a UN force of observers to make sure mass rapes and mass graves of children aren't occuring. The US has in its mind some legitimate beefs, and while they can be disagreed with, they have some historical merit (Iraqi WoMD, prior invasions of its neighbors, threat to world energy supply, destabilization of mideast by doing smart things like paying palestians terrorist families $25,000 per human-bomb attack, represses own people with mustard gas, etc.). Primary European response? 'This will not stand and we will veto anything you do, cut trade ties, etc. Because we have oil contracts there you might screw up, Iraq is our largest middle-eastern trading partner, and you will also uncover all the remaining chemical weapons we built for them.'
As for Dread:
If Canada and Mexico asked us to become the 51st and 52nd states, we'd probably say 'sure'. They don't want to (don't forget that they have the european-descendent habit as well), and because we are so huge (and already have an EU-like structure you may have heard of called NAFTA), it's not a big deal to us. It's a bad analogy though, because there are no individual european countries that are in any way like the US in terms of size and economics. That's why you formed the EU in the first place. Each one of them is like one of our better states, but we have 50 of those already. And since English is one of the official languages of the US, Canada, and Mexico already, that argument is still not applicable.
Allur: Go look at lots of your previous posts to see what I mean. Don't make me embarrass you by quoting them all.
Edited to make it 500 million people (did more reasearch <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and to fix spelling, grammar
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that the roots of Russia are in its western parts and that it has a long history of being active in the european politics doesn't change the fact that it is not european in the sense that its immediate sphere of influence isn't limited to Europe. Western parts of Russia can be called european but the country as a whole simply isn't european. It is a country that has immediate interests throughout the Eurasian continent. Its focus is on the Europe but it is still an actor in the Asia.
Introduction of Roman empire and Mongols is interesting. I have a little hard time understanding how they have anything to do with the subject at hand but I'll try to answer anyway. Core of the Roman empire was in Europe. Possessions in Africa were focused on the north coast, Asia minor was a secondary part of empire. So yes, Roman empire was european in the sense that majority of it was located in Europe. However, there was no such thing as "being european" in those times. Mongols were from Asia, and majority of their empire was located in Asia. However, at its largest their empire can't be described as simply asian.
Finally, I have no idea why we are arguing whether Russia is european or not. Could we please stop? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->"THEY" seem hell bent on assaulting a sovereign state as Iraq. Why not move into Tibet and dislodge the Chinese?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does that answer my question? I repeat: What should be done to Chechnya that hasn't already been done? You quite clearly stated that my idea of Checnya conflict was "bollocky". Could you elaborate?
About this thing with Tibet. Well, international community has gone to great length with the diplomatic path. However, China doesn't feel like giving up. You say THEY should dislodge the Chinese. I assume THEY refers to US. You better mail George about it. I'm sure they would have dislodged Chinese years ago if they had just thought of it. Good thinking there.
Seriously, Tibet is caught between the rock and the hard place. Everyone else but China thinks they were sovereign and that their rights should be respected. However, how are you going to dislodge the Chinese if they don't feel like leaving?
<!--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-->"NOW" equals 1982. It's practically modern times, Britain is still there as a conquering power, basically.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Falklands are an age old regional dispute. If you would have read your own quote, you would have noticed that in 1982 it was Argentina that tried to wretch Falklands from British. I have a little hard time understanding how British are there as a conquering power due to the happenings of year 1982 since the islands have belong to them since 1833.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You want drift? You got drift! Here's topic drifting onto EU argiculture subsidiary. That's my particular. Uh. Wotchacallums in english? We call them "pole horses". Wossname.
Whatever, EU has some pretty horrid argricultural subsidies. It's like the world's largest unemployment project. Billions of €'s are poured into a much too expensive argicultural sector, where farmers are paid money to own agricultural land. Yep. Nice little cheque in the mail from EU each year based on how many acres you own. This superbly stupid system is based on greed. And a fear of what the heck we're going to do with all those idle hands if argricultural subsidies where cut. This is a rare occurence where france aren't blocking it for everyone, since just about any country in the EU has a large farming sector that benefits immensely from the subsides. I don't know if you have any thing this crazy in America, but for the love of Omnipotent Entities, I cannot have any high hopes for the EU untill economical sanity settles here again. So there's tariffs, there's taxes to pay for a strange strange agricultural system that produces food which is many many times more expensive than in the rest of the world. And that kind of hidden subsidies means that farmers from outside EU have difficult time selling their produce to EU. Since our super expensive stuff is half-way paid for by ourself even before we see 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-->Now, US threatens to invade a country. With the history of the US, you are fully aware that there will not be a need for warcrimes tribunals or a UN force of observers to make sure mass rapes and concentration camps aren't occuring. The US has in its mind some legitmate beefs, and while they can be disagreed with, they have some historical merit (iraqi WoMD, prior invasions of its neighbors, threat to world eneegry supply, destabilization of mideast by doing smart things like paying palestians terrorist families $25,000 per human-bomb attack, represses own people). Primary European reponse? 'This will not stand and we will veto anything you do, cut trade ties, etc. Because we have oil contracts there you might screw up, Iraq is our largest middleeastern trading partner, and you will also uncover all the remaining chemical weapons we built for them.'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if there wont be a NEED for one, why fear it? Frankly I do not believe any human being (Solely based on nationality) to be above committing atrocities. The dogged resistance to a world war crime tribunal by the US is understandable. It is an attempt to curb US military power by making sure they can't go and do what the **** pleases them. Such as declaring afghan soldiers for "illegal combatants" and locking them away in containers for an infinite period totally ignoring the rules of war. Illegal combatants? That's bollocks. Their are rules for the treatment of PoW's, how ever atrocious they have been or what cause they are following. That Guantanmo stunt is cheap, that's really cheap. Shame on them! So with this tendency by the US to make their own rules, I'd be really really glad to have a war crime tribunal.
<!--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-->It's a bad analogy though, because there are no individual european countries that are in any way like the US in terms of size and economics. That's why you formed the EU in the first place. Each one of them is like one of our better states, but we have 50 of those already. And since English is one of the official languages of the US, Canada, and Mexico already, that argument is still not applicable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I think the EU was created with Stability as the primary goal, economy playing an important role there of course. But it was primarily to tie together uncomfortable neighbours I think.
I'm not claiming they are mongol descendent non-europeans. I'm just trying to argue that while western parts of Russia are european, that isn't the case with other parts of the Russian Federation. As a whole, it just isn't european. If Russia was to break up and the historical Russia would become independent from the eastern parts, then it would be european.
It seems this argument is partly born from badly defined terms. I'm not referring to Russia as in historic Russia. I'm referring to Russia as the Russian federation. People in Vladivostok don't probably feel themselves very european.
<!--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-->"Russia invades a neigboring country which it claims is owned by it. Proceeds to occupy and fight over it brutally (there are a dozen warcrimes cases pending against Russia right now in the hague, and in their own courts mind you). Primary European reponse? 'Stop that! Oh well, they didn't stop, let's just go on abot our business, as it doesn't affect our oil contracts or trade partners, and who cares if a bunch of asians beat up on other asians anyways (to drift's point that russians are dismissed as 'not truly european')."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Situation in Chechnya comes down to the fact that they weren't sovereign. Ways foreign powers can affect a country dealing with an internal crisis are limited. In theory, it is same as if California was to go for independence and the rest of the states would stop them using military power. What other options rest of the world would have but to keep the political pressure on the US government?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia spans two continents, then. What is your point with that argument? Russia has always been an important player in european politics, economics and religious life. You can argue till the day River Euphrat dies up about Russia not being European, it is still a major player on the continent, and will always excert a large influence on the EU, be it member or not. It has also been a major player in the areas between Russia and India, where Georgia, Checznya, Kazakhstan etc. are. What do you want to use the statement "Russia isn't really european" to? What purpose does it serve in our on-going debate?
<!--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-->Situation in Chechnya comes down to the fact that they weren't sovereign. Ways foreign powers can affect a country dealing with an internal crisis are limited. In theory, it is same as if California was to go for independence and the rest of the states would stop them using military power. What other options rest of the world would have but to keep the political pressure on the US government?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's say a large part of the Californians declared the state independant, formed a government and called upon the world to aid them fight the oppressors? Civil wars are a muddy thing, and I believe no country should be able to get away with referring to "internal business" as an excuse to not have any one interferring.
To answer your question, yes we do have farm subsidies, but our situation doesn't sound as out of control as all that. America is the breadbasket to the world, so it's less necessarry for us to subsidize except under crop-conditions created by weather and seasonal problems.
And drift, we weren't arguing russia being europe - you were! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Heh, meaning, we were trying to show the european double-standard when it comes to the behavior they are decrying in the UN right now. They probably just feel that those damned slanty-eyed russians ain't not no real europeans (at least, that's how they'd say it if they were american rednecks), and who gives a **** if asians beat up asians. Ditto for China-Tibet. Europe just doesnt seemed concerned with most of Asia anymore, ever since Indonesia stopped being a major oil supplier
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm using it against MonsE's argument: Russia is doing nasty things in Chechnya, therefore some of the europeans are doing nasty things in Chechnya. Do you consider that since Russia is in your opinion european, europeans are currently occupying Chechnya with armed forces?
<!--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-->Civil wars are a muddy thing, and I believe no country should be able to get away with referring to "internal business" as an excuse to not have any one interferring.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but how do you do it in real life? I ask for the third time, what do you think should be done about Chechnya?
<span style='color:red'>** Nuked **</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now what's with all that cussin all of a sudden? Take your Be nice pills and come back in one day!
You will be surprised to find that even Americans are very different people if you met many of them face to face. They do have certain similarties such as language (and tendendy to talk WITH BOOMING VOICES - at least the tourists around here do. Why?). But of course no one want EU to be McDonaldizified, but I see no intrinsic value in us being so bloody different we can't be in the same room as each other, or have super many stupid trade barriers and foreing ministers running in each their direction when ever an international crisis occur.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Europeans are, yes. Just not MY Europeans, it's some of the OTHER europeans. It's not EU menbers, it's non-eu members. And as MonsE points out, Western Europe gives a hoot about what goes on to the east. Alas. Russia is playing dirty in Checznya. We can't just start saying they aren't really european any more because they start hammering away in Caucasus.
<!--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-->Yes, but how do you do it in real life? I ask for the third time, what do you think should be done about Chechnya?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say they stop killing each other and have an election, run by a third party like UN, or EU. Or someone. Those areas where the majority wants independence will become independant. Those areas where the majority wants to remain Russian, will remain russian. The devil takes the rest. But it beats the mess going on right now. The assets in the state will be divided into the two factions. Russia will pay war reperations to the new chechznya for the damage they have done.
It would be fitting if EU stopped sticking it's head in the bushes each time someone fires a shot in anger... and start taking some regional responsibility - IN CONSENSUS (Which basically means to gag the french foreign minister and hide him in a closet untill the crisis is over). It doesnt matter if or if not Chechznya is a part of Europe, but the country busy mucking about is indeed. And EU should put heavy diplomatic pressure on Russia demanding they stop and find a peaceful compromise.
Now, how do you bypass the fact that Russia isn't willing to let go of Chechnya and considers it a part of itself? I asked how you would do it in real life, not how it would be best in your opinion. Russia shows no sign of letting go of Chechnya. Until that changes, hope of free elections is zero. It takes more than diplomatic pressure to change Russia's opinion.
Ohhhhh, wait. Even though those would all have Russia turning on a dime, all those things would also cost europe money... hmmm... This is exactly the same kind of horrible attitude that had Bush Sr. giving China most favored nation status after Tianemem Square. I guess it's just different if you're a european government and people's.
"You are a greedy, selfish conglomerate of post-imperialist states, you suck" - "No, your government plays and played chess with the lives of millions. <i>You</i> suck!"
People, I've got news for you - we <i>all</i> suck. Hard.
Germany, Italy, France, Russia, America, China, Great Britain; no country that ever had power didn't abuse it, and let's don't kid ourselves - those which had none just didn't get the chance of abusion.
Some American forum members recently complained rightfully about the tremendous America-bashing going on in here. Now I see some of them bashing Europe (And especially France, which I, as the one of us living closest to the French border, can tell you is just as good or bad a country as any other.).
It's just as ridiculous.
Unless a historical event has direct ties to the topic at hand, and face it, 90% of those cited in here don't have any, or can serve as valid analogy, they're just absolutely useless in the context of the discussion and just make it possible to bash 'them', with 'them' being any group that a) can be brought to a common denominator (such as nationality, history, or the breathing of oxygen) and b) doesn't intersect with the group defined as 'us' (which, again, can be brought to any common denominator such as nationality, history, or the breathing of oxygen).
Honestly, I'd rather call it quits and go on discussing, as opposed to arguing.
Ironically, this whole issue is however closely connected with the original topic.
Some of you asked themselves where the terms of 'Old' and 'New' Europe came from.
They were coined by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference shortly after the first (rather mild) doubting of the Iraq war from the side of Germany and France. Rumsfeld called both countries the "remaints of an Old Europe" which was in the danger of being left behind.
One may stand to that assumption however one wants (and I figure you all read my first post, so I won't have to repeat myself here), but it's interesting to think about Rumsfelds motives behind this remark, which undoubtely made consensus about a war much more unlikely (and as much as I hate him, I acknowledge that Rumsfeld is a clever enough man to realize that).
To me, this was one of the steps put into practice to get the 'if you're not for us, you're against us' - paradigm of the current US administration into the socio-political frame, because it made way for the 'country-bashing' we observe in this thread from the light 'pubparlor' it used to be into the serious discussion.
Being 'against' the US' governments plans means that a kind of 'total cultural war' is waged against 'you' ('you' being any group that...). French Fries (which were actually created in Belgium) become 'Freedom Fries'. 'Your' goods, or at least those which can be easily recognized as such, are being boycotted. And 'you' are anti-americanistic. Period. Not that there would be any real prove or something, but you are.
Instant scapegoat.
EDIT
Bravo Nem. Well said.
And looking at the 'Who's browsing' thing, I see the most active members of this threat. Things is gonna get hot...
EDIT 2
Alright, thanks Nem. Its more like a Russian Vietnam in the sense that you had an ethnic population struggling for self empowerment throughout time, always fighting off some new ruler. Vietnman had the Han, the Ming, the Qing, the Japanese- 2000 years of control.
What, because I pimp good prostitutes ?? (I'm still unsure if Ponce means the same to you as it does to me <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ohhhhh, wait. Even though those would all have Russia turning on a dime, all those things would also cost europe money... hmmm... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where is the strong american response to Chechnya?
Sanctions? What kind of sanctions can Europe pass over Russia?
Trade embargos. Yes, they cost money and money doesn't grow on trees. Trade with Russia is important to many European states, for example my own homeland, Finland. It's easy to ask for trade embagos from that side of the Atlantic. Do you honestly believe that small countries would be willing to muck their relations with Russia over a trade embargo that doesn't even have good chances of succeeding? Europeans are not free to act as the world police in the similar fashion as the States.
Denying possibility of EU-membership? Or Nato-membership? Nato is more the business of your country, but what would be the response if EU stated that Russia betters stop their vile ways or they won't let it become member of their club in the future? Russia will retain some of its strength in the future and it doesn't need EU-membership. The possibility of Russia becoming a member in EU is just that, a possibility. They don't need it and currently they don't even want it.
Yup, we can, provided that by 'Europe', you mean 'Europes governments', which are, as we already established, bought ****. But it has very few things to do with the original topic as I see it (check the second part of my post.).
They were coined by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference shortly after the first (rather mild) doubting of the Iraq war from the side of Germany and France. Rumsfeld called both countries the "remaints of an Old Europe" which was in the danger of being left behind.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aaah! What a sharp mind you have. I now understand how "damaging" that comparisson has been. So Rumsfeld acidic remark about Old and New europe really just served the whole purpose by forcing all "shruggers" to take a stance, either FOR or AGAINST. Clever, clever indeed.
MonsE, I think you'd want Nemz as your Minister of Just about Anything Else in Monsinia. He's smart!
We're not talking about America, we're talking about europe. Can we not just endlessly 'I know you are but what am I', and answer the actual question? Yes, America is just as bad for not giving sanctions. But we're also not the ones trying to block US attacks on Iraq using the exact same arguments!
As for not willing to sacrifice trade relations even though the country your trading with is behaving evilly - that explains why Iraq has $650 million a year in trade with France. Your argument may be true, but it sure is a gross way to run a country. My point is, europe cannot occupy the moral highground with Iraq, yet simultaneously allow the same behavior in its own ranks with Russia. We are returning to my favorite word:
<i>Hypocricy</i>
I agree. Although he would likely end up being stuck in something like the Dept. of Wildlife Preservation, as he can't stand government and is quite a hippy <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
Nem, how was I just said bashing? I'm begging, pleading, down on my knees asking for people to realize that governments are hypocrites. It just so happens the governments are related to countries. I would think you'd agree, as that's the central tennet of every single argument you ever supply <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: and even Nemesis calls it a continent. He's soooooo old europe... lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->