do you guys hate the US now
ch...@will.com
exagerating?
Mattia Valente
umm, eh?
Mattia
Major ChrisB
<ch...@will.com> wrote in message
news:3eece968...@news.earthlink.net...
> Does europe really hate/dislike america now or is the news
> exagerating?
I love the US....certainly a lot better than communist europe or socialist
britain and our totally idiotic political leaders and voters....
Mattia Valente
My my, you sure do have a truly bizarre understanding of the world,
don't you?
Britain is in Europe, you tit. And a good number of governments have
done the 'swing rightwards' thing (not so good: the last damn thing we
need is people who think the US republican party is good in any way);
Spain, NL, Italy to name but a few.
Mattia
Major ChrisB
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:bck7v4$jn1av$1...@ID-74630.news.dfncis.de...
when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as in the
current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving much of it's political
power to a european parliament and adopting the euro. Countries like Italy
and Spain may well have become more right but considering they were highly
socialist in the first place then thats not much help....and countries like
France and Belgium are practically communist as it is right now. Joining
europe will do nothing but cost the good working people of britain money,
raise tax and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
And I'd rather join the USA and be ruled by a republican government than
delve further into the EU and adopt the Euro.
Mattia Valente
> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as in the
> current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving much of it's political
> power to a european parliament and adopting the euro. Countries like Italy
> and Spain may well have become more right but considering they were highly
> socialist in the first place then thats not much help....and countries like
> France and Belgium are practically communist as it is right now. Joining
> europe will do nothing but cost the good working people of britain money,
> raise tax and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
The Euro and Europe are two entirely different things; one has fuck-all
to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful tool, and
overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a common currency
for a common economic zone isn't that strange an idea.
And you need to look up what 'communism' is before you blather about it
any more. The irony is, of course, that the UK has possibly the most
'communist' health care system in the EU. Yes, most governments have
been and often still are a good deal too left wing, but rather that than
live in a country where health insurance is a mere dream for half the
population, that has the highest illiteracy rate in the developed world,
most teen pregnancy, widest rich-poor divide, who's news services are
spewing propaganda like there's no tomorrow, where 'dissent' has become
something of an unpatriotic evil thing, where religious lobby groups
hold far, far too much influence, and who's governing parties hold ideas
that that are, in this day and age, really quite shocking and downright
dangerous.
This fear of the EU isn't something I understand; the whole point is to
remain involved in what's happening, so as to have control over the
outcome. Isolation isn't really viable; in terms of Trade, the UK, the
'continent' (bah, archaic terminology) and the US are heavily
interlinked. Opening up Europe means developing economies and creating
new markets for UK goods, and a centralized place to coordinate policies
on subject matter that by definition transcends simple city-state style
politicking is a good thing, with the caveat that checks and balances do
need to remain in place; it's not going to be the 'United States of
Europe'. Will it raise tax? It's not said that it will. EU reps are
still elected by you, y'know.
> And I'd rather join the USA and be ruled by a republican government than
> delve further into the EU and adopt the Euro.
You, sir, are insane. It's the idealized 'American Dream' view of the US
that's more or less been killed dead by, well, the reality of the US
that I just cannot understand. I have a lot of US friends. There's a lot
to like about Americans, about America, about certain aspects of their
beliefs (more in terms of their liberal ideologies than anything else;
the Democratic party is pretty much centre-right in European political
terms, large swathes of the Republican party, including a good deal of
the Bush Administration, are far right on many levels), but as a place
to live? No, thanks, but no. If it's gotta be North America, I'll take
Canada any day of the week.
Mattia
Kathryn
"Major ChrisB" <cgbra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D1hHa.4607$LP....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
and wasn't a shame that hitler lost the war
Kathryn
I mean as a group you don't come across very well
<ch...@will.com> wrote in message
news:3eece968...@news.earthlink.net...
Iain Clark
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>Major ChrisB wrote:
>> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as in the
>> current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving much of it's political
>> power to a european parliament and adopting the euro. Countries like Italy
>> and Spain may well have become more right but considering they were highly
>> socialist in the first place then thats not much help....and countries like
>> France and Belgium are practically communist as it is right now. Joining
>> europe will do nothing but cost the good working people of britain money,
>> raise tax and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
>
>The Euro and Europe are two entirely different things; one has fuck-all
>to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful tool, and
>overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a common currency
>for a common economic zone isn't that strange an idea.
>
I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
In any case, I think it's ironic that the thing we now call the
"pound" is a decimal currency that was invented in 1973 (or
thereabouts <g>) and bears only the most superficial resemblance to
the frankly bizarre currency Britain had previously.
The Euro has far more in common with the pound, in fact. It even uses
all the same denominations of coin. The coins even have the national
symbols of each country on them. I'm betting most British people
would hardly even think twice about the Euro after it was in use for
six months.
>And you need to look up what 'communism' is before you blather about it
>any more. The irony is, of course, that the UK has possibly the most
>'communist' health care system in the EU. Yes, most governments have
>been and often still are a good deal too left wing, but rather that than
>live in a country where health insurance is a mere dream for half the
>population, that has the highest illiteracy rate in the developed world,
>most teen pregnancy, widest rich-poor divide, who's news services are
>spewing propaganda like there's no tomorrow, where 'dissent' has become
>something of an unpatriotic evil thing, where religious lobby groups
>hold far, far too much influence, and who's governing parties hold ideas
>that that are, in this day and age, really quite shocking and downright
>dangerous.
>
Ah, it makes me proud to be British ;-)
>This fear of the EU isn't something I understand; the whole point is to
>remain involved in what's happening, so as to have control over the
>outcome. Isolation isn't really viable; in terms of Trade, the UK, the
>'continent' (bah, archaic terminology) and the US are heavily
>interlinked. Opening up Europe means developing economies and creating
>new markets for UK goods, and a centralized place to coordinate policies
>on subject matter that by definition transcends simple city-state style
>politicking is a good thing, with the caveat that checks and balances do
>need to remain in place; it's not going to be the 'United States of
>Europe'. Will it raise tax? It's not said that it will. EU reps are
>still elected by you, y'know.
>
I have to say, I agree with an awful lot of the above!
The thing is, on my good days I genuinely am proud to be British, but
that doesn't make me anti-Europe. I'm anti-stupid Government policies
<g> but since we already get plenty of those from our own government,
I have no real fears that Europe will make things significantly worse.
We're already subject to many rules that come from outside Britain.
Often for the better. I get fed up of these stupid myths about
legislation for straight bananas, etc., as if Europe is just
bureaucracy gone mad (and our own government isn't!) Maybe it's
because I work in HR, and I see that the vast majority of employment
safeguards, standards and protections we take for granted were imposed
on the UK by Europe. And thank god for it!
It's not as if you abandon your own parliament by taking part in
something bigger.
Iain
--
* may contain lies
Jonathan Dupont
nowhere good...
Iain Clark <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in
news:kpcsev8rnqrng2php...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:05:38 +0200, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>>Major ChrisB wrote:
>>> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as
>>> in the current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving much of
>>> it's political power to a european parliament and adopting the euro.
>>> Countries like Italy and Spain may well have become more right but
>>> considering they were highly socialist in the first place then thats
>>> not much help....and countries like France and Belgium are
>>> practically communist as it is right now. Joining europe will do
>>> nothing but cost the good working people of britain money, raise tax
>>> and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
>>
>>The Euro and Europe are two entirely different things; one has
>>fuck-all to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful tool,
>>and overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a common
>>currency for a common economic zone isn't that strange an idea.
>>
> I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
> weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
Well, no. It is however a gigantic loss of sovereignty, which is rather
the point.
<euro/pound coins similarity>
Not really the point though, is it?
>>And you need to look up what 'communism' is before you blather about
>>it any more. The irony is, of course, that the UK has possibly the
>>most 'communist' health care system in the EU. Yes, most governments
>>have been and often still are a good deal too left wing, but rather
>>that than live in a country where health insurance is a mere dream for
>>half the population, that has the highest illiteracy rate in the
>>developed world, most teen pregnancy, widest rich-poor divide, who's
>>news services are spewing propaganda like there's no tomorrow, where
>>'dissent' has become something of an unpatriotic evil thing, where
>>religious lobby groups hold far, far too much influence, and who's
>>governing parties hold ideas that that are, in this day and age,
>>really quite shocking and downright dangerous.
>>
>
> Ah, it makes me proud to be British ;-)
Although I sympathise with some right wing views (tends to be in big
foreign / economic issues, whereas I'm fiercely liberal over civil
rights) and say, was broadly favour in the war, this does not mean that
I think most of the people on my side are very clever. I'm quite aware
that half the right are bigots, but what are you gonna do. :)
>>This fear of the EU isn't something I understand; the whole point is
>>to remain involved in what's happening, so as to have control over the
>>outcome. Isolation isn't really viable; in terms of Trade, the UK, the
>>'continent' (bah, archaic terminology) and the US are heavily
>>interlinked. Opening up Europe means developing economies and creating
>>new markets for UK goods, and a centralized place to coordinate
>>policies on subject matter that by definition transcends simple
>>city-state style politicking is a good thing, with the caveat that
>>checks and balances do need to remain in place; it's not going to be
>>the 'United States of Europe'. Will it raise tax? It's not said that
>>it will. EU reps are still elected by you, y'know.
>>
> I have to say, I agree with an awful lot of the above!
Fine. I would appreciate a lot of that.
But its silly, perhaps dishonest to pretend that there aren't broad
elements in Europe which are not in favour of a USE (which, to start
with, was suggested as a possible new name only a few months ago...) and
by giving up vetos, you tend to lose a lot of sway over that.
> The thing is, on my good days I genuinely am proud to be British, but
> that doesn't make me anti-Europe. I'm anti-stupid Government policies
> <g> but since we already get plenty of those from our own government,
> I have no real fears that Europe will make things significantly worse.
>
> We're already subject to many rules that come from outside Britain.
> Often for the better. I get fed up of these stupid myths about
> legislation for straight bananas, etc., as if Europe is just
> bureaucracy gone mad (and our own government isn't!) Maybe it's
> because I work in HR, and I see that the vast majority of employment
> safeguards, standards and protections we take for granted were imposed
> on the UK by Europe. And thank god for it!
Agreed.
> It's not as if you abandon your own parliament by taking part in
> something bigger.
>
> Iain
>
Uh, of course you do. 'Abandon' is a bit strong word, but of course
you're inevitably going to give up some power. That's all very well, but
unless you tend to form a stable and accountable democratic nation
(which personally I don't feel Europe is ready or suitable for on
cultural and language issues), then there should be limits.
All IMO, of course.
Jon
Mattia Valente
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:05:38 +0200, Mattia Valente
>>to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful tool, and
>>overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a common currency
>>for a common economic zone isn't that strange an idea.
>
> I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
> weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
Answer: no, not in the slightest.
> In any case, I think it's ironic that the thing we now call the
> "pound" is a decimal currency that was invented in 1973 (or
> thereabouts <g>) and bears only the most superficial resemblance to
> the frankly bizarre currency Britain had previously.
Hehehehe.....
> The Euro has far more in common with the pound, in fact. It even uses
> all the same denominations of coin. The coins even have the national
> symbols of each country on them. I'm betting most British people
> would hardly even think twice about the Euro after it was in use for
> six months.
Most wouldn't, no. A lot of people still 'think' in old currencies, for
a lot of things, since that's what they know the value of things in,
even now. Me? Rarely if ever.
>>And you need to look up what 'communism' is before you blather about it
>>any more. The irony is, of course, that the UK has possibly the most
>>'communist' health care system in the EU. Yes, most governments have
>>been and often still are a good deal too left wing, but rather that than
>>live in a country where health insurance is a mere dream for half the
>>population, that has the highest illiteracy rate in the developed world,
>>most teen pregnancy, widest rich-poor divide, who's news services are
>>spewing propaganda like there's no tomorrow, where 'dissent' has become
>>something of an unpatriotic evil thing, where religious lobby groups
>>hold far, far too much influence, and who's governing parties hold ideas
>>that that are, in this day and age, really quite shocking and downright
>>dangerous.
>
> Ah, it makes me proud to be British ;-)
Erm, I was actually referring to the Good Ole US of A....UK news still
has the BBC (lets ignore everything owned my Murdoch, shall we?),
although the UK does have Europe's highest teen pregnancy rate....
>>This fear of the EU isn't something I understand; the whole point is to
>>remain involved in what's happening, so as to have control over the
>>outcome. Isolation isn't really viable; in terms of Trade, the UK, the
>>'continent' (bah, archaic terminology) and the US are heavily
>>interlinked. Opening up Europe means developing economies and creating
>>new markets for UK goods, and a centralized place to coordinate policies
>>on subject matter that by definition transcends simple city-state style
>>politicking is a good thing, with the caveat that checks and balances do
>>need to remain in place; it's not going to be the 'United States of
>>Europe'. Will it raise tax? It's not said that it will. EU reps are
>>still elected by you, y'know.
>
> I have to say, I agree with an awful lot of the above!
Whee!
> The thing is, on my good days I genuinely am proud to be British, but
See, I'm not much of anything; patriotism for the sake of patriotism,
where it affects international relations, is a dangerous thing. IMO.
> that doesn't make me anti-Europe. I'm anti-stupid Government policies
> <g> but since we already get plenty of those from our own government,
> I have no real fears that Europe will make things significantly worse.
There's always a 'danger', as with any organisation amassing any sort of
power, but it's not like it's out of control, has a military, has, well,
anything other than the power given it by it's member states. On a
number of levels, Europe has the potential to make things better.
> We're already subject to many rules that come from outside Britain.
> Often for the better. I get fed up of these stupid myths about
> legislation for straight bananas, etc., as if Europe is just
> bureaucracy gone mad (and our own government isn't!) Maybe it's
> because I work in HR, and I see that the vast majority of employment
> safeguards, standards and protections we take for granted were imposed
> on the UK by Europe. And thank god for it!
And please, let's NOT go American Style on those points. I've got a good
number of friends who live over there, who've just started their working
carreers. Overtime is more or less expected, and the only one of the
who's got anything remotely resembling sane amounts of vacation days per
year is the guy who's working for an Ozzie software company.
> It's not as if you abandon your own parliament by taking part in
> something bigger.
Indeed. In something bigger that doesn't aim to supplant. I mean, I'm
skeptical of bureacracy, much as anybody, but to change it, you have to
be part of the system, and not poke it and call it names. Yes, it's got
its flaws, it's problems, it's imperfection and it's downright shite
legislation (the EU equivalent of the DMCA and the like), but it does
give Europe somewhere to come together and share it's commonality. The
fact it's got certain republican thinktanks worried about their
supremacy on the world court is just an added bonus ;-)
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> Without wanting to get drawn into this too much, 'cause it can lead
> nowhere good...
;-)
> Iain Clark <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in
> news:kpcsev8rnqrng2php...@4ax.com:
>>I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
>>weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
>
> Well, no. It is however a gigantic loss of sovereignty, which is rather
> the point.
'Gigantic Loss' strikes me as rather an odd way of putting it.
That the UK economy isn't terribly well 'synched up' with the rest of
Europe's, and that that may cause problems, sure. But the ultimate point
of it is to make trade easier, to do away with exchange rates which mean
insecurity as to whether exports are going to be easier to sell or
harder. Economies don't really take much heed of nationalism.
> Although I sympathise with some right wing views (tends to be in big
> foreign / economic issues, whereas I'm fiercely liberal over civil
> rights) and say, was broadly favour in the war, this does not mean that
> I think most of the people on my side are very clever. I'm quite aware
> that half the right are bigots, but what are you gonna do. :)
That's where the importance of diplomacy comes in; that's what broke
down, particularly in the US camp, equally so in the French, over the
Iraq situation. I'm glad with the outcome of the conflict, it ended up
going relatively well, but I'm not glad with the pre-war squabbling, the
lies and rationalisations that led up to it, and the post-war
politicking coming out of Washington.
I'd say avoid taking sides with the bigots; simple 'pro' or 'against' by
definition implies unthinking dogmatic thinking of one kind or another;
there were tits on both sides.
> But its silly, perhaps dishonest to pretend that there aren't broad
> elements in Europe which are not in favour of a USE (which, to start
> with, was suggested as a possible new name only a few months ago...) and
> by giving up vetos, you tend to lose a lot of sway over that.
Er, United States of Europe? Parties, perhaps, but countries?
Governments? The French, who, along with the Germans, are perhaps the
most Pro-Europe European nations, are amazingly unlikely to want to give
up all that much to the EU. The people and the politicians. There's too
much power involved there. It's also the reason to remain involved in
Europe, and rework the charter so that it's clear, concise, and covers
all of what the EU stands for.
Veto is a bit of a stickling point, of course; that's where the US got
it right, I think; there's a veto, but if you've got a 2/3ds majority
(or some other defined majority..), you can pass laws anyway.
>>It's not as if you abandon your own parliament by taking part in
>>something bigger.
>
> Uh, of course you do. 'Abandon' is a bit strong word, but of course
> you're inevitably going to give up some power. That's all very well, but
> unless you tend to form a stable and accountable democratic nation
> (which personally I don't feel Europe is ready or suitable for on
> cultural and language issues), then there should be limits.
Um, form nation how, where and what? You've lost me there...
You've got no arguments from me that there should be limitations. That's
kind of a general caveat anyway. There's a whole load of things, most
things, even, most like, that cannot and should not be legislated,
organized or proscribed by a central anything. Pesky liberal mindset
I've got, and all that ;-)
Mattia
ch...@will.com
Mark Evans
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:05:38 +0200, Mattia Valente
> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Major ChrisB wrote:
>>> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as in the
>>> current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving much of it's political
>>> power to a european parliament and adopting the euro. Countries like Italy
>>> and Spain may well have become more right but considering they were highly
>>> socialist in the first place then thats not much help....and countries like
>>> France and Belgium are practically communist as it is right now. Joining
>>> europe will do nothing but cost the good working people of britain money,
>>> raise tax and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
>>
>>The Euro and Europe are two entirely different things; one has fuck-all
>>to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful tool, and
>>overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a common currency
>>for a common economic zone isn't that strange an idea.
>>
> I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
> weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
It's interesting how the people supposedly so concerned about the
retention of "Britishness" appear so unconcerned about foreign
influence when it comes from Washington.
As was demonstrated by the supposedly "nationalist" BNP, UKIP, etc.
There is talk about a referendum concenring the Euro (as there was
for joining the then EEC), I don't recall any such thing when it
comes to the British Government blinding following the paranoid
delusions of the US Government.
pikelet
> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe as
> in the current debate of britain 'joining europe'
We already have joined the European Union. This titbit of information may
help you in future debates on EU expansionist policies.
> and giving much of
> it's political power to a european parliament
Its 'political power'? Are we talking the actual powers that the British
Partliament has in the administrative, economic and social arenas of
British life? Because I'm not sure at all what 'political power' is, nor
how one would go about surrendering it.
And ooh, there already is a European Parliament, filled with people that
you had the chance to elect, who under the co-decision legislative
procedure of EU law have a significant role in determining the Directives
that the EU makes binding upon all Member States.
> and adopting the euro.
I know people who, to this day, resent the change to decimal currency. Made
my life easier, though.
Tim.
Kathryn
<ch...@will.com> wrote in message
news:3eee6ed3...@news.earthlink.net...
> no one answered my question
No one hates the US.
They dislike your leader and may dislike your country but really dont care
enough to actually hate it.
Those that do actually try to attack it.
Kathryn
John Briggs
>
> I know people who, to this day, resent the change to decimal currency.
> Made my life easier, though.
>
I resent losing the Mark - 13s 4d, a useful currency unit: 2/3 of a pound or
160 pence.
--
John Briggs
Jonathan Dupont
> Jonathan Dupont wrote:
>> Without wanting to get drawn into this too much, 'cause it can lead
>> nowhere good...
>
> ;-)
>
>> Iain Clark <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in
>> news:kpcsev8rnqrng2php...@4ax.com:
>>>I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
>>>weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
>>
>> Well, no. It is however a gigantic loss of sovereignty, which is
>> rather the point.
>
> 'Gigantic Loss' strikes me as rather an odd way of putting it.
>
> That the UK economy isn't terribly well 'synched up' with the rest of
> Europe's, and that that may cause problems, sure. But the ultimate
> point of it is to make trade easier, to do away with exchange rates
> which mean insecurity as to whether exports are going to be easier to
> sell or harder. Economies don't really take much heed of nationalism.
By losing control of your currency, you for a start lose control of
monetary policy. Secondly, it seems very likely (it has already been
suggested) that this will lead to harmonisation of tax policies. Thirdly
and perhaps less important, its very symbolic.
>> Although I sympathise with some right wing views (tends to be in big
>> foreign / economic issues, whereas I'm fiercely liberal over civil
>> rights) and say, was broadly favour in the war, this does not mean
>> that I think most of the people on my side are very clever. I'm quite
>> aware that half the right are bigots, but what are you gonna do. :)
>
> That's where the importance of diplomacy comes in; that's what broke
> down, particularly in the US camp, equally so in the French, over the
> Iraq situation. I'm glad with the outcome of the conflict, it ended up
> going relatively well, but I'm not glad with the pre-war squabbling,
> the lies and rationalisations that led up to it, and the post-war
> politicking coming out of Washington.
True.
> I'd say avoid taking sides with the bigots; simple 'pro' or 'against'
> by definition implies unthinking dogmatic thinking of one kind or
> another; there were tits on both sides.
How? It's not like saying "I'm Republic" (and there's a spectrum, even
there" its just an overall opinion on one matter. Sure one could go on to
expand "I'm pro war, but...", but that's a different issue.
>> But its silly, perhaps dishonest to pretend that there aren't broad
>> elements in Europe which are not in favour of a USE (which, to start
>> with, was suggested as a possible new name only a few months ago...)
>> and by giving up vetos, you tend to lose a lot of sway over that.
>
> Er, United States of Europe? Parties, perhaps, but countries?
More so parties, true.
> Governments? The French, who, along with the Germans, are perhaps the
> most Pro-Europe European nations, are amazingly unlikely to want to
> give up all that much to the EU. The people and the politicians.
Chirac's multipolar world?
> There's too much power involved there. It's also the reason to remain
> involved in Europe, and rework the charter so that it's clear,
> concise, and covers all of what the EU stands for.
True. But limits and all that - getting up a currency for example, just for
tiny diplomatic benefits seems a bit silly.
> Veto is a bit of a stickling point, of course; that's where the US got
> it right, I think; there's a veto, but if you've got a 2/3ds majority
> (or some other defined majority..), you can pass laws anyway.
In some areas. In something such as foreign policy - no. I more or less
define a country as sovereign on whether it has freedom in this.
>>>It's not as if you abandon your own parliament by taking part in
>>>something bigger.
>>
>> Uh, of course you do. 'Abandon' is a bit strong word, but of course
>> you're inevitably going to give up some power. That's all very well,
>> but unless you tend to form a stable and accountable democratic
>> nation (which personally I don't feel Europe is ready or suitable for
>> on cultural and language issues), then there should be limits.
>
> Um, form nation how, where and what? You've lost me there...
Or form a "federal superstate" - whatever buzzword you feel like using.
Personally I feel USE pretty much sums it up.
Jon
Jonathan Dupont
news:5bjmcb...@anacon.freeserve.co.uk:
> Iain Clark <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:05:38 +0200, Mattia Valente
>> <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>>>Major ChrisB wrote:
>>>> when I said Europe I was quite obviously meaning political europe
>>>> as in the current debate of britain 'joining europe' and giving
>>>> much of it's political power to a european parliament and adopting
>>>> the euro. Countries like Italy and Spain may well have become more
>>>> right but considering they were highly socialist in the first place
>>>> then thats not much help....and countries like France and Belgium
>>>> are practically communist as it is right now. Joining europe will
>>>> do nothing but cost the good working people of britain money,
>>>> raise tax and lower our ability to have a say in our government.
>>>
>>>The Euro and Europe are two entirely different things; one has
>>>fuck-all to do with the other. Common currency can be a powerful
>>>tool, and overall, it's introduction has gone relatively well; a
>>>common currency for a common economic zone isn't that strange an
>>>idea.
>>>
>> I find fear of losing our "Britishness" through the Euro to be, well,
>> weird. Is Italy less Italian now? Is France less French?
>
> It's interesting how the people supposedly so concerned about the
> retention of "Britishness" appear so unconcerned about foreign
> influence when it comes from Washington.
We chose to do that. (Or Tony Blair, our elected representative did so.
Whatever). In a USE, we could supposedly be outvoted into doing
something we didn't want to.
> As was demonstrated by the supposedly "nationalist" BNP, UKIP, etc.
>
> There is talk about a referendum concenring the Euro (as there was
> for joining the then EEC), I don't recall any such thing when it
> comes to the British Government blinding following the paranoid
> delusions of the US Government.
It was called the election.
The whole idea of a referendum on wars would never work, anyway.
Democracies don't vote to go to war. (Which admittedly, is what you
might want).
Mattia Valente
> monetary policy. Secondly, it seems very likely (it has already been
> suggested) that this will lead to harmonisation of tax policies. Thirdly
> and perhaps less important, its very symbolic.
The symbolism is an argument I'd dismiss out of hand, and losing control
of monetary policy can be a valid fear; it means all Euro Zone economies
need to stay on top of their game; falling behind means you're a bit
screwed. As for the degree of tax policy harmonization...I don't really
see that this is an inevitable outcome. Taxation isn't linked to any
specific currency per se; political issues, such as public spending,
public works, health care finance and the like will 'dictate' the money
the government will want and need to collect. Harmonization of taxation
in terms of VAT and taxing companies may well occur, though.
>>I'd say avoid taking sides with the bigots; simple 'pro' or 'against'
>>by definition implies unthinking dogmatic thinking of one kind or
>>another; there were tits on both sides.
>
> How? It's not like saying "I'm Republic" (and there's a spectrum, even
> there" its just an overall opinion on one matter. Sure one could go on to
> expand "I'm pro war, but...", but that's a different issue.
Because an overall opinion, for me, is too unnuanced, and doesn't tell
me what I want to know. I'm well aware of the fact that, for example,
not all Republicans are crackpot neo-conservatives; I have great respect
for men like Powell (yes, even now) and McCain.
>>Er, United States of Europe? Parties, perhaps, but countries?
>
> More so parties, true.
Gotcha.
>>There's too much power involved there. It's also the reason to remain
>>involved in Europe, and rework the charter so that it's clear,
>>concise, and covers all of what the EU stands for.
>
> True. But limits and all that - getting up a currency for example, just for
> tiny diplomatic benefits seems a bit silly.
Er, increased involvement with the European Union and joining the
European Monetary Union are two completely seperate issues, two
seperate organisations; the latter should be done primarly for economic
reasons (and there are a goodly number of them to take into
consideration), since, as you say, the diplomatic benefits are marginal
to non-existent.
>>Veto is a bit of a stickling point, of course; that's where the US got
>>it right, I think; there's a veto, but if you've got a 2/3ds majority
>>(or some other defined majority..), you can pass laws anyway.
>
> In some areas. In something such as foreign policy - no. I more or less
> define a country as sovereign on whether it has freedom in this.
The Iraq crisis has shown us quite clearly that common foreign policy is
a bit of a pipe dream. And that's fair enough. Common policy on a number
of issues, such as human and workers' rights, environmental controls, etc.
As for military issues, I'm certainly not averse to a European military
force for peacekeeping purposes; trying to create an army to 'balance'
(or rival, if you prefer) the US one just isn't going to happen; no
European nation wants to spend that percentage of their budget on armed
forces. Ultimate control should rest with the countries themselves, though.
>>>Uh, of course you do. 'Abandon' is a bit strong word, but of course
>>>you're inevitably going to give up some power. That's all very well,
>>>but unless you tend to form a stable and accountable democratic
>>>nation (which personally I don't feel Europe is ready or suitable for
>>>on cultural and language issues), then there should be limits.
>>
>>Um, form nation how, where and what? You've lost me there...
>
> Or form a "federal superstate" - whatever buzzword you feel like using.
> Personally I feel USE pretty much sums it up.
Ah, ok. I thought you were trying to get at something else, ergo,
confusion. And yes, limits should definitely remain in place. No-one
here's arguing against that.
Mattia
Iain Clark
<kathryn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
><ch...@will.com> wrote in message
>news:3eee6ed3...@news.earthlink.net...
>> no one answered my question
>
>No one hates the US.
>
>They dislike your leader and may dislike your country but really dont care
>enough to actually hate it.
>
Personally I dislike Bush a lot of the time, but I don't dislike
America.
I'm pretty pro-US in theory - often less so in practice, but it
varies! Maybe it comes from viewing The West Wing and contrasting
that ideal with the political reality.
>Those that do actually try to attack it.
>
Yes, "hate" is a very strong word. Disagreeing with some of a
country's actions and hating them are vastly different things.
And confusing a government, a leader, or a political system with a
whole nation of people is the kind of irrational thinking that leads
terrorists to justify killing thousands of civilians.
Corny tho' it be, I firmly believe that People Are People the world
over. There's good and bad everywhere. On the whole Americans seem
to be a pretty normal bunch. <g>
Besides (and most importantly) almost all the decent TV I watch is
made in America... :-)
Iain
--
"Hootenanny, well, it's chock full of hoot,
just a little bit of nanny."
Tan Coul
wrote:
>no one answered my question
It assumes we didn't hate the US before :-)
But in answer, no, though a poll would probably show a majority who
think you would be better off with a walnut for President than the
current incumbent...
--
www.oscartelos.co.uk
The best Chester Zoo photo website ever made by a cat (probably.)
Last updated March 13th 2003
Andrew Hogg
EXACTLY! And we can't have the majority having their way. It's undemocratic!
--
Andrew Hogg
Jonathan Dupont
news:FrKHa.41934$xd5.1...@stones.force9.net:
Not getting you...
(Unless you're saying what I think you might be saying, in which case,
two very different situations and ye gods, I'm supposed to be revising
right now :))
Alex Wright
> Does europe really hate/dislike america now or is the news
> exagerating?
Well, I hate the policies of the US Government--especially its
hypocritical, imperialistic, murderous, Israeli and aggressive foreign
policy which our government (led by Bush's poodle--or maybe
lackey--Blair) has copied, and its support of many murderous dictators
(e.g. Pres. Saddam Hussein of Iraq during the 1980s, deposing the
democratically-elected Allende and replacing him with the murderous
dictator Pinochet in Chile) and Israel.
ch...@will.com
Mattia Valente
> what's wrong with americas israel policy?
As a rule, although it's improved a little, it's very, very pro-israel.
To the point of literally billions of dollars in military aid per year.
And this to a country that violates human rights left and right, ignores
UN sanctions (ring any bells?), and who's military policies can almost
be called state-sponsored terrorism; Israel's army has killed far more
palestinian civilians and destroyed far more Palestinian homes in the
name of 'preemtive strikes' than damage Hamas has done. It's
hypocritical to say the least to praise Sharon as 'combatting terrorism'
when you look at his track record, and heavy backing for a country (a
democratic country, at least, the only one in the middle east, really,
it has to be said) that's a religious state by definition and
disciriminates based on creed is shady to say the least.
I applaud the idea behind the Roadmap, although I'm not terribly
optimistic about it's success; the situation on the ground is,
fundamentally, a religious one to the extremist groups, and they know
they're 'right'.
And then you look to the US itself, where a large Zionist Jewish lobby
AND an incresingly large Fundamentalist Christian lobby is against any
form of Palestinian state, drawing a number of their arguments from
scripture. And this group is an important part of Bush's electorate.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
out the bombings. The israel soldiers have got to be really parinoid
they arn't killing the civilians on purpose, unlike the bombers.
Mattia Valente
That doesn't excuse the retaliation, the occupation of Gaza, or the
deaths of innocent people in the name of fighting the terror. At all.
They're an occupying army, the UN has passed resolutions calling for
withdrawl, sanctions from anyone remain a fiction, and extremist parties
in the occupied territories use deadly force against who they view as
the opressor. They don't have anything to stand up against tanks;
they're throwing rocks at them as they roll in and blow the houses to
crap. None of this excuses what Hamas does, but Israel's military should
be held to a higher standard.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
The un doesn't really work anymore. There should have been a new war
back in 1998 when iraq violated the cease fire agreement and expelled
the weapons inspectors. But the un did nothing. That kind of apathy
with germany got the world into WWII. If england (which I assume you
are from), or france had taken action 60 years ago when germany was
violating treaty resolutions, unstead of wishing germany will not
bother them the world would have been spared 25 million dead and the
execution of undesirables by the millions.
ch...@will.com
someone with a rock it is just the same as shooting a gun at some one.
Sieue
Not wishing to be picky, but what exactly does this have to do with Buffy
the Vampire Slayer and associated Mutant Enemy productions?
Nothing?
Hmmmm, do I smell a Troll?
--
Sieue
*..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:- Let there be goats...
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
Mattia Valente
> As far as throwning rocks is goes, rocks are dangerious you could kill
> someone with a rock it is just the same as shooting a gun at some one.
They're throwing rocks at *tanks and people with machine guns*.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> As far as the un goes, it is pretty usless now that the USSR is gone.
No, it's not. Multilateralism is the way forward, not unilateralism. No
matter what the morons in the White House think.
> The un doesn't really work anymore.
That I agree with. Reform may be needed.
> There should have been a new war
> back in 1998 when iraq violated the cease fire agreement and expelled
> the weapons inspectors. But the un did nothing.
Er, no, wrong. In 1998 Iraq violated the no-fly zones, Clinton decided
to start bombing raids, and requested the UN Weapons Inspectors leave.
And they did. And didn't return until relatively recently, at which
point we got a huffy puffy bush.
> That kind of apathy with germany got the world into WWII.
Oh please...
> If england (which I assume you
> are from), or france had taken action 60 years ago when germany was
> violating treaty resolutions,
The unfair resolutions and treaties (reparations) imposed on Germany
post WW I are a major factor in the rise of Nazism in Germany. The whole
concept behind a League of Nations (ie, UN style organisation) was to
prevent that from happening again.
> unstead of wishing germany will not
> bother them the world would have been spared 25 million dead and the
> execution of undesirables by the millions.
We're being ridiculously sipmlistic by drawing that parallel.
There's the major difference here that Iraq was as good as disarmed. It
invaded Kuwait, got busted for it, their military was in shreds, morale
was low. And ostensibly Bush wanted to go in because Iraq was a threat
to the US's national security. And because it was dissembling WMDs (of
which there is, as yet, no trace).
Now, if this had been about Regime Change all along, deposing a
Dictator, it might've been more allowable, but only with UN security
council approval. That's the only thing that would lend legitimacy to
such an action; when it's essentially unilateral, it's an act of
outright agression. Am I glad Saddam's gone? Sure. The issue's with the
way it was done (shoddily, terribly on a diplomatic front, and all the
more worrying when one reads the policy statements made by certain key
memebers of the current US administration.)
And I'm leaving it at that.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
absence
ch...@will.com
when italy invaded ethopia, because all of the major powers didn't
want to fight.
Countries no matter how friendly they are with other nations still
have their own interests in mind what is why hitler was allowed to
invade other countries, because the bigger fish hoped he would not
come after them.
Mattia Valente
> Do you really think what he never build any more wmds in the 4 years
> absence
Not per se. I don't know that he had the means to do so any more. Having
weapons inspectors around pretty much kept the situation stable, if
never entirely resolved.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
prevent harsh penelities.
Un resolutions of iraq were hurting the people far more than the
government.
ch...@will.com
make the passer feel good and noble like their country accomplished
something. If anyone in the un really really cared about what israel
was doing in the middle east they would do something that is more than
just words.
Also what country are you from.
Mattia Valente
> multilaterism doesn't work. The leauge of nations sat on their asses
> when italy invaded ethopia, because all of the major powers didn't
> want to fight.
Multilateralism has to work. I don't want to see a world that's run
according to what the sole remaining superpower would like to see
happen; ironically that goes against the very basis upon which the USA
was founded. International law, if nothing else, needs to be enforced
and applied. Diplomacy is key to maintaining a balance; without a
central, multilateral agency, you revert to a globe of city-states, with
the potential for even more conflict. Multilateral institutions are
powerful precisely because they provide a platform for nation-states to
meet and discuss issues; bilateral agreements don't have nearly the same
kind of power.
The thing is, where will the US stop? Do we tackle Iran? Saudi Arabia?
Egypt? Syria? North Korea? China? Pakistan? Burma? <insert various other
regimes here>?
The actions against Iraq have rid us of one dictator; they have not made
the world a safer place, on the whole.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
book, using stuff I buy at the store, I thing an entire counrty could
do alot better.
Mattia Valente
> government.
...which wasn't the reason Iraq was 'liberated'. And those same
resolutions were voted in with US approval in the first place, lets not
forget.
Mattia
Iain Clark
<mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>ch...@will.com wrote:
> > That kind of apathy with germany got the world into WWII.
>We're being ridiculously sipmlistic by drawing that parallel.
>
>There's the major difference here that Iraq was as good as disarmed. It
>invaded Kuwait, got busted for it, their military was in shreds, morale
>was low. And ostensibly Bush wanted to go in because Iraq was a threat
>to the US's national security. And because it was dissembling WMDs (of
>which there is, as yet, no trace).
>
>Now, if this had been about Regime Change all along, deposing a
>Dictator, it might've been more allowable, but only with UN security
>council approval. That's the only thing that would lend legitimacy to
>such an action; when it's essentially unilateral, it's an act of
>outright agression. Am I glad Saddam's gone? Sure. The issue's with the
>way it was done (shoddily, terribly on a diplomatic front, and all the
>more worrying when one reads the policy statements made by certain key
>memebers of the current US administration.)
>
Hear hear! (*general murmurings of approval*) <g>
Iain
--
"Goddamn your confusion
She's got pretty persuasion"
Mattia Valente
> THe un is to idealistic.
Obviously.
> The resolutions that are passed are more to
> make the passer feel good and noble like their country accomplished
> something. If anyone in the un really really cared about what israel
> was doing in the middle east they would do something that is more than
> just words.
They're not that idealistic, though; the problems surrounding Israel go
beyond simply enforcing resolutions. The resolutions, where Israel is
concerned, outline the letter of International law. Unfortunately, we
don't really live in a world where that counts for everything. Other
factors weigh in heavily. It's a state that was essentially created out
of guilt for what happened in WWII. The Jewish lobby in the 'west' has
plenty of power, far more than the Palestinian lobby does, so there are
conflicting interests there as well.
> Also what country are you from.
The Netherlands. Half Italian, too.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
People do not by nature get along especially when they are seperated
by boarders. Diplomacy only works with other like minded countries.
A nation set on conquest won't care about anything but achiving their
goals. Diplomacy failed with germany. Libia and a few other
countries are actually on the human rights panal in the un. I find
that funny
Mattia Valente
Mostly you can make conventional weapons. Creating VX nerve gas requires
far more sophisticated equiment, and weaponizing biological material
really isn't *that* easy.
Besides, possible means do not prove production. And proof there must be.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
ch...@will.com
idea.
Mattia Valente
There was, but WWII kicked it into overdrive and made it a reality, and
is the reason the rights of the people living in the area that we now
call Israel were trampled to bits.
Mattia
John Briggs
> ch...@will.com wrote:
>> multilaterism doesn't work. The leauge of nations sat on their asses
>> when italy invaded ethopia, because all of the major powers didn't
>> want to fight.
>
> Multilateralism has to work. I don't want to see a world that's run
> according to what the sole remaining superpower would like to see
> happen; ironically that goes against the very basis upon which the USA
> was founded. International law, if nothing else, needs to be enforced
> and applied. Diplomacy is key to maintaining a balance; without a
> central, multilateral agency, you revert to a globe of city-states, with
> the potential for even more conflict. Multilateral institutions are
> powerful precisely because they provide a platform for nation-states to
> meet and discuss issues; bilateral agreements don't have nearly the same
> kind of power.
>
> The thing is, where will the US stop? Do we tackle Iran? Saudi Arabia?
> Egypt? Syria? North Korea? China? Pakistan? Burma? <insert various other
> regimes here>?
>
You missed out Cuba.
--
John Briggs
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>The thing is, where will the US stop? Do we tackle Iran? Saudi Arabia?
>>Egypt? Syria? North Korea? China? Pakistan? Burma? <insert various other
>>regimes here>?
>
> You missed out Cuba.
Drat.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
nation can keep their nose clean, it is really a matter of other
nations caring enough to do something about it.
I have heard on the net that frace did practice torchure during a
conflict in algeria yet no one seemed to care. I knownet info isn't
that accurate.
Israel has fought 4 years in fifty years, there is alot of argument as
to who started them, but I don't think israel started them all, whose
agressive wars are a violation of international law but no one cares.
ch...@will.com
>Dictator, it might've been more allowable, but only with UN security
>council approval.
Is it better to let a man who kills on mass get away with it because
he is in another country, and no other counrty wants to back up their
own words with force. Killing people is a violation of un human
rights. All of the counrties agree on that but chose to do nothing
about it when to talk.
ch...@will.com
requires
far more sophisticated equiment, and weaponizing biological material
really isn't *that* easy.
There are other wmds then vx
I can make chlorene gas in about ten minutes.
And my chemisty teacher said that mustard gas and sarine is really
easy to make.
ch...@will.com
There was, but WWII kicked it into overdrive and made it a reality,
and
is the reason the rights of the people living in the area that we now
call Israel were trampled to bits.
Mattia
The frace, england and the other major colonial powers were doing a
good job of trampling peoples rights long before 1947, israel had
nothing to do with it.
Mattia Valente
> Every country has broken international law in some way, no powerful
> nation can keep their nose clean, it is really a matter of other
> nations caring enough to do something about it.
Well, yes. The US has been violating human rights for a number of years
now, at guantanamo. It's a matter of scale.
> Israel has fought 4 years in fifty years, there is alot of argument as
> to who started them, but I don't think israel started them all, whose
> agressive wars are a violation of international law but no one cares.
The resolutions against Israel were largely put into place in 1976.
That's how long they've been in 'conflict'. Although one could say they
were in conflict from the day they were founded.
Also, the declared wars were different then; there were some clear
problems at the time, so it was more or less legitimate. It was the
post-war activity that remains problematic. The US's reasons for
attacking Iraq are dodgy at best.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
The whole point is that that was NOT the reason the US gave for
attacking Iraq the second time around. And that's the issue here.
Publicly, the reason for going to war were WMDs and violations of UN
resolutions regarding WMDs (although the UN is the only body who has the
right to interpret said resolutions, mind) that needed rectifying.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
>
> I can make chlorene gas in about ten minutes.
>
> And my chemisty teacher said that mustard gas and sarine is really
> easy to make.
Well, yes. Again, need proof.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> The frace, england and the other major colonial powers were doing a
> good job of trampling peoples rights long before 1947, israel had
> nothing to do with it.
Does that make this situation any more right? No. It's not an excuse, in
any way, shape or form.
Mattia
John Briggs
And Libya. (And remove Egypt - it's not on the list yet)
:-)
--
John Briggs
ch...@will.com
attacking Iraq the second time around. And that's the issue here.
Publicly, the reason for going to war were WMDs and violations of UN
resolutions regarding WMDs (although the UN is the only body who has
the
right to interpret said resolutions, mind) that needed rectifying.
I agree with you there, there were better reasons bush could have used
for going to war. Also bush pushed to hard on weak evidence, to
convince countries who didn't want to fight reguardless. However
those counrties knew bush would do it anyway so why should they risk
causilities when america could do all of the work.
America is condemed for killing the cow, even while the condemers eat
the the food
Reasons like treaty and human rights violations would have sounded
better, it would have also put the other 3 nations on the security
council in a tough spot. The other 3 nations would have faced in my
opinion a real humiliation if they voted no for war based on execution
of 10000's of people.
ch...@will.com
No not at all, I was just pointing out that israel doesn't have a
monopoly on human right abuse, all countries do it and will keep on
doing it.
What human rights abuses did the us commit before the "war on terror"
Recent things only please, like after ww2
John Briggs
Actually, the USA's reason for regime change in Iraq (the phrase "liberate
with extreme prejudice" is gaining currency) is perfectly, er, reasonable.
It was to secure for the West (not just the USA) access to Iraq's oil
reserves. (Not to steal the oil - they are entirely prepared to pay for
it.)
--
John Briggs
Mattia Valente
>> The whole point is that that was NOT the reason the US gave for
>> attacking Iraq the second time around. And that's the issue here.
>> Publicly, the reason for going to war were WMDs and violations of UN
>> resolutions regarding WMDs (although the UN is the only body who has
>> the
>> right to interpret said resolutions, mind) that needed rectifying.
>
> I agree with you there, there were better reasons bush could have used
> for going to war. Also bush pushed to hard on weak evidence, to
> convince countries who didn't want to fight reguardless. However
> those counrties knew bush would do it anyway so why should they risk
> causilities when america could do all of the work.
It would've been more honest to just straight-out claim he was going in
to liberate Iraq, depose a dictator, and install a regime that was
friendly to US interests in the Arab world. Since that would be a first,
the Saudis aside (and that's a whole other issue entirely..)
> America is condemed for killing the cow, even while the condemers eat
> the the food
America's condemned for how it handled the killing, not so much the
killing per se. And I'm ignoring the idiotic pacisifist anti-globalist
young socialst student type folk ;-)
> Reasons like treaty and human rights violations would have sounded
> better, it would have also put the other 3 nations on the security
> council in a tough spot. The other 3 nations would have faced in my
> opinion a real humiliation if they voted no for war based on execution
> of 10000's of people.
Part of the issue is that they didn't have that much proof on those
counts either; the full extent of the regime's activities is only now
coming to light. Those were real issues, and similar situations are
still present in various countries around the globe.
It is, admittedly, a weakness in the UN's organisational structure,
since it's built on the assumption that nations are reasonable, and
rational.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> What human rights abuses did the us commit before the "war on terror"
> Recent things only please, like after ww2
You mean besides racist legislation across the country, but particularly
in the south, before the age of Martin Luther King? There are reports of
abuses in various jails, in varying degrees of seriousness. Technically,
the death penalty itself is a human rights violation. There's a great
deal of Race-related abuse in America's history, and the penal/judicial
system has it's own problems. Not saying it's a uniquely American
problem, though.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
"liberate
with extreme prejudice" is gaining currency) is perfectly, er,
reasonable.
It was to secure for the West (not just the USA) access to Iraq's oil
reserves. (Not to steal the oil - they are entirely prepared to pay
for
it.)
--
I really don't think that is the reason. The us produces like 80
percent of its oil internally and we get alot of oil from south
america. Europe gets more gas/petrol from the middle east then the us
I think bush invaded to send a message. The us is really powerful and
we arn't going to put up with "evil dictators" anymore, who have no
problem with terrorism or giving terrorists safe haven. If bush was
able to attack iraq on such bad evidence what are there other
counrties thinking could happon to them if they don't clean up their
act.
That is exactly what the bush administration wants them to think.
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>>problems at the time, so it was more or less legitimate. It was the
>>post-war activity that remains problematic. The US's reasons for
>>attacking Iraq are dodgy at best.
>
> Actually, the USA's reason for regime change in Iraq (the phrase "liberate
> with extreme prejudice" is gaining currency) is perfectly, er, reasonable.
> It was to secure for the West (not just the USA) access to Iraq's oil
> reserves. (Not to steal the oil - they are entirely prepared to pay for
> it.)
There's that, too. And it's undeniably a factor.
However, I was referring to the 'official' reasons given for the attack
before it was all over, and the spin doctors tried to make us forget
that regime change wasn't the excuse to go to war at all. Them's the
really dodgy ones ;-)
Mattia
Mattia Valente
>percent of its oil internally and we get alot of oil from south
>america. Europe gets more gas/petrol from the middle east then the us
True. But securing the world's largest remaining oil reserves helps keep
control over oil prices.
>I think bush invaded to send a message. The us is really powerful and
>we arn't going to put up with "evil dictators" anymore, who have no
>problem with terrorism or giving terrorists safe haven. If bush was
>able to attack iraq on such bad evidence what are there other
>counrties thinking could happon to them if they don't clean up their
>act.
>
>That is exactly what the bush administration wants them to think.
Well, obviously. It's a power play, the US asserting itself and securing
it's place as the only superpower. A position it intends to maintain
indefinitely, in economic, cultural and military terms.
And please, let's not spew the usual propagandistic bollocks relating to
Iraq training al quaeda terrorists. There's been absolutely no proof of
that, and there's ample evidence that Bin Laden hates only the West more
than he hates Saddam. The US had the opportunity to unite the world
behind him in the days post-september 11. Bush, unfortunately,
squandered that entirely.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
problem, though.
Thank you, for that.
I feel like most of the world is biching at america while not even
consitering their own nations actions.
ch...@will.com
John Briggs
>> I really don't think that is the reason. The us produces like 80
> >percent of its oil internally and we get alot of oil from south
> >america. Europe gets more gas/petrol from the middle east then the us
>
> True. But securing the world's largest remaining oil reserves helps keep
> control over oil prices.
>
expensive to extract the oil. And drilling for oil in Alaska is problematic
at best.
--
John Briggs
ch...@will.com
to
Iraq training al quaeda terrorists. There's been absolutely no proof
of
that, and there's ample evidence that Bin Laden hates only the West
more
than he hates Saddam. The US had the opportunity to unite the world
behind him in the days post-september 11. Bush, unfortunately,
squandered that entirely.
Actually I was refering more to libia and countries like that, I don't
think sadam would have had anything to do with bin ladin. Bin ladin
was a threat to sadams power.
Jordon fought with the palistians because the plo tried to take over,
no smart king would allow any possible threat to their power,
especially a fanatic threat.
Well, obviously. It's a power play, the US asserting itself and
securing
it's place as the only superpower. A position it intends to maintain
indefinitely, in economic, cultural and military terms.
I disagree this was strictly about about sending a message.
The middle east aside from oil has few resources conpared to europe
and the Americas. The middle east is not useful to securing
superpower status, where was no compitation for the title coming from
the middle east.
Mattia Valente
I understand the sentiment. The issue is, I think, that the US is big,
it's powerful, it projects this image of 'the Bestest Nation on Earth
EVER' (for reasons many Europeans, anyway, can't fathom; as a rule we
have better healthcare, job security, disability insurance, etc. And pay
the higher taxes for it, and deal with less dynamic economies and higher
unemployment in return), and at the moment, the administration in power
is flexing it's muscle like there's no tomorrow, waltzing roughshod over
pretty much everything and everyone, rubbing people the wrong way.
Diplomatically, the Bush White House is a disaster zone.
Again, I like Americans, as people, I like a lot of what America is,
although a number of (recent) developments do scare me (politicisation
of news media, the Patriot Act, hard swing to the Right, that sort of
thing.)
It's a case of 'love to hate', really; other countries don't have the
power, singularly, and as a rule don't pretend to dictate much of
anything, in part because they simply don't have the means. And while we
consume American culture, film, music and TV, by the kiloton, that's all
a lot of people want from the US. It's that pesky foreign policy :-)
Of course, there are those who resent even the cultural influences,
because they're proud of the country they're from, and resent the
dominance itself. Me? I'm not terribly bothered.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
consperacy that keeps these fuels underwraps. Only when gas becomes
to rare( it will have nothing to do with cost) will another system be
used
With all of americas technology I find it supprising that gas is still
being used. But what supprises me more is that in technologically
equal europe where gas is like 5 dollars a gallon no one has figured
out a better fuel and actually used it on mass.
Mattia Valente
> Actually I was refering more to libia and countries like that, I don't
> think sadam would have had anything to do with bin ladin. Bin ladin
> was a threat to sadams power.
Good, just so we're clear ;-)
As for Libya, it's a country with 2 million people living there, and not
really a big threat to much of anyone. Not really. Saddam did support
Hamas, or at least publicly offer money to martyrs.
> Jordon fought with the palistians because the plo tried to take over,
> no smart king would allow any possible threat to their power,
> especially a fanatic threat.
That's also part of the problem: none of the neighbouring countries
really like the palestinians much at all. They just like the Israelis less.
> Well, obviously. It's a power play, the US asserting itself and
> securing
> it's place as the only superpower. A position it intends to maintain
> indefinitely, in economic, cultural and military terms.
>
> I disagree this was strictly about about sending a message.
Seriously, read up on the Project for the New American Century.
Co-signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, among others. It says pretty
much exactly that.
" we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or
the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital
role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle
East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our
fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have
taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises
emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this
century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
and
"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry
out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles. "
To say the least, this smacks of unilateralistic protection of
self-interest. America as the key to everything. It's paternalistic, and
unsurprisingly, rubs other sovereign nations entirely the wrong way.
> The middle east aside from oil has few resources conpared to europe
> and the Americas. The middle east is not useful to securing
> superpower status, where was no compitation for the title coming from
> the middle east.
It's about maintaining influence in all parts of the world. The middle
east is, because of it's oil, of economic importance, and Saudi Arabia
aside, the US has few if any friends there.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> were the netherlands offically for the war?
The government was a 'political ally', yes. The dutch people? Only a
minority.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
EVER' (for reasons many Europeans, anyway, can't fathom; as a rule we
have better healthcare, job security, disability insurance, etc.
I think that is some wierd european assumption. No one in america
cares who is the best nation ever. As long as people are safe and
infertained and fed well nobody cares about appearances.
In regaurds to your earlier message, the us had to have the best
military around. This was the only single counrty with the resources
to deal with the USSR. The Us had like 10,000 nukes compared to
europs 1,000 during the cold war. now that that threat is over it will
still take time for the counrty's military to change.
Mattia Valente
> There are other fuels that are better than gas it is like some
> consperacy that keeps these fuels underwraps. Only when gas becomes
> to rare( it will have nothing to do with cost) will another system be
> used
Heh. It's economic interests.
> With all of americas technology I find it supprising that gas is still
> being used. But what supprises me more is that in technologically
> equal europe where gas is like 5 dollars a gallon no one has figured
> out a better fuel and actually used it on mass.
The reason? The hugely large American Oil companies. Who still have
plenty of political influence. Cheney used to head up one of said large
oil concerns. They've got plenty of lobbyists who want to keep people
using oil.
The cost of fuel here has everything to do with politics, though; as a
rule, we have alternatives to driving places, and taxation on fuel
(that's the extra cost, not the raw oil costs) is a good way to promote
fuel efficient vehicles (no SUVs here, no sir), and discourage using
cars, which are far less of a cultural symbol than they are in the US.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> it projects this image of 'the Bestest Nation on Earth
> EVER' (for reasons many Europeans, anyway, can't fathom; as a rule we
> have better healthcare, job security, disability insurance, etc.
>
> I think that is some wierd european assumption. No one in america
> cares who is the best nation ever. As long as people are safe and
> infertained and fed well nobody cares about appearances.
I'm saying that that's the image projected by Amercian news media, and
all too many political statements, not that that's truly the sentiment
shared by Americans. Any single one of Bush's speeches represents that,
and far too many tourists have this 'ooh, how quaint, the old world,
we're better' attitude. Not all, but too many. The average Joe living in
the states doesn't really do much for America's public face.
The fact that the groups with the craziest ideas also have the biggest
mouths (be they religious right loons trying to abolish evolution in
schools, or Neo-Conservative republicans). So most people have a
distinctly unbalanced view of the situation.
> In regaurds to your earlier message, the us had to have the best
> military around. This was the only single counrty with the resources
> to deal with the USSR. The Us had like 10,000 nukes compared to
> europs 1,000 during the cold war. now that that threat is over it will
> still take time for the counrty's military to change.
I'm well aware of that. The point is, some in the administration, want
to keep the pressure up, and increase military spending. Again.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
Co-signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, among others. It says
pretty
much exactly that.
in europe, that sounds cold warish to me.
I don't really want you to misunderstand what I mean hear but,
american interests are the same as interests in europe, it is just
that the us being big and powerful can act more easily.
Also america is the global leader by fact not design. It is big and
powerful. We have a 10 trillion dollar a year econimy compared to the
1.2 trillion dollar 2nd place french economy. I am suse france
england spain germany would act just the same if they had the same
interests as the us.
ch...@will.com
elected officals don't have the same problems in dealing with them as
american's do. I would think it would be much easier for alternative
fuels to be found because the big oil conpanies don't have the same
control in europe. Are even the Prime ministers and the parlements
under and the other european companies under america's oil yoke?
Mattia Valente
> When was that writen because why would the us have to maintain peace
> in europe, that sounds cold warish to me.
This particular statement? Sounds VERY Cold-Warish. The date? June 3rd,
1997. And it's still a mission statement. It's not helping me be less
worried about the parties in power in the US right now, if you catch my
drift :-)
> I don't really want you to misunderstand what I mean hear but,
> american interests are the same as interests in europe, it is just
> that the us being big and powerful can act more easily.
The point is, if we're talking common interests, they need to be
discussed openly. Economically, we share interests. But we don't need
politicians to regulate our economy; that's what Alan Greenspan's for.
> Also america is the global leader by fact not design. It is big and
> powerful. We have a 10 trillion dollar a year econimy compared to the
> 1.2 trillion dollar 2nd place french economy. I am suse france
> england spain germany would act just the same if they had the same
> interests as the us.
You're missing a vital issue: as a trading zone, the entire EU equals
the NAFTA zone (US, Canada, Mexico). Most of US trade is done with the
EU, and vice versa. As a whole, the two are on equal footing, thanks to
the European Open Market, and increasingly so in the Euro Zone thanks to
common currency in that market; economically, it's better to speak about
the US and Europe, as opposed to the US and any given European country.
That's also why we've got an EU; to help promote and define common
interests. We're on more or less equal footing economically, and we need
each other, but politically? No. Which is why some (IMO misguided)
groups want common EU foreign policy. Wich Iraq demonstrated isn't
really workable.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
No, but there are a good number of large European Oil companies that
employ thousands and thousands. That, and with interlinked economies, if
the US doesn't embrace technology yet, there's little chance Europe,
which is, on the whole, more conservative where investment in new ideas
is concerned, will follow suit.
However, big oil/energy companies are looking into alternative fuel
sources. Shell Oil among them, which their reneweable energy divisions
and the like. Change is slow, and Oil makes good money, the technology
for the cars is cheap, readily available, the expertise is there, and
big changes would leave them open to 'invasion' by US companies still
using the 'old' technologies, operating with far larger profit margins.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
group fashion we haven't said a word about about anything to do with a
buffy group.
I will be back tommarow about 12:00 pacific time, or about 21 hours
from now, if you like we can pick up our converstation then.
Got to go, talk with you later.
Saskia
> it has been nice chating with you, but I have to go. I true news
> group fashion we haven't said a word about about anything to do with a
> buffy group.
Ah, so this *is* alt.buffy.europe. I was beginning to wonder where I
was...
Not that anyone has anything to say about Buffy, so go ahead, as long as
you don't change the topic because this thread is automatically being
marked as read.
--
Saskia
I haven't been the same since that house fell on my sister.
Ian Hastie
ch...@will.com wrote:
> reality, legality, morality are never one in the same.
> People do not by nature get along especially when they are seperated
> by boarders. Diplomacy only works with other like minded countries.
> A nation set on conquest won't care about anything but achiving their
> goals. Diplomacy failed with germany.
So presumably this is why it also failed with the Bush run USA.
> Libia and a few other
> countries are actually on the human rights panal in the un. I find
> that funny
Then again the current USA government think it reasonable to deny a
large number of people their human rights based on an invented
technicality. They break their own rules and then insist on trying to
tell the rest of the world how they should be running things.
--
Ian.
EOM
ch...@will.com
Then again the current USA government think it reasonable to deny a
large number of people their human rights based on an invented
technicality. They break their own rules and then insist on trying to
tell the rest of the world how they should be running things.
what rules did the us break.
how did diplomacy fail with the us?
ch...@will.com
years what land has america conquared, the philippeans. The us is
like the only western country that was not involved in colonization.
the us had hardly any colonies compared to everyone else.
Mattia Valente
> try not to make a statement without backing it up.
He's got backing up for most of this one: the term 'unlawful
combattants' is an invented term, without precedent, and is the excuse
the US is using to hold people at guantanamo without access to lawyer,
speedy trials, or generally following any of the Geneva Convention on
POWs. They're signatory parties to the Geneva Convention, but are acting
nothing of the sort. That those captured aren't is completely
irellevant. And then they complain when Hussein's regime shows us
footage of captured US troops.
> Then again the current USA government think it reasonable to deny a
> large number of people their human rights based on an invented
> technicality. They break their own rules and then insist on trying to
> tell the rest of the world how they should be running things.
>
> what rules did the us break.
> how did diplomacy fail with the us?
The abovementioned rules pertaining to human rights, for one. And going
over the UN's head; that 'broke' dimplomacy at least as much as the
French position did. The US chose the undiplomatic way out, and it's not
all everyone else's fault, no matter what the White House rants on and
on about.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
That's because the US is a colony. It's building what one might call a
Hegemony, though; not conquest of land, but it's meddled in many a
regime, toppled various dictators, put others into power (in fact, it
helped Saddam into Power, got rid of Allende and gave Chile a nice
little military Junta, we'll not talk of Iran-contra, the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, or various other latin-american countries).
It's got a history of meddling, undeniably. It's 'colonization' is, at
the moment, political in nature. It's gone back to that nation-building
idea; creating countries friendly to US interests by involving
themselves in the process on the ground; something they don't truly have
the mandate for, in anyone's eyes but their own.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
that there arn't any, so the white house has do do something. This is
a new type of war, without uniforms and national lines it is hard to
tell who is the enemy.
Plus if you consiter them pows then they don't have the right to a
lawyer or a trial.
ch...@will.com
The us might keep a presence in iraq but it will be no different than
germany or japan.
Mattia Valente
> are there any geneva rules reguarding terrorists. I have a feeling
> that there arn't any, so the white house has do do something. This is
> a new type of war, without uniforms and national lines it is hard to
> tell who is the enemy.
They were captured in war-time. In Afghanistan. In a declared war, and
hence aren't terrorists, sec, but combattants in said conflict. That
they're not uniformed doesn't excuse the extreme violations of human
rights involved.
The point is, there ARE laws regarding terrorists: you try them, in
courts of law, like any other criminal. With due process. With rights.
With access to attorneys. There is absolutely no excuse for the Bush
Adminsitration's actions. None. And getting it down to uncertainty about
'who is the enemy'? Really not an excuse.
And also, it's not a War, per se. Bush calls it a war on Terror, simply
so that he can mobilize the military to fight it, but it's not war as
defined, well, more or less anywhere. It's a fight against Terrorism,
sure, but it's being 'fought' as much by playing around with and
inventing new defintions as anything else.
> Plus if you consiter them pows then they don't have the right to a
> lawyer or a trial.
No, but then they shouldn't be tried at all. Since they're meant to be
released when the conflict is over. Instead, we build gas chambers on-site.
Mattia
ch...@will.com
ch...@will.com
And getting it down to uncertainty about
'who is the enemy'? Really not an excuse.
How is it not an excuse, the last thing any nation nomatter how
idealistic wants is to let some guy out of jail who will turn around
fly a plane into a building
ch...@will.com
europe from eachother and european war was very different from "the
war on terror"
ch...@will.com
during the war. I would think it is a war crime to target civilians
specifically.
Mattia Valente
> Are you an american because you are using we alot
Nope. Figure of speech. Like 'one'. Partly that, and partly my supreme
disinterest in nationalism ;-)
> we build gas chambers on-site.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
> I think intertantional laws are to idealistic to be realistic.
Law is, out of principle, idealistic. Innocent until proven guilty.
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's nothing to do with International
law, that's just plain law; no more idealistic than the vaunted freedom
it's based on.
>> And getting it down to uncertainty about
>> 'who is the enemy'? Really not an excuse.
>
> How is it not an excuse, the last thing any nation nomatter how
> idealistic wants is to let some guy out of jail who will turn around
> fly a plane into a building
It's not about letting them out of jail, it's about keeping them there,
but providing them with all the protections any prisoner should be
granted. By allowing things like this, like the patriot act, you're
udnermining the civil liberties which define a free society in the first
place.
It's still no excuse. So try them, based on proof, convict them,
whatever. But don't hold them indefinitely without charges or lawyers in
conditions unworthy of a third-world country's penal system.
Mattia
Mattia Valente
And again, there needs to be proof that those people were involved in
the planning of those attacks. That they'd like to kill Western
Civilians doesn't make them criminals, merely potential criminals.
And the whole point is, this war isn't going to be 'over'; there's no
clear enemy, so there can be no clear victory. It's a pipe dream.
Mattia