 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saras
Znajem znajem. Slush, u vas tam v Omske Ikea otkryvaetsia slyshal? |
No. Why it's so big deal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
I'm not reading through the thread, so maybe this has already been pointed out.
quote:
They walk the walk. They talk the talk. But they don't think the think. In the wake of the huge support given to George Bush last week, it's time we realised how different America's majority culture is, and changed our policies accordingly. |
Wha...?
per C-SPAN.org:
Bush votes: 59,770,096 = ~51%
Kerry votes: 56,307,601 = ~48%
Total votes: 116,077,697 = ~100% (3rd party votes not factored)
51%, the slimest of whole-number majorities on a scale of 1-100, is huge?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
The problem with NATO is that the US gives in more to the treaty by supplying more military infrastructure and stuff and logically they complain that EU doesn't contribute in the same sense. I can of course understand this, BUT it seems that our views have diverged. The EU WILL bild up an army that is capable of doing global intervention, but not so soon and even then we might not handle the same situations equally.
Ofc NATO cannot be abolished right away, because it goes way beyond being a simple treaty. There are NATO communication standards, NATO ammunition standards, NATO standardized weaponry,...
If we take that away systems would be largely incompatible and joint interventions would be hard to accomplish.
The situation is stupid though as the US keeps hoping that we Europeans catch up, but we would like to explore different ways. The US has to realize that the EU will not live up to their expectations.
The EU is like a child growing up and getting stronger and as such likes to see the world through its own eyes, rather than the views of someone else. We see what goes wrong in the US and like to do better than them, like a child sees what its parents are doing wrong and like to do better.
It's interesting that one can view this like the US is the parent and the EU is the child, because it was exactly the opposite some hundred years ago.
Maybe this will change again in the future, when the EU is mature enough and the US aged and old so that they can learn from us again and maybe this is a cycle and some kind of bond that we share.
If this is indeed the way that it is, then currently I think the US can live very well without the EU, but we cannot so easily. In some 20-50 years probably the situation is different and the US will die if it doesn't get the new ideas and genes that are coming out of the EU.
Of course this is probably a too simplistic view and it doesn't take Asian countries into account.
The US could also search for other allies like China or Japan to do this kind of relationship. However I think this will be much more difficult and not possible without a significant change in cultural values, which are very hard to push through.
What do you think of this analysis?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Muad'Dib
|
|
Of The Known Universe
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Alliance--n: a union to promote common interests. syn league, coalition, confederacy, federation.
So, where are our common interests? When 2 members actively oppose you shouldn't that be a sign that we should just leave?
Last Conformist, thats one of my points, I DON'T want our forces spending my tax dollars on your socialist countries. European anti-Americanism really pisses me off. So why should we reward that??? And now that the UN Oil-for-Food scandal has broke, now I know why the Froggs were hell bent on stopping us in Iraq.
Why is it that the US has to constantly clean up Europe's escrement??? Particularly those of France's & Britain's. Those two carved up the Austro-Hungarian Empire instead of letting it fall apart on its own, merged Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, & Montinegro together without asking those people first, and wondered why all hell broke lose in the 90's. They carve up the Ottoman Empire and take those territories for themselves. Inaddition, the Brit's renege on their promise to create a Kurdish state. And, voila! The Mid-east becomes a powder-kegged, induced black-hole.
Plato, you think like me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
Haa I TOLD EVERYONE SO!
I knew this would come. I KNEW IT! Made several arguments about this a looong time ago and saw it as the grand plan, and it's starting to be executed soon.
Of course NATO is not a threat to EUrope. That's just silly. A big part of NATO IS European. This is anti-US babblings and a pipe dream. But it's a pipe dream that can become reality, I mean I think the plan is realistic. But is it a good thing, that I don't think it is.
I told earlier a long time ago time and again, that the EU wants to have a nice military alliance going on. Nothing wrong in that, in fact it is necessary. But calling NATO obsolete right after the building of this military .. the discrediting of NATO and calling it a threat, which it isn't to Europe, is part of plan. I thought they'd be more descreet about it though. As in vetoing everything in NATO, so the alliance wouldn't work really well. This way, the EU has the ONLY working bigger alliance. US would remain the biggest military force of course, but the only real alliance would be the EU, as NATO would become crippled by vetoing. THe next step is to get US out of EUrope, because EU is able to handle the region. And that's when EU has the only working real alliance, thus lifting it's importance into a new level and more shoulder to shoulder with the US..
People, you can deny this all you want, but I predicted this plan a long time ago, and it's happening right now. First you deny, then you laugh, and then you will attack me, but the fact remains.
US forces getting out of Europe (no need for them to be in here)
EU getting new miltiary
EU scrambling NATO 
NATO becoming crippled
EU having the only real alliance
Basically I don't see the need for crippling NATO. There's just no need.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Muad'Dib
|
|
Of The Known Universe
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
because EU is able to handle the region |
Yeah right, like they handled the Balkans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
I think to call NATO a threat is severely over the top (to find a nice word for bullshit), but other than that, the article sounds about right. The NATO in a nutshell is Europe buying security in exchange for obedience. Now Europe does not need the security anymore. Even if we did not build up our own forces, nobody would likely attack us anytime soon. And in fact, we do build up our forces and reform them from cold war monsters to modern armies. So why should we pay the price of further being Americas vassals? Even more since a lot of the US forces aren't even here to provide the security they claim to give us, but abroad trying to pacify Americas newly obtained colony.
Pekka, you are a bit exaggerating. The article does not demand to break up with America. It ends "We can and, for the most part, should be America's friends. Allies, no longer." I think, the step from obedient vassals to partners with equal rights was long overdue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VJ
|
 |
Helsinki
Dec 2001
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
You have to give the Guardian credit for persistance. |
Persistance in trying to agitate the whole continent to share their anti-American views just because it's trendy, and twisting the truth to fit these views, yes.
It's called propaganda. Pity, 5 years ago Guardian was a decent magazine, now it has sunk to levels like this.
quote:
So the countries that joined NATO were not afraid of the USSR, while the countries that did not were afraid of the USSR. Why would countries that were not afraid join, while countries that were afraid would not? Is that not illogical. |
Afraid of USSR for different reasons. The process is called "Finlandization". You may want to google it up.
quote:
Anyway why is NATO important now? |
quote:
Actually, the armies of most European countries are mainly overkill now that Russia isn't a threat. Europe doesn't need those 140,000 soldiers to "defend" itself against non-existent foes |
Very naive POV's. It's sad to see how young people take friendly attitude from overseas granted. Having a strong defence is the best guarantee for peace.
quote:
What do you think of this analysis? |
Starts out fine, but the whole last half is wasted on useless metaphor. Hard to comment on anything.
quote:
Wrt to Finland, they actually did insist they did not have an alliance with Germany, but were merely "co-belligerents" against the SU. Now, this did not do alot of difference in practice, but anyway. |
The whole "co-belligerent" thing is BS historical revisionism.
quote:
Horror vacui. Both nature and humans abhor a vacuum. The trick is going to be managing the next 50 years as the Soviet system is replaced without blowing the world up. It would be a big bonus if that power and the US could live more peacefully. |
I really believed in that whole NWO thing which George Bush introduced when Gulf War started. Too bad that his pothead sonny ****ed it all up. It may be very hard to return to policies of the past even once his 2nd term is up.
quote:
I dont think so. Its a Cold War relic. European Defence must be build around EU |
Laurentius, you have an ok core point in this thread. US shouldn't be able to blackmail EU countries via NATO every time it feels the itch to "conduct a pre-emptive strike" to satisfy it's own, selfish intentions, therefore EU should create it's own, separate defence force which would have only one function: to defend EU borders (not interests of oil corp's and corruption, like in Iraq). I can understand that.
However, shouldn't we FIRST get our own defence in shape before starting to demand the withdrawal of US troops and the destruction of NATO? As we've seen, EU bureucrat's are very efficient in holding meetings, making symbolic decisions (Rocco Buttiglione) and drinking their cafe latte's, but when it comes to actually creating something like even agreeing to create an unified defence force with common goals, years have passed without anything has been done.
quote:
The primary function of NATO now is to maintain an established institutional link between both sides of the Atlantic. Actually, NATO is the only substantial and meaningful institutional link between them. |
NATO saved our asses in Kosovo just a few years ago.
quote:
NATO attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, thus violated not only its own charter, its so-called defensive nature, but UN charter as well. Now NATO surrounds Russia with its bases and considering that Russia always was the main (if not the only) enemy for NATO, Russians have pretty good reasons to be concerned. |
UN was ignored because the only country which opposed the intervention to stop Milosevic was Russia. You have to keep in mind that Yeltsin was the president back then, the whole country was run by mafia interests and corruption. Now when Russia has a democratically elected strong leader backed by overwhelming public opinion, I doubt Russia would be just ignored the way it was in '99.
quote:
Is that what Europeans actually think about what is going on in Iraq? |
In Finland, pretty much everyone thinks that way, yes. I know, it sucks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The NATO in a nutshell is Europe buying security in exchange for obedience. |
So NATO is really a feudality. The Americans are the knights in shining armour, while the Europeans are the downtrodden peasants. Usually what happens is that the priests in Washington calls for a Crusade, and then charge in with their knights giving the non-believers the medival treatment. European peasants are then called in to guard the baggage train and clean up the mess afterwards. Sometimes the knights call on the help from mercenaries to beef up their numbers. Other times the inquisition is called in to help out with some torture.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2004 14:53
International Killers-Enthusiasts Association?
to Guardian commentary or perhaps you'll understand it better as "Holy crap, some anti-Americans are anti-NATO!"
|