20-09-2002 14:32									#121
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Adalbertus I can name you these bullies: Germany and France. And the most interesting thing: The Netherlands became independent from Germany only in 1648 (mainly due to the influence of France after Germany was laid in ruins by a joint effort of France and Sweden), at the height of their economic might. After that, the Netherlands declined more than increased in power, and for their size they are still quite powerful. They had Germany and France running over them, and still survived. It's not because of their big army, but because they managed to use one side for their purposes. Good diplomacy.

Sorry for the partial threadjacking but your example here rewrites the history of the Netherlands. I think I see what you were trying to say but you made up the scenario. The Netherlands did not have France and Germany running over them until at least the XIX century. Quite the opposite I would say. Plus, the Netherlands became independent from Spain, not from Germany.

	20-09-2002 14:42									#122
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

USA! USA! USA!

	20-09-2002 16:26									#123
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Are you all right?

	20-09-2002 16:34									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm just joking now

	20-09-2002 16:36									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Good.
I thought somebody is playing with your login.

	20-09-2002 23:34									#126
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Sorry for the partial threadjacking but your example here rewrites the history of the Netherlands. I think I see what you were trying to say but you made up the scenario. The Netherlands did not have France and Germany running over them until at least the XIX century. Quite the opposite I would say. Plus, the Netherlands became independent from Spain, not from Germany.

I'm not really rewriting the history of the Netherlands. I don't have the literature here for the exact dates, so I can only give the basic lines here. First, I understand Germany = Holy Roman Empire. At this time, there was nothing which could be more Germany than this.
About Netherlands: The Netherlands were part of the HRE from when Lotharingia was mainly incorporated into Germany (9xx) until the end of the 30 year's war. They became a territory ruled by the Habsburgs, as Austria was, and as Spain was. Then the Habsburg family split into an "Austrian" and a "Spanish" line, where the Netherlands was part of the "Spanish" line. They were still different territories, but had the same ruler (for Spain, he was king, in the Netherlands, duke, or so). In 1648, they became independent as well of the Habsburg family, as of the Empire.
Until this time, Netherlands was more a geographical than a political term. The painter Peter Paul Rubens usually is called "Dutch", in fact he lived for a long time in Cologne and was born in Siegen (80 km east of Cologne).
There is absolutely no problem in this construction. In 1737, a duke of Hannover became King of England (George I. IIRC). He ruled over two countries, one being part of the HRE. Hannover never was part of England, England never part of Hannover or the HRE. It's only the French who confused territories and their rulers .

OK, with the threat form France and Germany, I mainly meant the French Revolutionary wars, 1792, and WWII.

	21-09-2002 00:13									#127
	Suffering from ads?

Well, if I were you I would be very careful with associating the HRE to 'Germany' without explaining what you exactly mean. In addition to the Netherlands, most of Northern Italy, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic were also part of the HRE. Equating all those territories to 'Germany' can lead to much confusion, as I guess you've already noticed.

	21-09-2002 01:31									#128
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes and no. Austria felt quite German until 1871 - and I guess sometimes even today. As a German, I feel it more German than Switzerland, anyway. And villages with the addition Deutsch-xxx are more ubiquitous in Austria than anywhere else, because it was used to distinguish them from what was called Böhmisch-xxx (meaning Czech-xxx). About the Dutch ... they are Dutch (think about what it means). Northern Italy always felt very independent - but this was for most territories the reason to stay in the HRE: To have some very basic military protection and at the same time much more freedom than in France or the Ottoman Empire. The today's Czech republic is again something special, because it was a patchwork of German and Slavic populations (which to separate was one of the biggest mistakes of 20th century, IMO).
Agreed, it can lead to confusions, if you want to please every today's national feeling, but there was nothing else that could have been called Germany - and the full title (I think adopted in the 15th century) was "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nationen" - which included Germans, Dutch, Czech and Northern Italians (except Venice).

	21-09-2002 01:49									#129
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

EDIT: DP
Why do I irregularly get logged out?

	21-09-2002 02:49									#130
	Remove this text

here is a suggestion: don't call it germany! Just call it the HRE

	21-09-2002 02:59									#131
	Remove this text

Too easy (look at my sig).

	21-09-2002 07:35									#132
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The Hapsburgs are the most hideously inbred royal family ever.

	21-09-2002 11:17									#133
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The Hapsburgs are the most hideously inbred royal family ever

I'm not sure if you can really separate this from all the other European royal families. This was the "inbreeding village".

	21-09-2002 13:19									#134
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: About the Dutch ... they are Dutch (think about what it means)

Uhh... What does it mean?

	21-09-2002 15:45									#135
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hueij, I meant the origin of the word "Dutch".

	21-09-2002 15:59									#136
	Remove this text

quote: [SIZE=1]With the SU in disarray, and China growing by leaps and bounds, the EU may well look to the east and rethink their military preparedness. Not now, or even in the next ten years, but the day's coming. -=Vel=-

Why must everything in the very 'US minded' person come down to an issue of military might? Have you ever considered that other countries may play on that, that they consider the US to be pushy, arrogant and too quick to strike. It's one of the reason for your international reputation and why other countries treat you as coldly as they do because, quite frankly, your foreign policy leaves one hell of a lot to be desired.

It's a dangerous world, but only a blindman couldn't see that the majority of it was brought about by the gunboat diplomacy and meddling of US and European interests.

	21-09-2002 18:24									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It doesn't come down to military might, it comes down to preparedness. China does have territorial ambitions in SE Asia and the Russias. When they're more in a position to, there's a right good chance that if the opportunity is there, they WILL act on those ambitions, especially if the rest of the world decides to join hands and sing a few bars of Kumbayah (sp).

Being ready for trouble is not the same thing as stirring up trouble.

-=Vel=-

	21-09-2002 19:30									#138
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Being ready for trouble is not the same thing as stirring up trouble.

Tell Bush this ...

	21-09-2002 19:50									#139
	Tired of ads?

Belive me....if I thought for a second he'd listen to me, I certainly would!

-=Vel=-

	21-09-2002 19:57									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I believe you.

	21-09-2002 21:50									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Being ready for trouble is not the same thing as stirring up trouble. -=Vel=-

Arms races are not about intent to make trouble, but they have often led to wars.

	21-09-2002 22:19									#142
	Suffering from ads?

every country has the right to defend itself dont bash america becuase it can afford a huge military.

	21-09-2002 22:35									#143
	Got spare money?

Iraq has a right to defend itself, why does the US want to remove its weapons.

	21-09-2002 22:57									#144
	Support Apolyton

becuase it used them unprovoked

	21-09-2002 23:04									#145
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

When?

When American and British aircraft violate Iraqi airspace, you mean?

Last edited by Bas on 21-09-2002 at 23:16

	21-09-2002 23:45									#146
	Full PM-box? Change here!

how about againest its own people

	22-09-2002 00:07									#147
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Who said ANYTHING about wanting complete disarmament? As I understand the demands, they're centered on removing Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, not a complete dismantling of their armed forces.

Iraq is a menace. They were also on the losing end of a war that amounted to a multinational gang bang. They have ZERO bargaining power and just as much credibility on the world stage.

-=Vel=-

	22-09-2002 00:52									#148
	Got spare money?

quote: Who said ANYTHING about wanting complete disarmament?

The US demand Iraq follow UN resolutions, then when Iraq says* it will the US asks for new resolutions. Sometimes you get the feeling the US government won't back down even if Saddam gave no-holds-barred-access to the country and completely disarmed his nation.

The truth is the US want's Saddam out, the angle of WOMD is just a political attempt to drum up support. Most nations aren't buying into it, and are following the US due to other political pressures.

In summary, the US is doing its best to make a military confrontation necessary and justifiable.

*Says being the operative word mind.

	22-09-2002 01:33									#149
	Get a bigger avatar today!

No argument from me there....it's clear that the US is aiming for nothing short of Sadam's removal (of course, our leaders have been saying that publicly for weeks....months). Still, there have been no calls for Iraq to dismantle its military apparatus entirely. Even if we attack (and at this point, it sure looks like it), the army won't be completely destroyed. Far as I know, nobody is calling for complete disarmament from Iraq.....of course, since *says* is the operative word here, and almost nodoby in the world believes a word Sadam says out of either side of his mouth, I think his days are prolly numbered.

-=Vel=-

	22-09-2002 03:02									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

bah a military is pretty useless if you want to live well, all depends on the people themselves...

the netherlands (which used to be flanders+ (more or less) the current netherlands) have always been conquered by other countries and nations (and especially flanders and wallonia too) because the region was very rich, wealthy, and had a good central location, crafty workers, everybody in europe once controlled us some time, even our friendly dutch neighbours


what would we do with a military... nothing, we're so small it's no use, we still have a good life standard

btw no problem for me if you want to develop destructive weapons, just don't use them, unfortunately that's a bit naive... why not use them against iraq, all these nice bombs would go to waste anyway huh! i just cannot express how silly this war with iraq is...

America does need oil badly though, an oil deficit is nearing, and velo, you're right there the US is very dependant, but you're wrong with the russians oil... a whole lot of it has been depleted already, and they soviet pipes were so crappy they leaked as much oil as they received for proper use

the ME is the only place with a big supply left, the northsea is at its maximum righ tnow, but in 10 years it'll only be something like 7 barrels a day instead of 100 barrels right now, (in percentages of course )

new power sources are required, until then we will need to rely heavily on nuclear power (even though its polluting we need it until better sources are found)

the US does think ahead, but not long enough, what will they do after they deplete all the oil in the ME and they've ****ed up the world (they're the largest polluters in the world)