View Full Version : United European Army?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2988397.stmEuro press picks over defence summit
Europe's defenders?
The results of Tuesday's defence mini-summit in Brussels received a mixed reception in European newspaper.
The leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg announced plans for joint military planning and their intention to set up a rapid reaction force.
The east German Maerkische Allgemeine from Potsdam concedes that any effort "to give Europeans more weight in the trans-Atlantic alliance is... legitimate and urgent".
But the paper criticises the way the four prime movers have distanced themselves from Washington, saying it has "destroyed the slight chances of any common defence efforts".
'Wrecking ball'
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung views with scepticism the declaration by the four leaders that they were trying to strengthen the European pillar of Nato.
"It is an open question," it says, "whether the four achieved anything in this regard, or whether they were swinging a wrecking ball."
The Suedkurier from Konstanz has little time for the meeting.
"Europe is not suffering from a shortage of declarations of intent, it is suffering from a lack of resolve. This mess found its visible expression in the Brussels mini-summit."
The Rhein-Zeitung is more positive. "Europe does not need 25 armies", its says.
'Sensible and logical'
The centre-left Frankfurter Rundschau also puts a positive gloss on the summit.
"Much of what they agreed is not new ... and it opens the door to a European army and the abolition of national armed forces."
Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung also sees little reason to be surprised at the results, calling them "relatively sensible and logical".
"The text is nothing more than a consistent development of what EU governments have been saying at their summits for years."
'Daring initiative'
France's Le Figaro calls the plan to set up a military planning "nucleus" near Brussels next year, "the most daring of the initiatives".
The paper says Jacques Chirac's statement that "whether you like it or not, a multipolar world is emerging naturally" is a snub to Tony Blair, who had "warned that his country and the rest of the EU would refuse to accept anything that might undermine Nato".
Le Monde emphasises a similar point, reporting that the four leaders "decided to go ahead and announce a number of decisions without waiting for their EU partners".
"Do we, the Fifteen - soon to be the Twenty-five - really want to build a European defence together?" asks the widely-read daily Ouest-France.
"The least one can say is that the building site is in a total mess," the paper goes on.
"The Europeans will have to clarify their relations with America and... Washington will have to agree to allow Europe 'the right to exist'."
The Belgian daily Le Soir questions the results of the summit.
"Among the concrete proposals put forward ... that of creating a 'military staff' independent of Nato in 2004 threatens to arouse an outcry from the most Atlanticist Europeans", it says.
La Libre Belgique, another Belgian daily, praises what it calls the "noble and ambitious" idea that Europe should end its "almost puerile military dependence on the United States".
But it adds that the four participants set "no costed targets" for their projects.
Unity or division?
The Spanish daily ABC thinks money will be the plan's downfall.
"France and Germany's inability to control their galloping public deficits turns the proposal into a mere expression of desires that will be impossible to put into practice," it says.
La Razon argues for giving the proposals a chance.
"We can but hope that the project will manage to unite the other members of the EU under the necessary flag of unity, instead of deepening a division that would only benefit the enemies of a strong Europe," the paper says.
BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.
As it says, they won't want to actually pay for it, they would rather the US spent our money defending them.
CosmoKramer
02-May-2003, 22:46
Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.
Joe DeFuria
02-May-2003, 22:52
This is almost comical.... :D
Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.
Ahaha...
nutball
03-May-2003, 09:22
Oh do me a favour. This European army idea has been going around for decades now. It won't fly until the various nations within the EU reconcile their differing national interests. This may never happen.
Have we learned nothing from the past 12 months?
Frankly, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to try to make EU another military super power. Will probably only create trouble, and in times of clashes between the US and EU it will probably be more harmful and dangerous than otherwise.
Don't make assumptions about Europe from the past...
Europe is changing rapidly, its will double in size next year. Even that won't be the end of its growth.
Discussion began last year about internal protection of the European border without NATO article 5 use. A common foriegn and security policy is under way, the beginning of a European army have started. Money is now the Euro. A president of the European Union is a possibility.
In fact its European policy to be independent ASAP. Europe is rapadily growing to the democratic centre of the world, its democracy and freedoms are of the highest standard (second to none) in the world. Rights of privacy, freedom of movement, human rights, social conditions and even enviromental conditions are enshrined as basic human rights.
100 years ago the idea that the USA would be a super-power and the UK would be a small part of a Europe Union would have been laughed at.....
If you think the differences can't be overcome, its worth noting that most US states have a few differences as well and they seem to be o.k. these days and Europe has already had a civil war (lasted about the last 2000 years :-) ) to convince themselves that not fighting each might be a good idea.
Lets just hope that the USA and EU don't piss each other off. In the future a split like Iraq could be the beginnings of WW3.
Don't under estimate the potential for the world to change rapidly, especially when pressure is applied.
its democracy and freedoms are of the highest standard (second to none) in the world. Rights of privacy, freedom of movement, human rights, social conditions and even enviromental conditions are enshrined as basic human rights.
I assume you mean that the democracy is blah blah blah as you said, and that they like all that other stuff too?
Because privacy rights are better in the US, and freedom of movement in the U.S. compared to in Europe lol. It is not really even comparable, although as is well known europe is trying to become similar to the United States of Europe or something, which is fine.
It is funny to me how george orwells 1984 has taken awhile, but things are starting back towards a polarized world into huge blocks, and as in the book US-UK are still together, and the rest of europe is kind of heading away, while the UK rides the fence. It is interesting and I wonder where it will end up.
It is only a matter of time however in my opinion till people realize Europe is full of seperate countries in name only, and therefore Europe would only get one seat in the UN, and what not.
------
well maybe not but it would be funny
Crusher
04-May-2003, 07:10
I don't have a problem with a United States of Europe. Having grown up in the U.S.A., European countries seem tiny as it is... I think it would make more sense for them to all join together in one nation.
What I do have a problem with, is a U.S.E. where the three branches of government are France, Germany, and Belgium.
nutball
04-May-2003, 08:42
If you think the differences can't be overcome, its worth noting that most US states have a few differences as well and they seem to be o.k. these days and Europe has already had a civil war (lasted about the last 2000 years :-) ) to convince themselves that not fighting each might be a good idea.
IMO the USA is not a good indicator of whether the USE would work. The USA is a young country, it doesn't have much of a history. Forming it was writing on a blank slate.
In Europe you have a situation where animosity and mis-trust between the nations goes back a thousand years or more. You can't sweep that away in a few decades.
Nagorak
04-May-2003, 10:04
As it says, they won't want to actually pay for it, they would rather the US spent our money defending them.
And the sad thing is the US is stupid enough to do it. Just like we defend Japan so they can only spend 1% of their GDP on defense. Meanwhile the US can't really stop defending these countries because we use the military as a huge job program, and we'd have nothing to do with them if we couldn't deploy them around the world.
Honestly, who are the smart ones here?
Nagorak
04-May-2003, 10:24
It is funny to me how george orwells 1984 has taken awhile, but things are starting back towards a polarized world into huge blocks, and as in the book US-UK are still together, and the rest of europe is kind of heading away, while the UK rides the fence. It is interesting and I wonder where it will end up.
You have to have huge blocks form before you can end up with one world government. Also, I'd say the US and UK aren't really together, but rather the UK is just the US's bitch. I think its clear that eventually the UK will wise up and join with the rest of Europe, because besides Tony Blair, no one has really been fooled that it's really the UK that's calling the shots. Also, in terms of mentality and history the UK really has a lot more in common with Europe. But in a thousand years it's not really going to matter anyway. Then they'll probably be concerned with unifying our solar system with neighboring ones (after they break away in a war of independence in desire of more individual power, then later come back as equals...human history sure is redundant..)
Unfortunately the larger and more removed the government becomes, the less responsive it is to the people. So, in a general sense 1984 may not be so unrealistic (although that isn't to say that Orwell didn't exaggerate to make a point). For the most part, this won't affect anyone except for the affluent, because individual power is already nil in a country with millions of people in it. Also as much as we individually pride in our uniqueness, in the scheme of things its actually become pretty unimportant. Just as life originally evolved from single cells to multi-celled organisms, evolution has now moved on to form huge macro-organisms (countries, etc).
We're basically all cells now, individually expendable and unimportant. But the good thing is that collective macro-organisms are much more intelligent than individual organisms. I guess the really interesting question is whether individual rights will remain of much importance, or if they'll gradually fall by the wayside. I tend to expect the later since many of our "rights" are just matters of economic convenience. In order to facilitate the fluctuations of society's focus (as seen in the job market) workers have to be free to move around. When and if this becomes no longer necessary, I wouldn't be surprised if its curtailed.
But, then again, individual cells and even mitochondria manage to retain some of their individual function and relative independence (as much as such miniscule organisms can have), so maybe the future isn't so bleak for us after all.
nutball
04-May-2003, 10:57
Also, I'd say the US and UK aren't really together, but rather the UK is just the US's bitch. I think its clear that eventually the UK will wise up and join with the rest of Europe, because besides Tony Blair, no one has really been fooled that it's really the UK that's calling the shots. Also, in terms of mentality and history the UK really has a lot more in common with Europe.
Well that's a rather provocative way of putting it, but in essence you are right that very few people in the UK think we have very much influence at all over what the US does (and IMO I think Tony Blair doesn't either). The people who do think this tend to be from the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party.
Thing is there's a big debate been going on here for decades over who we should align ourselves with: Europe or the US. Both have benefits and drawbacks. It's not at all clear which would be most beneficial to the UK (which frankly is all we care about). It's clear to me however that our current position with a foot on each camp isn't sustainable in the long-term. We're going to have to make a decision eventually, though I wouldn't like to bet on what that decision will be.
Barnabas
04-May-2003, 12:54
I don't really see a new block forming in europe. In germany for example a simple government change should be sufficient for a return to the "Follow america whereever it leads" policy.
For the most part, this won't affect anyone except for the affluent, because individual power is already nil in a country with millions of people in it. Also as much as we individually pride in our uniqueness, in the scheme of things its actually become pretty unimportant. Just as life originally evolved from single cells to multi-celled organisms, evolution has now moved on to form huge macro-organisms (countries, etc).
We're basically all cells now, individually expendable and unimportant.
That is really not true at all. While it is true that individuals have little power in the U.S. government at the local level there is still considerable power for an individual, if they want it. Human rights will never go by the wayside, b/c people would get pissed eventally and do something about it.
The only way this could ever happen would be to make distinct classes of people and educate some and give them privlidges, and no educate the others and make them janitors and what not, but we will have to wait and see.
its democracy and freedoms are of the highest standard (second to none) in the world. Rights of privacy, freedom of movement, human rights, social conditions and even enviromental conditions are enshrined as basic human rights.
I assume you mean that the democracy is blah blah blah as you said, and that they like all that other stuff too?
Because privacy rights are better in the US, and freedom of movement in the U.S. compared to in Europe lol. It is not really even comparable, although as is well known europe is trying to become similar to the United States of Europe or something, which is fine.
EU rules on privacy are way ahead of the US, so I think you have your facts wrong. Its an EU right, that nobody can store data about an individual without that person's consent. Also nobody can share or sell that personal data without consent.
What does the US have? Federal data protection and self regulation for everybody else also a belief that selling personal data is o.k.
The EU data protection act is so powerful, a 'safe harbour' policy has to be operated by all US companies wishing to store any data about EU citizens.
In case you don't know, the data protection act means all records stored by anyone (not just the federal government as I believe the US law is) have to be open to the person held on record, also the transmission and storage must meet certain conditions.
If your interested in how far reaching the EU privacy law's are, even in the US. http://www.privacyknowledgebase.com/newsUse09_s.jsp
If you want to read the EU rights try http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/guide_en.htm
John Reynolds
04-May-2003, 16:29
Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.
Your gratitude is overwhelming.
CosmoKramer
04-May-2003, 17:47
Your gratitude is overwhelming.
Looks like severe detachment from reality but I'll be nice and let you explain yourself.
MrsSkywalker
04-May-2003, 17:57
What does the US have? Federal data protection and self regulation for everybody else also a belief that selling personal data is o.k.
Not sure what type of data you are talking about. Are you reffering to things like phone numbers and addresses? Or to social security numbers and medical information?
What does the US have? Federal data protection and self regulation for everybody else also a belief that selling personal data is o.k.
Not sure what type of data you are talking about. Are you reffering to things like phone numbers and addresses? Or to social security numbers and medical information?
Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc
MrsSkywalker
04-May-2003, 18:30
Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc
Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).
Phone numbers and addresses can also be considered public records, I suppose, b/c most people list them in the phone book. There are mailing lists which companies purchase...they have names, addresses, and phone numbers of people. These lists are usually compiled from phone books, therefore the information they use is not secret. You can request to NOT have your phone number or address listed in the phone book, and it is LAW that the phone company does not give out your information if you are unlisted in the phone book. Also, it is LAW that if you request to be taken off a mailing list, the company must honor your request. For example, if you get an unsolicited call from a telemarketer, and you tell them to take you off their list, they are breaking the law if they call you again, or sell your name in a list to another company.
Things like medical records, social security numbers, credit card numbers and that type of sensitive information are definitely protected by our laws. It is VERY illegal to sell this type of personal data to anyone.
I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.
Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc
Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).
<Snip Mrs SkyWalker setting me right>
I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.
O.K. Selling infomation isn't allowed (which is good :-) ). Its quite hard to get accurate info on other countries etc, its a common saying among EU privacy people that the US allows selling of private data. My apologies for the error.
The thing as was trying to point out is that under EU law, all private data is protected.
If I go into a bank and ask to start an account, they have to explicitly ask me if its o.k. to store my name & address.
My data (everything about me) is my property and explictly under my control, except for reason of national security nobody can store or use data without my control.
To give you how strict it is, it took some serious legal wrangling to allow web-site cookies. A cookie can be used to track you, so they were almost disallowed unless explicitly granted. In the end common sense prevailed and they were allowed, as long as there is a statement somewhere on there website to obtain usage infomation etc. Even devices like Xbox have privacy concerns (the unique number), when a person signs up for Xbox Live you have to give you consent for them to store that data, and I can ask at anytime for my any infomation kept related to me.
Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc
Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).
Phone numbers and addresses can also be considered public records, I suppose, b/c most people list them in the phone book. There are mailing lists which companies purchase...they have names, addresses, and phone numbers of people. These lists are usually compiled from phone books, therefore the information they use is not secret. You can request to NOT have your phone number or address listed in the phone book, and it is LAW that the phone company does not give out your information if you are unlisted in the phone book. Also, it is LAW that if you request to be taken off a mailing list, the company must honor your request. For example, if you get an unsolicited call from a telemarketer, and you tell them to take you off their list, they are breaking the law if they call you again, or sell your name in a list to another company.
Things like medical records, social security numbers, credit card numbers and that type of sensitive information are definitely protected by our laws. It is VERY illegal to sell this type of personal data to anyone.
I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.
In Europe you can't get onto any mailing lists without explicitely expressing your consent. Yes, your address and phone number is available in the phone-book, but if a company or agency wants to keep records on you in their system they must have your written consent to do so. Selling such records to a third party is illegal unless you have the consent from everyone in those records.
John Reynolds
04-May-2003, 19:01
Looks like severe detachment from reality but I'll be nice and let you explain yourself.
While I personally think NATO has run its course since the death of the Cold War, your words sounded like referring to it was quite distasteful for you. And while the USA's motivations were obviously not entirely within the realm of a benevolent big brother in the post-WW2 era (since we definitely wanted European markets wide open to us), the reality is that the trillions and trillions America poured into NATO, money my parents' generation paid via taxes their entire working lives, means you live your way of life thanks to the USA. You might not like this. You may in fact resent it. In fact, since almost every post you write smacks of Euro-elitism, I'm quite certain you do. But the reality is that your grandparents, your parents, and you live your lives in whatever peace and prosperity you've enjoyed largely in thanks to the USA. Again, motivations aside, this is the reality.
Or perhaps you'd prefer the next time European nations decide to turn upon each other with a frenzy the likes of which the world has never before seen that America just stays out of it?
The idea of a small professional european army isnt so bad. It probably would be easier to deal with the european union than several european countries when in times of negociating an alliance for a campaign. Itll never be a superpower military tho. Even if Europe were to unite all its militaries it wont likely amount to that large a military force compared to the US's.
Every step in the direction of european unity is a good one I think. Gets the goal of democratic world gov that much closer.
Looks like severe detachment from reality but I'll be nice and let you explain yourself.
While I personally think NATO has run its course since the death of the Cold War, your words sounded like referring to it was quite distasteful for you. And while the USA's motivations were obviously not entirely within the realm of a benevolent big brother in the post-WW2 era (since we definitely wanted European markets wide open to us), the reality is that the trillions and trillions America poured into NATO, money my parents' generation paid via taxes their entire working lives, means you live your way of life thanks to the USA. You might not like this. You may in fact resent it. In fact, since almost every post you write smacks of Euro-elitism, I'm quite certain you do. But the reality is that your grandparents, your parents, and you live your lives in whatever peace and prosperity you've enjoyed largely in thanks to the USA. Again, motivations aside, this is the reality.
Or perhaps you'd prefer the next time European nations decide to turn upon each other with a frenzy the likes of which the world has never before seen that America just stays out of it?
Large parts of Europe was not destroyed during WW2 and consequenctly didn't require rebuilding and thus didn't recieve any money.
Also, wars within the EU is about as likely as internal wars within the US.
RussSchultz
04-May-2003, 20:35
NATO had nothing to do with rebuilding Europe. It was protecting Europe from the "reds".
EU rules on privacy are way ahead of the US, so I think you have your facts wrong. Its an EU right, that nobody can store data about an individual without that person's consent. Also nobody can share or sell that personal data without consent.
If that is the kind of privacy you meant then fine, a large reason that this has not occured in the US is people don't care. I don't care if people have my birthday or other information. Most information is ridiculously easy to get a hold of anyway. And silly regulations are not really what I care about.
What I meant was how in the US prior to the passage of the patriot act and what not, we had more privacy in ways that others care about.
To provide security there is a trafeoff between privacy and the government knowing too much, that is what I was refering to, and the US did have more privacy in that respect, what private groups do with my information was not what I was reffering to.
Yes NATO was about defense of Europe and the US from the Soviet Union.
It was/is a win/win situation for both the US and Europe.
Where was the US going to put its nuclear weapons and bases from to defend against the Soviets? US was worried about letting the Soviets getting access to all the resources of Europe. How was Europe going to defned against the Soviets when it was in ruins?. NATO and the allience formed saved us all (US or European).
Its similar to the old US thing, "Europeans aren't grateful for saving them from the Nazis", but how many Americans are grateful to the UK for saving them from the Nazis? Because the only reason their aren't Nazis in the Whitehouse is the opposition posed by the UK during the first few years of the War. Alliances between countrys with similar outlooks (which to a large degree both the US and Europe have) are usually good for both sides.
Personally I'm very grateful for the US involvement in WW1, WW2 and the cold war but I also appreciate the US gained alot as well.
At times the way Europe is talked about, you would think is was a little island off the coast of the US. We all do know how big Europe is don't we? Twice the population of the US, a economy as big and when combined a big advanced military.
I also think that people forget that Russia is a part of Europe and their is early talk of Russia entering the EU in future.
I personally hope that the US and EU don't end up on opposite sides of some ideological debate. Because we would all die if we go to war.... The NATO/Soviet Union cold war would be minor compared to these 2 going up against each other. It was like the jokes about bombing France over the Iraqi thing, I wonder how many people realised that doing such a thing would have meant the total destruction of both France and the US (and probably the rest of the planet).
EU rules on privacy are way ahead of the US, so I think you have your facts wrong. Its an EU right, that nobody can store data about an individual without that person's consent. Also nobody can share or sell that personal data without consent.
If that is the kind of privacy you meant then fine, a large reason that this has not occured in the US is people don't care. I don't care if people have my birthday or other information. Most information is ridiculously easy to get a hold of anyway. And silly regulations are not really what I care about.
What I meant was how in the US prior to the passage of the patriot act and what not, we had more privacy in ways that others care about.
To provide security there is a trafeoff between privacy and the government knowing too much, that is what I was refering to, and the US did have more privacy in that respect, what private groups do with my information was not what I was reffering to.
Its not a silly regulation, its a fundemental human right. Certainly more of a right than carring firearms! But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of that kind of privacy.
So what privacy are you talking about? Privacy to me is the right to do what I want without somebody, anybody interfering or looking in?
If I understand what your saying, your government can't know too much due to privacy laws. The data protection act applies to the governments equally as to private companies. Even a election ballot paper has to ask you to agree to the storage and counting of the infomation :-)
In Europe, only matters of national security can override the DPA. Nobody even the Prime minister (I'm British) or the like can invade my privacy without major legal problems.
Its why were not bothered by lots of CCTVs over here, it protected at the highest level from use against us. The protection is higher than the government of the country. EU citizens have a court even higher than the government (in US terms, we can over the presidents head!)
John Reynolds
04-May-2003, 21:34
Yes NATO was about defense of Europe and the US from the Soviet Union.
Agreed.
It was/is a win/win situation for both the US and Europe.
Agreed.
Its similar to the old US thing, "Europeans aren't grateful for saving them from the Nazis", but how many Americans are grateful to the UK for saving them from the Nazis? Because the only reason their aren't Nazis in the Whitehouse is the opposition posed by the UK during the first few years of the War.
Not sure where you're going here. Are you saying without the UK, Germany would've rolled across Europe and then the Atlantic?
I personally hope that the US and EU don't end up on opposite sides of some ideological debate. Because we would all die if we go to war.... The NATO/Soviet Union cold war would be minor compared to these 2 going up against each other. It was like the jokes about bombing France over the Iraqi thing, I wonder how many people realised that doing such a thing would have meant the total destruction of both France and the US (and probably the rest of the planet).
I don't think Iraq was worth the damage we've done to our relations with so many other nations. Especially certain EU countries. I poke as much fun as anyone else at French military history, but I would absolutely hate to see the former allies of NATO allow the current tensions to continue.
CosmoKramer
04-May-2003, 21:47
While I personally think NATO has run its course since the death of the Cold War your words sounded like referring to it was quite distasteful for you.
The idea of a transatlantic defence treaty is not distasteful to me. The idea of the superpower using NATO as a means to control the defense policies and the politics of European countries is. A common EU defense would not necessarily mean that the transatlantic defense partnership would end. Your governments seem determined to make it so, however.
the trillions and trillions America poured into NATO, money my parents' generation paid via taxes their entire working lives, means you live your way of life thanks to the USA.
You must be referring to the Marshall-aid. Guess what, that was a loan (btw, Sweden declined). As for poring money into NATO, NATO members (except Iceland) pay for and decide for themselves how much to spend on defense.
In fact, since almost every post you write smacks of Euro-elitism, I'm quite certain you do.
That's ok, because all of your posts reek of arrogant self-righteousness. ;)
But the reality is that your grandparents, your parents, and you live your lives in whatever peace and prosperity you've enjoyed largely in thanks to the USA. Again, motivations aside, this is the reality.
What about the UK? WW2 was not a solo pastime for you yanks. The British deserve at least as much credit as the USA (note I didn't write "you" because you have never done anything remotely related, which goes to the core of your ludicruos comment).
Or perhaps you'd prefer the next time European nations decide to turn upon each other with a frenzy the likes of which the world has never before seen that America just stays out of it?
The best thing to avoid another big European war is a strong and democratic EU. The USA need the stay the hell away from internal European matters or it will backfire on you massively (which sadly is what is happening right now).
Back to the issue. You yanks are from now on going to quit complaining about France, get it? Without them there would be no such thing as the USA since the British Imperial Army would have smashed your farmers to pulp. You must show France gratitude. What? You say that was a long time ago?
You must also always constantly declare your gratitude to the native americans who so generously shared their lands with you.
You must also always constantly declare your gratitude to the African Americans who so bravely accepted too be treated like cattle despite your constitution declaring all men equal.
What do I, CosmoKramer, owe you John Reynolds?
John Reynolds
04-May-2003, 22:09
The idea of a transatlantic defence treaty is not distasteful to me. The idea of the superpower using NATO as a means to control the defense policies and the politics of European countries is. A common EU defense would not necessarily mean that the transatlantic defense partnership would end. Your governments seem determined to make it so, however.
I agree that the EU should determine its own defense guidelines and act on them.
You must be referring to the Marshall-aid. Guess what, that was a loan (btw, Sweden declined). As for poring money into NATO, NATO members (except Iceland) pay for and decide for themselves how much to spend on defense.
Oh, I'm sure NATO cost the USA nothing throughout the entire Cold War. Scarce a red nickle was spent defending the continent from the Soviet Union.
That's ok, because all of your posts reek of arrogant self-righteousness.
Oh, I'm just your typical uneducated American. Go GW!!
What about the UK? WW2 was not a solo pastime for you yanks. The British deserve at least as much credit as the USA (note I didn't write "you" because you have never done anything remotely related, which goes to the core of your ludicruos comment).
One word: Dunkirk. No offense to the UK, but I think you're stretching things a bit too far here. I have served nine years in the military, albeit a guard unit.
The best thing to avoid another big European war is a strong and democratic EU. The USA need the stay the hell away from internal European matters or it will backfire on you massively (which sadly is what is happening right now).
Agreed. But while I'm a full supporter of the EU and, moreover, self-determinism, I could do without the assumptions that I'm a Bush supporter. I highly doubt anything I've ever posted reeks of "arrogant self-righteousness", whereas you have certainly gone to great lengths to exhibit extremely negative attitudes toward America. I love European history and culture, spent years of my life studying it in college, and have spent months vacationing across the continent. I did not vote for Bush, nor am I a fan of his administration's many, and growing, diplomatic blunders.
Back to the issue. You yanks are from now on going to quit complaing about France, get it? Without them there would be no such thing as the USA since the British Imperial Army would have smashed your farmers to pulp. You must show France gratitude. What? You say that was a long time ago?
Just as soon as you purge that Nordic blood and the undocumentable damage it did to western civilization for centuries. As for the French, 1066 still pisses me off. 8)
You must also always constantly declare your gratitude to the native americans who so generously shared their lands with you.
A sin we'll never erase.
You must also always constantly declare your gratitude to the African Americans who so bravely accepted too be treated like cattle despite your constitution declaring all men equal.
A quaint little European custom, eh? Though I agree it was extremely hypocritical to draft such a document while slavery was still a part of our society. But I'm very pro equal rights for all, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference (note my defense of gay rights in Natoma's recent UN thread).
What do I, CosmoKramer, owe you John Reynolds?
A return to reasonable, reality-based opinions, not your continuing Euro-elitism and self-righteousness. Bah!
[quote]Its similar to the old US thing, "Europeans aren't grateful for saving them from the Nazis", but how many Americans are grateful to the UK for saving them from the Nazis? Because the only reason their aren't Nazis in the Whitehouse is the opposition posed by the UK during the first few years of the War.
Not sure where you're going here. Are you saying without the UK, Germany would've rolled across Europe and then the Atlantic?
Quite possible, The amount of damage done to the German infrastructure by the British Empire was massive, If the British Empire had not held on, its quite likely that 10 years later the Germans would have rolled over the British and then USSR before moving on. Who would be next? Hitler with rockets, radar, jet engines and possible nuclear weapons.... Not a nice thought. German would have become what the Soviet Union was 10 years later, and the US was pretty worried by them (Just make German = Sovient Union but twice as powerful and remove most of US military technology, to see what the 1950s would have been like), One things that certain it wouldn't have been a American to first set foot on the moon.
It wasn't just the Brits but all the Canadians, Indians, Arabs, Israelis (as they would becomes), Maltese, Burmese etc It truely was a world war and that stopped Germany expontial increase dead in its tracks.
Of course this is all "What If", just as "What If" the US hadn't helped Europe against Sovet Union. My point being that we all "owe" each other, if we start keeping precise scores (UK paid for the construction of the US : 5 Points, US helped UK in the war : 10 pioints :-) ) its an endless circle.
All the democratic countries owe each other in some form or another.
John Reynolds
04-May-2003, 22:57
Of course this is all "What If", just as "What If" the US hadn't helped Europe against Sovet Union. My point being that we all "owe" each other, if we start keeping precise scores (UK paid for the construction of the US : 5 Points, US helped UK in the war : 10 pioints :-) ) its an endless circle.
All the democratic countries owe each other in some form or another.
Couldn't agree more.
What about the UK? WW2 was not a solo pastime for you yanks. The British deserve at least as much credit as the USA (note I didn't write "you" because you have never done anything remotely related, which goes to the core of your ludicruos comment).
One word: Dunkirk. No offense to the UK, but I think you're stretching things a bit too far here. I have served nine years in the military, albeit a guard unit.
After getting our arses kicked we retreated hastily and saved 330,000 troops for the come back. Whats your problem? Please remember that the Brits lost all their major allies (we were meant to be help defend the French, by Dunkirk we were in an enemy country) and a large advanced army was about to wipe them out.
I guess you've forgot the African compaign (El Alamein) or the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Atlantic. Where people died for your (and mine) freedoms, the may not have carried a US flag but they still died for democracy and freedom.
Britain was secure by 1941, you might like the check when the US was forced to join the fight against evil.
I suspect your used to the post-war US propeganda that only the mighty US of A saved the world from Hitler and the Soviets. The truth is that the US played a huge portion in both but it didn't do it single handed.
So much of our history is intertwined its hard to notice what the other did, if the US hadn't sold the British ships, the Brits would have lost the War for the Atlantic, if UK scientists hadn't helped the Nuclear Program, the US wouldn't have developed atomic weapons for some time.
You fly in Jets, use radar and have nuclear power stations for free because of what the UK felt we owed you. Did the US share its tech with us? No after helping the US build nuclear weapons and agreeing to let the US fly from the UK with them, the US decided the UK couldn't have access to the research it had helped create.
Fearful of the US bombing Russia from the UK with nukes, we developed our own nuclear weapons from scratch. The reason the UK is a nuclear power was the fear that the US might decide the best option for Americans, was a pre-emptive strike with nukes against Soviet Union from the UK . The Soviet Union couldn't reach the US with its Nukes but could reach the UK, so from a purely US point of view a pre-emptive strike would have been a win/win situation (lots of Russians killed, very few Americans and some unimportant UK/Europeans caught in the cross fire). We figured our own nuclear weapons would make sure nobody (US or Soviet) would think we were harmless.
The US pre-WW2 was only concerned with itself, most of the world still fears (rightly or wrongly) that it still really only cares about what happens to Americans. The same fear the got the UK developing Nukes, is the same fear the demands a powerful Europe, what happens when the US decided to only look after number 1?
CosmoKramer
04-May-2003, 22:58
Oh, I'm sure NATO cost the USA nothing throughout the entire Cold War. Scarce a red nickle was spent defending the continent from the Soviet Union.
Oh, I'm sure NATO cost the european NATO countries nothing throughout the Cold War. Oh, I'm sure the European countries forced the western superpower to deploy troops in Europe.
Oh, I'm just your typical uneducated American. Go GW!!
Glad to hear it from your own mouth. Not that I had implied anything of the sort, but whatever works for you.
One word: Dunkirk. No offense to the UK, but I think you're stretching things a bit too far here.
You need to return to reality (were you ever here?). Without Britain maintaining a second front and thus tieing up german troops in the west Russia would likely have fallen.
have served nine years in the military, albeit a guard unit.
Now what the hell does that have to do with anything? What we are discussing here is that you think supporting a European Army means that I'm not "grateful" to the US (such utter arrogance). Did you personally do anything to end WW2 (which ended close to 60 years ago)? Didn't think so. I owe you what?
I could do without the assumptions that I'm a Bush supporter
Then quit acting like one (ie arrogant self-rightous comments like I should "owe" you).
whereas you have certainly gone to great lengths to exhibit extremely negative attitudes toward America.
Sigh, the mortal sin of Anti-Americanism. I have never been anti-American per-se but certainly anti-Bush, anti-fascist and anti-imperialist. Judging by the number of pro-Bush people in a place housing such intelligence as B3D I must however sadly assume that it's not just Bush&Co that have gone bonkers but a frighteningly large part of the american public as well.
I love European history and culture
..and I go to McDonald's as much as the next guy.
Just as soon as you purge that Nordic blood and the undocumentable damage it did to western civilization for centuries.
Ah, racism. I guess you should have voted for Bush after all.
A quaint little European custom, eh?
Slavery has been abolished in Sweden for a thousand years.
A return to reasonable, reality-based opinions, not your continuing Euro-elitism and self-righteousness. Bah!
Exchange the "Euro" for "American" and I say likewise.
The UK did not pay for our construction, the idea is silly. Colonies were used to pay England, they were used and abused, and that is not in doubt. Whatever benefits the colony get from the colonizer are usually paid for at high prices. The question is were colonies any better than the current situation where third world countries still get screwed but now it is by private groups not governments? Well I think it is b/c a public group should not be doing terrible things.
The french did help us in the Revelutionary war, why? To snub England.
Trillions of dollars went to Europe via Nato, b/c we made it so they did not have to spend their money on defense. If you don't believe this than sorry. The nazis never would have taken the US, and you should know that, the same reason they would never have taken Russia, areas this large are simply to hard to control, especially if the populace is not agreeable.
CosmoKramer you deem to have some unfounded ideas, that is all I can think of, but perhaps you are prone to hyperbole to prove your points.
What about the UK? WW2 was not a solo pastime for you yanks. The British deserve at least as much credit as the USA (note I didn't write "you" because you have never done anything remotely related, which goes to the core of your ludicruos comment).
The UK would have fallen quite quickly had we not picked sides prior to entering the war, we were supplying the UK and helped keep them afloat, we lost men b4 we entered the war trying to supply UK to fight the Nazis for us.
If anything you should complain the the US to often uses surrogates, as in we pay and supply, and they die, for our interests. Perhaps this is so, but if this is the case why does every get so mad when we use our own forces?
MrsSkywalker
04-May-2003, 23:18
Slavery has been abolished in Sweden for a thousand years.
And before it was abolished it was practiced. As it was in virtually every culture throughout history. We can't say that we've had slavery abolished for a thousand years, b/c we haven't been around that long. You can't take the moral high ground on this one...you have never owned a slave, and neither have any of us. We're all on the same moral plane on this one.
To get back on topic, I personally feel that a united European Army may be a good idea, as long as it is designed properly. IMO, every nation involved should have fair representation...it is definitely a concern that some countries would be well represented, while others go ignored. If there was a threat to Croatia, would it be taken as seriously as a threat to Germany? And what happens to the countries who DON'T want to join?
CosmoKramer
04-May-2003, 23:29
And before it was abolished it was practiced.
Yes. Did the kingdom of Sweden anno ~1000 have a written constitution delaring all men equal?
Give it up Skywalker.
The only reason the Soviet Union didn't fall was because of (primarily) British and American support. If England hadn't declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, the Soviet Union would have fallen (Germany wouldn't have wasted alot of their air force in The Battle of Britain).
With the Soviet Union down, Germany would have secured resources to continue their campaign. It would also have allowed the Japanese to break out of Manchuria where the Soviets had stopped them prior to the outbreak of WW 2.
Alot of what ifs...
As for the U.S. pumping $$$ into Nato: True, but every single imaginary WW 3 scenario had Western Europe as the (nuclear) battle field, which probably suited the Soviets and the U.S. just fine.
Also: the U.K. spent as large a fracion of their GDP on defense as the U.S. did up until the fall of the Soviet Union.
Cheers
Gubbi
WW2 is a complex topic 8)
But any American and/or British claiming to have contributed the most to overall victory is forgetting that Germany had allocated in the area of 85% of its entire army and industry to the war in Russia.
Now imagine a western europe theater without operation Barbarossa.
MrsSkywalker
05-May-2003, 01:34
Yes. Did the kingdom of Sweden anno ~1000 have a written constitution delaring all men equal?
Oh, that's right. Your government didn't say all people were equal until 1974. Human rights stuff is in Chapter 2, and then the restrictions to these rights are laid out in the same chapter, articles 12,13,and 14.
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sw00000_.html
(I got a real kick out of Chapter 4, Article 8...there are a few senators and congressmen over here that would LOVE a law like that!)
While on google I stumbled upon this article on civil rights in Sweden:
http://www.iraniancivilrights.com/sweden.htm
...this too...
http://www.centrumforrattvisa.se/cfr.asp?T=English
It's good your government seems to finally be addressing the issue.
You consistantly trash the US for having civil rights issues to deal with. As I have told you before, you have absolutely no idea what real cultural diversity is. You also have no real idea how difficult it is to get millions of people belonging to hundreds of races, religions, nationalities, and creeds to "be nice to eachother".
It only took us about 200 years into our nation's life to realize the stupidity of our ways. It took Sweden thousands of years. And BOTH nations still have issues. As I said, we are on the same level here. You are the one that needs to give it up.
CosmoKramer
05-May-2003, 02:48
Oh, that's right. Your government didn't say all people were equal until 1974. Human rights stuff is in Chapter 2, and then the restrictions to these rights are laid out in the same chapter, articles 12,13,and 14.
You were saying how many amendments to your constitution are there? :roll:
(I got a real kick out of Chapter 4, Article 8...there are a few senators and congressmen over here that would LOVE a law like that!)
Your congress is not equal in relevance to our parliament - you have a President with great powers. Here, the Parliament is the highest level of authority. Think about that and maybe you'll understand the motivation for Ch4Ar8.
http://www.iraniancivilrights.com/sweden.htm
http://www.centrumforrattvisa.se/cfr.asp?T=English
Your point?
You consistantly trash the US for having civil rights issues to deal with.
I do? I believe I mentioned something about it once in an old thread. Quit acting like a girl bringing up all sorts of irrelevant nonsense and take a look at the first page of this topic. Hint: It's about a European Army.
As I have told you before, you have absolutely no idea what real cultural diversity is.
I have told you before, we have relatively more first and second generation immigrants here than you. You are getting tiresome.
You also have no real idea how difficult it is to get millions of people belonging to hundreds of races, religions, nationalities, and creeds to "be nice to eachother".
Considering it's impossible to do worse than you in your segregated society I'd say you're way off base (as usual) here.
It only took us about 200 years into our nation's life to realize the stupidity of our ways.
Do you understand why most people believe that democratic societies based on the rule of law should be more responsible for their actions compared to despotic ones? That means most of us belive that a democracy should be able to treat its citizens more fairly than a dictatorship.
Americans are the ones who like to brag about how their form of government is superior to everyone else's, how you are more free (what a joke) than everybody else. Meaning that (given your history, current and otherwise) it leaves a sour taste in the mouth when a democratic republic such as the USA constantly, while acting like a bully, wants to be percieved as having the moral high ground.
I guess you have to learn how to deal with foreigners confronting these "truths". Or go watch Michael Moore... ;)
It took Sweden thousands of years.
It took less than a century to abolish slavery however, despite being ruled by despots... Btw, Sweden is not that old.
And BOTH nations still have issues.
Sure. You are however the superpower. I wouldn't give a damn about you or your society if not your country was so intent on meddling in the affairs of other democratic countries.
But....to go back to the issue at hand.. The reason I brought up the liberation war, slavery etc. was that JR thought that I owed him something for a war 60 years gone. By bringing up those examples I was trying (too subtly I guess) to show that noone can be expected to let their actions be constrained by gratitide ad nauseum. Why the formation of a European army is a sign of ingratitude is beyond me however... :roll:
The USA and the European NATO countries helped each other during the Cold War. Hopefully we will continue to respectfully help each other in the future.
John Reynolds
05-May-2003, 03:05
The USA and the European NATO countries helped each other during the Cold War. Hopefully we will continue to respectfully help each other in the future.
Ahh, yes, but let's just hope that NATO is forgotten as soon as possible.
and I go to McDonald's as much as the next guy.
Oh, and your facade of not being anti-American almost had me fooled. :roll:
John Reynolds
05-May-2003, 03:12
I suspect your used to the post-war US propeganda that only the mighty US of A saved the world from Hitler and the Soviets. The truth is that the US played a huge portion in both but it didn't do it single handed.
Of course, because we Americans are all just uneducated. :x
I don't know how many times I've argued with other Americans that the Russians destroyed most of Germany's army and probably would've defeated Hitler without western aid, especially if the west aided with war materials.
There's a reason why after Pearl Harbor Churchill wrote, "All that now remains is the proper application of overwhelming force."
CosmoKramer
05-May-2003, 03:14
Ahh, yes, but let's just hope that NATO is forgotten as soon as possible. Yes, because:
1) The US is actively tring to undermine any EU defense cooperation
2) The US is currently not being a respectful partner - they expect NATO to be their lapdog to help lowering the expenses for their colonial wars.
But...I'd personally love to see a new defense treaty between the US and the EU in the (likely distant) future. There are other powers rising that I think will make it necessary for us to keep the bonds.
Oh, and your facade of not being anti-American almost had me fooled
Oh, and your facad of not being anti-EU almost had me fooled :roll:
John Reynolds
05-May-2003, 03:25
You need to return to reality (were you ever here?). Without Britain maintaining a second front and thus tieing up german troops in the west Russia would likely have fallen.
Snickers. And you need to learn your history a wee-bit better.
Sigh, the mortal sin of Anti-Americanism. I have never been anti-American per-se but certainly anti-Bush, anti-fascist and anti-imperialist.
Oh, I'm sorry. Those nice little polls you like to start threads over American intelligence must've been really intended as a love letter for pax Americana. Seriously, had you been even remotely joking would've been one thing but anyone who follows your posts knows damn well you weren't.
Slavery has been abolished in Sweden for a thousand years.
Nice sophistry. Yes, but thanks to your European brothers we Americans had pre-existing slave markets through which to import/export the slaves. I also wonder if the Iraqis feel anything similar to what so many third world nations felt when experiencing predatory European colonialism in the 16th-19th centuries. Is that why a Muslim once asked me if I belonged to a European devil race?
We can keep this pissing match up all you want. In the future, though, you might want to choose your words a little more carefully because you're already backpedalling on NATO and while you claim to not be anti-American and instead anti the Bush administration, I'm not so sure I buy it. So many of your posts are not anti the current administration; they're just vitriolic attacks on anything even remotely American. Don't make me burn my ABBA CDs in retaliation.
John Reynolds
05-May-2003, 03:35
You consistantly trash the US for having civil rights issues to deal with.
I do? I believe I mentioned something about it once in an old thread. Quit acting like a girl bringing up all sorts of irrelevant nonsense and take a look at the first page of this topic. Hint: It's about a European Army.
Anyone willing to do a search on your posts will find quite a trove of anti-American commentary that is in no way related to the Bush administration. As above, perhaps you need to start choosing your words a bit more carefully.
Oh, and your facad of not being anti-EU almost had me fooled.
Oh, I trash the EU all the time. Please find one post I've made to support your claim. I'm serious. Words come easy and are obviously cheap to you, but in the meantime substantiate your claims that I'm anti-European. While you're doing that I'll dig out pictures from the two-week vacation across Europe my wife and I just took last fall.
While on google I stumbled upon this article on civil rights in Sweden:
http://www.iraniancivilrights.com/sweden.htm
...this too...
http://www.centrumforrattvisa.se/cfr.asp?T=English
It's good your government seems to finally be addressing the issue.
These are recent issues, issues not related to Swedish culture but imported culture which immigrants bring in that does not line up well with Swedish laws and mentality. When these imported cultures disrespect human rights the government needs to take action of course. It's common-place in some parts of the world to kills a daughter that stains the honour of the family by for instance going out with "non-approved" boys. With all possible respect for foreign traditions and culture, we just can't allow murders taking place within our borders, regardless of what's accepted among Kurds.
This is not an issue with Sweden, it's an issue these people have brought to Sweden and we have to deal with.
CosmoKramer
05-May-2003, 04:02
And you need to learn your history a wee-bit better.
Wow. What an argument. :roll: I believe you have been decisively put in your place by others meticulously explaining the role of Britain in WW2. Get over it.
Oh, I'm sorry. Those nice little polls you like to start threads over American intelligence
:?: I have started polls about american intelligence? You just went beyond ridiculous - now you're just sad.
must've been really intended as a love letter for pax Americana.
Oh, make no mistake - I'm definitely anti that fascist and imperialistic nonsense. (http://newamericancentury.org). I believe the authors of that doctrine should be locked up.
Nice sophistry.
You are way off base here. Ok, it wasn't a thousand years (I have now looked it up) but slavery has been abolished in Sweden since 1335.
Yes, but thanks to your European brothers we Americans had pre-existing slave markets through which to import/export the slaves.
None of those countries were democratic republics with written constitutions declaring all men equal. Democracies shouldn't get involved with the devil (figuratively speaking).
I also wonder if the Iraqis feel anything similar to what so many third world nations felt when experiencing predatory European colonialism in the 16th-19th centuries.
I'm sure they did. However none of those countries were democracies with written constitutions declaring all men equal.
We can keep this pissing match up all you want. In the future, though, you might want to choose your words a little more carefully
What words? I stand by my every word. Or is that a threat? Fine, ban me.
because you're already backpedalling on NATO
Just exactly what goes on in your head? Explain where I am backpedalling on NATO. My point of view is consistent throughout this thread.
and while you claim to not be anti-American and instead anti the Bush administration, I'm not so sure I buy it.
First of all, stop acting like it's some kind of mortal sin to be anti-American. Quit that primitive monkey "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
Second of all, I have had no reason to be anything but anti-Bush until I started seeing how americans behave on the net and how high his approval ratings are. As I clearly stated before that makes me suspicious that not only Bush&Co have gone completely bonkers, but large parts of the american public as well. I am eternally anti-Bush and his bunch of merry fascists but my level of anti-americanism is subject to change. I saw a debate between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton on 60 minutes the other day. Clinton was a great president. Elect someone like him again (if they let you) and you'll see the level of cross-atlantic tension decrease drastically. While increasing your influence. Paradoxical, no ;)
So many of your posts are not anti the current administration; they're just vitriolic attacks on anything even remotely American.
Must be entertaining to have such a vivid imagination.
Don't make me burn my ABBA CDs in retaliation.
Please do anyway. ;)
CosmoKramer
05-May-2003, 04:16
Anyone willing to do a search on your posts will find quite a trove of anti-American commentary that is in no way related to the Bush administration. As above, perhaps you need to start choosing your words a bit more carefully.
Give me specifics and I'll happily defend any post I've made. I'm eternally against fascism, slavery, imperialism, stupid people in power positions etc regardless who the guilty party is. Even if it is the great USA - the champion and the rolemodel of the world.
Please find one post I've made to support your claim.
Well, I must admit that that statement was a mirror to you to make you see how stupid you look constantly bringing up "anti-americanism" (Oh, help us God) as an argument.
But...what about that blatantly racist remark about Nordic blood (hurry to edit!)?
While you're doing that I'll dig out pictures from the two-week vacation across Europe my wife and I just took last fall.
Cute. So according to that logic you support the politics of every country you visit. Remember that when you go to China.
MrsSkywalker
05-May-2003, 04:48
you have a President with great powers.
What "great powers?" He has power over the military...what else? He's not a king...he can't arbitrarily make new laws, or raise taxes, or do anything else "powerful." Are you aware of how our government over here works??? That every new law or tax has to be passed in the House of Representatives and then the Senate by representatives that we get to choose? We don't let our president run all willy-nilly doing whatever he wants.
And, no. I do not understand how a country does not expect it's leaders to follow the law. (Ch4Art8) If you don't expect your leaders to follow the law, then why should the citizens??
I am going to try one more time to get this idea in your head, and then if you don't get it, the deficiency lies with you, not the rest of the world. You talk about first and second generation imigrants. From where? Look up the stats and you will find that the majority of imigrants in your country are from OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS. There are imigrants in this country right now from almost every nation in the world. You have imigrants from what, 20 countries? And they are almost all white and Christian. Your argument that you have as many different cultures living together in Sweden is a farce, and I bet every single person on this board EXCEPT YOU gets it. We are all wrong? World Almanac is wrong? YOUR NATIONS OWN STATISTICS ARE WRONG?? Oh, sorry...forgot you were the "all knowing, all powerful, CosmoKramer" :roll: Until you deal with it day to day, you cannot possibly understand.
And as far as you personally owing the US something, I was saying in my other post that the sins of the father cannot be placed on the child. Well, the reverse is mostly true, as well. You cannot be expected to pay back a debt that your father owes. However, WWII is still solid in the world's memory. Do I think that you shouldn't create a EU Army? No. I think it's a fine idea. But I reassert my reservations about the "lesser" European countries.
What kind of safety net does this proposal provide for them? And the countries that don't want to join up? I think the fear over here is that somehow the great Nazi power will rise again and take over Europe (or similar wacko group...not sure if you know this, but Nazis are still very feared over here). I think that is truly one of the great fears of a EU army. Maybe it's just too soon after WWII...I mean, yes it's been 60 years, but there are still a lot of people who remember it. As long as it's remembered, as long as the word "Nazi" strikes a chord of fear into Americans, I don't think the US will support an EU army.
MrsSkywalker
05-May-2003, 05:08
This is not an issue with Sweden, it's an issue these people have brought to Sweden and we have to deal with.
Exactly the point I was trying to make! Thank you! That's the crap that's been going on in the US, but on a larger scale, with a wider variety of cultures. I was trying to point out that it isn't the governments as much as the lack of influence of governments on citizens. It's an extremely difficult thing to try to ignore and at the same time embrace differences. I was trying to point out that no country is perfect, and no matter what's written in a constitution, no matter what law is, different cultures have different ways of living, different beliefs, old, inborn hatreds....and when you throw them all into somewhere and say, "There. Get along." it doesn't always work. Is that the fault of the government? No. That was the point I was trying to get through. It's not hypocritical of the government to say all men are free, then have citizens fighting amongst themselves. I meant no disrespect to Sweden, or the citizens. I was trying to illustrate that EVERYONE has some type of "civil rights" issues when it comes to imigrants. You can't say you are a free society if you hinder certain "acceptable" practices (let's use your example of killing the daughter who shames the family), b/c these practices have been going on for centuries, and it's their belief system...but you can't say you're a free society if you sit back and let an innocent girl get murdered. It's a sticky wicket, to say the least.
I suspect your used to the post-war US propeganda that only the mighty US of A saved the world from Hitler and the Soviets. The truth is that the US played a huge portion in both but it didn't do it single handed.
Of course, because we Americans are all just uneducated. :x
I don't know how many times I've argued with other Americans that the Russians destroyed most of Germany's army and probably would've defeated Hitler without western aid, especially if the west aided with war materials.
There's a reason why after Pearl Harbor Churchill wrote, "All that now remains is the proper application of overwhelming force."
I'm sorry my comment was out of order. My apologies.
DemoCoder
05-May-2003, 13:09
the USENET group soc.history.what-if has run hundreds of these WW2 scenarios over the years and have it down to a fine art. If you make the assumption that the US stays neutral in the war, that Hitler defeats/contains the UK and owns North Africa, and that Japan cleans up in Asia, then the Soviets lose.
No way those tank factories in the Urals get to keep running if the Soviets get no aid, and the Japanese navy are decimating their ports. (the Japanese ROCKED the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, which was responsible for the rise of Japan as a world power) The germans could have held the soviets if there was no western front.
Fact is, the Allies had an untouchable foreign base (North America) which was guaranteeing them a constant supply of materials and food. Was any one factor "decisive"? No, WW2 was won because of hundreds of factors.
But having a country which can produce staggering amounts of food, ships, tanks, and other weapons, with impunity and relative immunity from attack was certainly a huge factor. Your infrastructure gets bombed every night, meanwhile, thousands of miles away, dozens of tanks roll off the assembly line everyday.
If you play RTSes, and someone is harassing your base, you know how easily you can be outplaced quickly in arms production.
The problem Hitler had was he had the German airforce wasting their time on the UK when he should have been hitting Soviet supply lines after securing a base through Chinese territory held by Japan. He was a moron of a general.
WWII win was a collective effort of all allied nations not just a single country....if you take out a single nation then Hitler wins....imagine if Germany hadn't attacked USSR (they had a no-war pact!)...and if Japan hadn;t attacked Peral Harbour, US and USSR wouldnt have been drawn in the war and then today UK/France would have been German colonies...
Evildeus
05-May-2003, 13:35
Not sure it's the right topic but well...
Its not a silly regulation, its a fundemental human right. Certainly more of a right than carring firearms! But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of that kind of privacy.
Well, the right to protect yourself and your privacy is essential. I'm not sayint that you need to have a firearm, but in situation where no poiliceman goes in your district, then how do you protect your rights?
So what privacy are you talking about? Privacy to me is the right to do what I want without somebody, anybody interfering or looking in?
Going to nitpick, with/in your property. Important precision from my point of view, otherwise, anything can be legal, even breaking your rights.
If I understand what your saying, your government can't know too much due to privacy laws. The data protection act applies to the governments equally as to private companies. Even a election ballot paper has to ask you to agree to the storage and counting of the infomation :-)
Agree
In Europe, only matters of national security can override the DPA. Nobody even the Prime minister (I'm British) or the like can invade my privacy without major legal problems.
Agree but don't forget that the british law is more like the american than the europeans ones.
Its why were not bothered by lots of CCTVs over here, it protected at the highest level from use against us. The protection is higher than the government of the country. EU citizens have a court even higher than the government (in US terms, we can over the presidents head!)
Well, don't understand your point here. It's the case in the USA also :/ perhaps even more (actually it should be but well, interpretations...). The prosecution of ministers/president in France is quite hard ;)
Evildeus
05-May-2003, 13:45
I don't know how many times I've argued with other Americans that the Russians destroyed most of Germany's army and probably would've defeated Hitler without western aid, especially if the west aided with war materials.
Huh? The reason is the 2 fronts (US/UK and russia) otherwise russia would have been conquier as the rest of Europe. I think it's overestimate USA when someone says that USA alone win the WW2, as the same saying that we could have win without them.
I was going to say something about diversity, and what HUMUS wrote, but then Mrs. Skywalker said it, so ill just agree with her, pretty much completely as far as that line goes ;).
I do not understand how a country does not expect it's leaders to follow the law. (Ch4Art8) If you don't expect your leaders to follow the law, then why should the citizens??
This is a little silly, of course Swedes expect its leaders to follow the law. Though Ch4Art8 surprised me a little, cause there are several politicians that has been caught with illegal activities and brought to justice. Had to look it up in Swedish and see if I could get a better insight in the intent of this article, and to my understand what it really says is that you can't be held responsible for whatever you do that is your work in the parlament. That is, if you in your work in the parlament does say some economic reform, and it ends up hurting people economically or otherwise, you can't be put in jail for that ... unless 5/6 of the parlament thinks so. It's supposed to protect politicians so that they can do their job without fear for being prosecuted for taking impopular actions. On the personal plane though, you're on your own. And as art7 says, you'll have to leave your position.
Look up the stats and you will find that the majority of imigrants in your country are from OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS. There are imigrants in this country right now from almost every nation in the world. You have imigrants from what, 20 countries? And they are almost all white and Christian.
Yes, the US and Canada is much more diverse than Sweden. Though I think you're stretching it here. Yes, a large percentage, though not a majority, is from Europe (37%). Yes, we have immigrants from pretty much around the world too, not just 20 countries. I found 113 countries listed in the statistics, the rest was batched into groups like "the rest of Asia". And it's not almost all white and christian. 35% are muslims.
MrsSkywalker
05-May-2003, 17:29
Had to look it up in Swedish and see if I could get a better insight in the intent of this article, and to my understand what it really says is that you can't be held responsible for whatever you do that is your work in the parlament. That is, if you in your work in the parlament does say some economic reform, and it ends up hurting people economically or otherwise, you can't be put in jail for that ... unless 5/6 of the parlament thinks so. It's supposed to protect politicians so that they can do their job without fear for being prosecuted for taking impopular actions. On the personal plane though, you're on your own. And as art7 says, you'll have to leave your position.
Ah, gotcha. Perhaps the meaning got a little off in the translation. That makes sense, though. They can't be prosecuted for not having the power to see into the future. :)
Not sure it's the right topic but well...
Its not a silly regulation, its a fundemental human right. Certainly more of a right than carring firearms! But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of that kind of privacy.
Well, the right to protect yourself and your privacy is essential. I'm not sayint that you need to have a firearm, but in situation where no poiliceman goes in your district, then how do you protect your rights?
So what privacy are you talking about? Privacy to me is the right to do what I want without somebody, anybody interfering or looking in?
Going to nitpick, with/in your property. Important precision from my point of view, otherwise, anything can be legal, even breaking your rights.
If I understand what your saying, your government can't know too much due to privacy laws. The data protection act applies to the governments equally as to private companies. Even a election ballot paper has to ask you to agree to the storage and counting of the infomation :-)
Agree
In Europe, only matters of national security can override the DPA. Nobody even the Prime minister (I'm British) or the like can invade my privacy without major legal problems.
Agree but don't forget that the british law is more like the american than the europeans ones.
Its why were not bothered by lots of CCTVs over here, it protected at the highest level from use against us. The protection is higher than the government of the country. EU citizens have a court even higher than the government (in US terms, we can over the presidents head!)
Well, don't understand your point here. It's the case in the USA also :/ perhaps even more (actually it should be but well, interpretations...). The prosecution of ministers/president in France is quite hard ;)
I was just making sure it was understood that the an EU citizen have some good rights, countering the original statement, that a US citizen has better rights (that exact quote was "Privacy rights are better in the US").
I never claimed that Europe was any better (we may have different emphasis on bits), just that rights here are second to none.
Its kind of ironic to have me defending the EU, I'm not the biggest fan, if the UK has to decide between the EU or US, I'd pick the US every time :-)
IMHO The US has done far more good for my country than any other foreign country and their attitude seems to be about right (they generally stay out of things, but are willing to do things when nessecary). Doesn't mean I agree with everything the US does (I don't think the UK is the US's poodle) but our shared heritage and values tends to mean will view the world in a similar way.
John Reynolds
05-May-2003, 21:34
Huh? The reason is the 2 fronts (US/UK and russia) otherwise russia would have been conquier as the rest of Europe. I think it's overestimate USA when someone says that USA alone win the WW2, as the same saying that we could have win without them.
Never said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. A lot of US citizens believe that Germany was crushed between the two fronts it was fighting during WW2 and while that's not inaccurate I don't think most realize how much of the German army Russia destroyed. Could Russia have beaten Germany without western help? Possible, though unlikely, highly unlikely.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.