United European Army?
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
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.
MrsSkywalker said:
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.
MrsSkywalker said:
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.
CosmoKramer said:
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.
Every step in the direction of european unity is a good one I think. Gets the goal of democratic world gov that much closer.
NATO had nothing to do with rebuilding Europe. It was protecting Europe from the "reds".
DeanoC said:
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).
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).
Sxotty said:
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!)
DeanoC said:
Agreed.
Agreed.
Not sure where you're going here. Are you saying without the UK, Germany would've rolled across Europe and then the Atlantic?
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
Newcomer
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.
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.
That's ok, because all of your posts reek of arrogant self-righteousness.
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 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?
CosmoKramer said:
I agree that the EU should determine its own defense guidelines and act on them.
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 just your typical uneducated American. Go GW!!
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.
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.
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)
A sin we'll never erase.
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).
A return to reasonable, reality-based opinions, not your continuing Euro-elitism and self-righteousness. Bah!
John Reynolds said:DeanoC said:
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
All the democratic countries owe each other in some form or another.
DeanoC said: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
All the democratic countries owe each other in some form or another.
Couldn't agree more.
John Reynolds said:
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
Newcomer
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.
Glad to hear it from your own mouth. Not that I had implied anything of the sort, but whatever works for you.
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.
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?
Then quit acting like one (ie arrogant self-rightous comments like I should "owe" you).
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.
..and I go to McDonald's as much as the next guy.
Ah, racism. I guess you should have voted for Bush after all.
Slavery has been abolished in Sweden for a thousand years.
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.
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?
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.
CosmoKramer said:
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?
