ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If Ted thinks he'll teach me someting about realpolitik he's dreaming. Of course Europe defends its interest. It's funny that every debate about America ends up with 'Europe is not better'. Of course they're not. But at least you're agreeing that America sucks too.

Hell, I'm a commie. I'm pissed off at everyone.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This 'Old Europe' Ned is talking about is the Europe that has given up on imperialism and built the most egalitarian and progressist societies in history. Very 'old', indeed.

Which is it, they suck or they are great?

[Harovan]

Great of course. You suck, nye.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Which is it, they suck or they are great?

Realpolitik != social democracy. Social democracies can be nice and benevolent in their borders, while at the same time ruthless in their former African colonies.

[Ted Striker]

Regarding the landmines, Boris, if you had bothered to read the official policy, you will see that it is going toward the eventual removal of all of them. The only place that will be left for them is the DMZ in Korea. Which again is stated in the official policy but again I don't think you even read it.

If you think a bunch of high powered bombs on a battlefield don't make a big difference, you have to be dreaming. Why don't you go and visit the US and Korean commanders in charge there and present to them your proposal.

Before Iraq, Korea was considered the hottest of the hot spots in the world for the US forces. Most of the weapons like the bunker busters that were used in Afghanistan, were developed specifically for use in case they had to be in Korea.

Besides, there is nothing in the DMZ besides a bunch of walls, bunkers and mines.

Regarding Israel, I have said repeatedly on this forum that the US coddles them too much. They don't need our aid anyway, they can take care of themselves. However your "balanced" view of the Palestinians is a joke, it's more like anti-Israel.

I'm still waiting for Europe to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its miraculous diplomacy.

[notyoueither]

This 'Old Europe' Ned is talking about is the Europe that has given up on imperialism...

Of course Europe defends its interest [when speaking of invading third world countries to secure resources]

Perhaps that highlights the contrast better?

[Ted Striker]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Great of course. You suck, nye.

Well I should hope I do. I am really trying here! It's good to get some recognition.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well I should hope I do. I am really trying here! It's good to get some recognition.

I deem my time too valuable to participate in this dull discussion, but it's relieving to lurk from time to time and LMAO.

[notyoueither]

There is always lots to laugh at on this forum, from all sides.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Regarding the landmines, Boris, if you had bothered to read the official policy, you will see that it is going toward the eventual removal of all of them. The only place that will be left for them is the DMZ in Korea. Which again is stated in the official policy but again I don't think you even read it.

Yeah, I read it and it's good news. Still 10 years after the rest of the world, though, so I don't think it's reasonable to say they have been 'leaders'. You've never really answered my point, which was 'they're lagging'.

Why couldn't they join the first treaty back in the 90s? what would it have changed?

If you think a bunch of high powered bombs on a battlefield don't make a big difference, you have to be dreaming. Why don't you go and visit the US and Korean commanders in charge there and present to them your proposal.

Yeah, they'd probably make a difference, but, again, I'm sure worldwide security can do without some anti-personnel mines in the Korea DMZ. Anti-vehicle mines + nukes + American technology sure is enough.

Trust me, if America was willing to drop them- that's because you won't need them, because you never have been terribly reluctant in using cruel weapons.

Besides, there is nothing in the DMZ besides a bunch of walls, bunkers and mines.

That's why the idea of presidential authorization for their use in the DMZ only seems fine to me. Case settled, I hope.

Regarding Israel, I have said repeatedly on this forum that the US coddles them too much. They don't need our aid anyway, they can take care of themselves. However your "balanced" view of the Palestinians is a joke, it's more like anti-Israel.

I'm still waiting for Europe to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its miraculous diplomacy.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my point, which was Europe can't back its diplomacy with force, and therefore has no influence on Israel. What they need, though, is America to finally accept the measure which would have sent UN peacekeepers to Palestine and opened the ground for increased humanitarian aid. So far, America has vetoed it.

Europe can't do much against this.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Quote:

This 'Old Europe' Ned is talking about is the Europe that has given up on imperialism...

Quote:

Of course Europe defends its interest [when speaking of invading third world countries to secure resources]

Perhaps that highlights the contrast better?

Wait... didn't I put the word MOSTLY in a parenthesis, just after "given up on imperialism"? Ohhhh... are you discussing in bad faith or something?

[notyoueither]

This 'Old Europe' Ned is talking about is the Europe that has given up on imperialism and built the most egalitarian...

Nope.

[notyoueither]

btw, your post is still there, and did not show an edit tag as of a moment ago, if you want to check.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Why couldn't they join the first treaty back in the 90s? what would it have changed?

If you will notice, the treaty was signed in the 90s, after the fall of your Commie boys' European disaster. I am willing to bet the West Germans made alot of use of landmines in mining the border between them and the Iron Curtain.

There was no longer any huge border for the Europeans to defend so no need for the extra protection that land mines would have afforded them. Which is why it's so easy for European nations to ban land mines because they no longer had any practical user for them. The US on the other hand needs them in Korea.

Yeah, they'd probably make a difference, but, again, I'm sure worldwide security can do without some anti-personnel mines in the Korea DMZ. Anti-vehicle mines + nukes + American technology sure is enough.

Nukes are not an option. So that takes them off of the table.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my point, which was Europe can't back its diplomacy with force, and therefore has no influence on Israel. What they need, though, is America to finally accept the measure which would have sent UN peacekeepers to Palestine and opened the ground for increased humanitarian aid. So far, America has vetoed it.

You are the first Euro (or wherever it is you are) I've actually seen that said Euro diplomacy would only succeed under the threat of force. Europeans have repeatedly taken a united stance that they will be able to succeed and solve problems diplomatically. So I'm still waiting for them to solve the conflict. It doesn't matter what happens in the UN, Europe can address the problem outside of the UN, through the European Union, or whatever European body they choose to.

Why doesn't Chirac or Shroeder call up some kind of special convention to address the problem?

[Oncle Boris]

NYE- it was in another post from the same thread.

Europe has given up on imperialism (mostly) in the 60s, and it's about time America does the same.

look at top half of page 2.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
If you will notice, the treaty was signed in the 90s, after the fall of your Commie boys' European disaster. I am willing to bet the West Germans made alot of use of landmines in mining the border between them and the Iron Curtain.

If you wanna know, I don't mind the mines in perfectly marked areas. I guess that the German government has the means and competence to demine now.

Nukes are not an option. So that takes them off of the table.

MAD is still alive, AFAIK.

You are the first Euro (or wherever it is you are) I've actually seen that said Euro diplomacy would only succeed under the threat of force. Europeans have repeatedly taken a united stance that they will be able to succeed and solve problems diplomatically. So I'm still waiting for them to solve the conflict. It doesn't matter what happens in the UN, Europe can address the problem outside of the UN, through the European Union, or whatever European body they choose to.

Not necessarily military, but diplomatic and/or economic. EU needs to unite with America for this to happen, because, as I pointed out earlier, France (or whatever eurocommie government) did try to pass peacekeeping resolutions that were blocked by the US.

Why doesn't Chirac or Shroeder call up some kind of special convention to address the problem?

I'm no big fan of neither. But I just don't know European politics well enough to talk much about them. I'm Canadian, BTW.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NYE- it was in another post from the same thread.



look at top half of page 2.

here is what I quoted, once again.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/newre...postid=2825005

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This 'Old Europe' Ned is talking about is the Europe that has given up on imperialism and built the most egalitarian and progressist societies in history. Very 'old', indeed.

[notyoueither]

Although I do see the mostly post too. I guess mostly means whenever it does not suit their purposes to not intervene in the ex colonies.

[Ned]

Spiffor, France and the United States need to reach a consensus on the war on terror and this begins with Iraq. Otherwise, we will render the UN useless as an engine for international peace and stability as France continuously uses its veto to hamstring America's foreign policy. Our view, of course, is that we have to address the root issues to win this war. France would agree with this view as well, I suspect, since I have seen as much recently from the French government after the recent events in Spain. France sees lack of development in Islamic countries as the key issue. So do we. This is a start.

We believe that throwing money at a state without addressing the underlying structural issues will never lead to long term development. In a way, such aid only prevents such development by making its necessity less urgent. If we can agree on this point, we can move on.

But how does one bring necessary structural reforms to Islamic societies? How does one get them to bring democracy, free enterprise and respect for human rights to such medieval theocratic states?

The war in Iraq is one way, and perhaps the only way under the circumstances we found there. Saudi Arabia is moving to democracy on its own, somewhat influenced by the results in Iraq.

Even Kaddafi is showing signs of change since Iraq.

The war in Iraq may have not been the last resort for the purposes of "containing" Saddam. However, it was necessary and just when taking the larger view.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Although I do see the mostly post too. I guess mostly means whenever it does not suit their purposes to not intervene in the ex colonies.

I'm not writing a Ph. D. thesis here, NYE, so I just ask you to read me with some benevolence in mind. If you look at the context, it's pretty obvious I meant 'mostly'.

The reason I like Europe is much more for its population than its leaders- so if their leaders haven't completely given up on imperialism, at least the people have.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I'm not writing a Ph. D. thesis here, NYE, so I just ask you to read me with some benevolence in mind. If you look at the context, it's pretty obvious I meant 'mostly'.

I have noticed an increased trend towards literalism, obtuseness and pedantry on these boards in the past few weeks. I recommend that if anyone has a point to make that they be explicit and include a complete glossary and definition of terms with each post.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


I have noticed an increased trend towards literallism, obtuseness and pedantry on these boards in the past few weeks. I recommend that if anyone has a point to make that they be explicit and include a complete glossary and definition of terms with each post.

How many contradictions am I going to find if I look at all your posts? Yeah, I said 'given up on imperialism' and in the other place 'mostly given up on imperialism', and that's supposed to prove me wrong?

I'm not the kind of person to nitpick with this, and I don't expect others to do the same with me. The situation is rectified- let the debate roll.

[Dauphin]

OB, I was on your side.

I was having a dig at the people who only read what they want to.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
OB, I was on your side.

I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry,

[Dauphin]

The solution was sarcastic, the problem is real enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have noticed an increased trend towards literalism, obtuseness and pedantry on these boards in the past few weeks.

I have triumphed!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I'm not writing a Ph. D. thesis here, NYE, so I just ask you to read me with some benevolence in mind. If you look at the context, it's pretty obvious I meant 'mostly'.

The reason I like Europe is much more for its population than its leaders- so if their leaders haven't completely given up on imperialism, at least the people have.

Within the same thread, with one or two posts you are extolling the virtues and in others you are saying they suck.

This is not pedantry over grammar, and I'm surprised BC is chirping up. It is incoherence within your own arguments on the same topic within a short timeframe. That's what I saw, and that's what I've pointed out.

If you feel it is unfair, well sorry about that.

[Oncle Boris]

Well, NYE, Ned and his likes are opposed in two ways to France. First, he doesn't share the social-democrat values of its people; then, he thinks that Chirac defending the interests of his country is bad, while Bush (trying to) is OK.

As I said, I share the values of the eurocommies and I praise their social-democracies, while at the same time I despise the remnants of imperialist realpolitik conducted by Chirac and his likes. Notice: at least, most people in Europe DON'T agree with imperialism, even when their leaders act as such. That's already a huge plus over the retarded American people.

Now, is that clear enough for you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Notice: at least, most people in Europe DON'T agree with imperialism, even when their leaders act as such.

They backed Kosovo didn't they?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They backed Kosovo didn't they?

I don't think this one was terribly imperialist. AFAIK, there were no economic interests to defend, and Milosevic was truly seen as a genocidic bastard.