 |
| |
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
...a world with the United States, Europe, Whina, India and Latin America ... |
I know it is bad style to complain about typos, but "Whina" is too funny   
quote:
Who, between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, has most potential for his views to being followed ? After originally facing a hostile public opinion, the Prime Minister is considerably strengthened by the Iraqi war. By taking the initiative on the European defense with Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg, the French President has created a "trailblazing group". However, the Blairist idea is a majority in the widened EU, as the either indignated or sarcastic reactions to the mini summit show it.
|
I rather tend to go with Blair here. The problem with the multi-polar world is that we canīt simply declare our world multi-polar when this doesnīt have anything to do with the current reality. And even if we seek to create such a world, I donīt see any chance to form a pole which acts openly against the US, this will end in a big mess. We canīt overpower them, that is an illusion. What we can reach is (and this is a high goal, given the current situation in Europe) a kind of political balance in certain fields so that we accept the role of the US, and they accept our positions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I rather tend to go with Blair here. The problem with the multi-polar world is that we canīt simply declare our world multi-polar when this doesnīt have anything to do with the current reality. And even if we seek to create such a world, I donīt see any chance to form a pole which acts openly against the US, this will end in a big mess. We canīt overpower them, that is an illusion. What we can reach is (and this is a high goal, given the current situation in Europe) a kind of political balance in certain fields so that we accept the role of the US, and they accept our positions. |
Blair made quite an impression on the US. I hope he has a similar effect on Europe. Blair is a great leader and a man of vision. I truly hope the Europeans listen to him.
We need to unite, Europe and the US, against the dictators of the world and the abusers of human rights. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and now Iraq show what can happen even if we are somewhat united. We can make the world better.
It is truly sad that Chirac, furthering his idea of an anti-US European "balance," openly and not so openly, supported one of the most brutal dictatorships the world has ever seen. I see that the French people are beginning to have second thoughts about what Chirac did. They should.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I rather tend to go with Blair here. The problem with the multi-polar world is that we canīt simply declare our world multi-polar when this doesnīt have anything to do with the current reality. And even if we seek to create such a world, I donīt see any chance to form a pole which acts openly against the US, this will end in a big mess. We canīt overpower them, that is an illusion. What we can reach is (and this is a high goal, given the current situation in Europe) a kind of political balance in certain fields so that we accept the role of the US, and they accept our positions. |
Multipolar world = dangerous world. They last one included nasties like the Cold War, arms race, propping up tinpot dictatorships, high stakes espionage, and probably a lot more unpleasantries I'm forgetting. Probably the best thing that happened in the 20th century was the fall of Soviet Union, which helped put an end to 40+ years of insanity.
What the US, Europe and Canada (and maybe Russia someday) need to do is be is a united force for human rights and economic development in the world. Trying to play one against the other is just starting down the long dark road of multipolarism again. It's nuts and frankly, it's just plain bad for the human kind.
That doesn't mean the US should have all the power, however. We should democraticly decide on international action. What is needed is a stronger political union of the "free world". The UN doesn't cut it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Will the next incarnation of the UN cut it? International action won't 'cut it' until we are willing to put the resources into it and put alot of trust into the process. That means going along even when we may disagree with its decisions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
Look at a Map of Europe: Italy, spain and Britian are all add-ons. You can have "Europe" without any of them, you can't have "Europe" without Germany and France. As for Fez's "Germany is outdated": Germany's GDP is what, 3 times that of Spain? And France's GDP is bigger than the UK's. As for the East, they are way behind economically, and will stay there for a while, plus a lot of their capital comes from, where else, "Old Europe"...
But beyond this: the big problem with the EU military in general is that they don;t spend enough and spend on the "wrong things". The UK and France both spend about 3% of GNP on defense (I think France now spends more than the UK) and both have the ability to send forces world-wide, though the French are less able to move Heavy forces. The big porbems are Spain, Italy and Germany. The Germans have a large, heavy army but spend only 1.5% GNP on defense, and are not updating their weapons systems: they have antiquted support vehicles (most of their trucks are so old they suck up money on maintanence) and they are not buying precision bombs and other modern equipment.Spain's military is a joke: at least the Germans could in theory defend themselves form thier neighbors, not so Spain. And the Italians, while better than Spain, are much like the Germans.
In theory, if the whole EU spent 3% of their GNP on defense, they would almost rival the Us in defense spending, though as long as national armmies are the norm, redundancies will live on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Will the next incarnation of the UN cut it? |
Depends on how it is organized. Similar to the EU, the "new UN" should require some minimum level of human rights in order to be allowed to join. The basic problem today is that unelected dictators are allowed a democratic vote in what the UN says and does. This is unnacceptable.
quote:
International action won't 'cut it' until we are willing to put the resources into it and put alot of trust into the process. That means going along even when we may disagree with its decisions. |
Obviously. That is why I advocate much closer political ties amongst first world nations. A populace that already supports a representative gov't is more likely to accept the decisions of a larger representative body. The current situation today where nations like Libya are allowed to influence UN policies make the UN a mockery of democratic ideals.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 18:49
|