 |
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:25
|
|
Chris62, true. But we can't form one now. Our laws are not good enough. Yet! As we speak, we are thinking of changing this. I hope they do change it. And we have good relations. And it's funny, because it's easy and it doesn't matter what we say, and it won't hurt relations.. pretty much so. But then again, we didn't pledge our loyalty to you, and you didn't for us . Maybe that will come in the next few years as we're thinking of forming some international combat troops.
And as for your question, I thought it was about relations all together. Now that I understood your question, I don't think there's too much good reasons to keep military alliances together with countries that aren't going along with the program. If you want some, you have to give some, pretty simple.
I think there's a lesson to learn here.. if you say something, you can't do the other thing.. so if you form military alliance, you have to respect it and not just pick up the fruits and benefits.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"According to the terms of the resolution, Iraq already is in material breach."
Which does not change the UN Charter. Where does it authorize attack, occupation and "regime change"?
"But it won't happen, I mean how stupid idea is that? STUPID!"
Remains to be seen. How realistic and how stupid the idea is depends on a lot of other things in the institutional balance. We might say goodbye to the rotating presidency if, for example, some powers of the Council get cut.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chris 62
About Alliance, the United States isn't allied to say, Finland, yet the nations get along well enough.
Why is a military alliance needed between nations that have such obviously diverse goals? |
If Finland were a member of the Security council, how do you think they would vote? If they voted the same way as France would you still consider them friends ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Chris, the Paris-Berlin Axis is what the EU was founded on.
It is its locomotive of integration.
They are the biggest states and have the most influence compared to other sub divisions in the EU.
Their declarations may have angered the US but in the EU, as it is now, it is just expressing a general consensus the people have.
Thepeople are just not conveinced that there is a cause for war on Iraq.
I'm not expressing an opinion as to who is right or wrong, just stating what is going on here at this period.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pekka
I don't think rotating presidency would work. If it rotates, why even bother having presidents? This can be done even without presidents. |
We have the rotating presidency now. It works in its own way, essentially a primus inter pares. An elected presideny, as suggested by Berlin/Paris and supported in principle by London, would be a different animal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
As a sidenote, I forgot to mention that not only Germany and France want the EU to go forth.
Most countries/peopes do. Of course there are differences of opinions as to which course this integration should take.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:25
|
|
Paitkis is correct:
France and Germany are and will be the center of Europe. All those Eastern eruopean allies of Bush, who are allies because they see the US as being their champion vs. their much bigger neighbors (in terms of being bale to have the US lobby for them in EU issues, just as the Turks tried to use the US, but failed) combined have economies smaller than France, and less people than Germany. As for Spain and Italy, the conservative governments in rule feel safe to support Bush cause they are far away from election season.
In time, as EU integration gets tighter, and if it ever really becomes a more federal institution, the pul of Germany and France will only increase on these states. Only the UK is big enough to ignore the porcess long-term, though tht is unlikely.
As for the continuing of the military allience: it still has many uses: the US might always be the one that send in the troops, but all military actions have aftermaths and costs. Without France and Germany, the costs of cleaning up, peacekeeping and so forth would increase greatly for the US, specially since all those new allies simply don't have the money to take the place of Germany and France.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by paiktis22
Chris, the Paris-Berlin Axis is what the EU was founded on.
It is its locomotive of integration.
They are the biggest states and have the most influence compared to other sub divisions in the EU. | That hardly seems equitable to the other states, so the smaller states must tow the "Franco-Prussian Line" so to speak in all things?
quote: Their declarations may have angered the US but in the EU, as it is now, it is just expressing a general consensus the people have.
Thepeople are just not conveinced that there is a cause for war on Iraq.
I'm not expressing an opinion as to who is right or wrong, just stating what is going on here at this period. | That is interesting, seeing as France didn't ask the EU's opinion before sending forces to the Ivory Coast.
So, if it's a matter of France's former colonies, they can act without consulting the UN or the other EU members, but if it's a UN matter, they must consult the general feelings of the EU's various peoples?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
Why should we care whether or not Iraq is disarmed?
Why does anyone believe that this is really about disarming Iraq?
Why are otherwise intelligent posters (like Chris) so credulous when it comes to the foreign policy pronouncements of known liars?
Why should France and Germany have the same foreign policy as the US?
edit: fixing typos.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 24-01-2003 at 22:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
BTW NATO is for the present, offering Europe what can be called as "free security".
So it is useful for the EU to keep it for the time being. That is why there is no "departures" from it even if grave differences exist.
For the moment it is beneficial to both the EU and US some could say.
Also France has interests in the region the US wants to attack.
Public opinion, human rights etc are unfortunately more or less a parameter to what is the main game here and this is national (or semi national in the case of the EU) interests.
There is an excellent book that clearly describes the interests of each country in that region but its in greek.
Im sure there are more.
Also bare inmind that the european peoples are not indifferent to whather American civilians could die from Iraq.
They just believe the American citizens are not under any threat from Iraq. It is not indifference in any respect.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"That hardly seems equitable to the other states, so the smaller states must tow the "Franco-Prussian Line" so to speak in all things?"
That's the usual exaggeration from the other member states. It's 2 countries out of 15, with about a quarter of weights in the Council and Parliament. They can take initiatives, their accord can shift the balance on disputed issues, but they can't force their will on the rest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Japher
I think deep down inside you know that is not true. |
I think that came from deep down inside right through your rear.
How would do they do it? Examples? Put up.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|