What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

I disagree.

The only points I think we agree on is support of a war in Iraq, and that the reconstruction afterwards be done with the people's best interests in mind, and not the USA's best interests.

I do not see that Saddam's removal necessitates the rise of another dictator, and in fact, I think that pains can, should, and will be taken to ensure that doesn't happen.

Further, just as there are UN peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan right now, we need a strong UN pledge to maintain a presence in Iraq to ensure the safety of that nation's people, and to ensure that democratic principles are not overrun by another power hungry warmonger.

That is doable. That is responsible.

To let the situation ride is irresponsible.

As to Saddam's bullying....I'd call gassing the Kurds evidence against your position, no? They have, after all (as you said yourself) asserted their independence.

And the threats made vs. Israel re: lobbing scuds with chemical weapons....was that not an attempt to bully? Of course, if he had an even BIGGER stick (ie - a nuke), that would make even more of an impression.

Shall we give it to him and see if you're right?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


And they do not support your claim, unless you limit them to 1996-2000.

It's common knowledge that population growth rates for all the industrial nations is declining. The same thing is happening here in Canada. If it wasn't for immigration, and the fact that first generation immigrants tend to have larger families, our population would be shrinking.

[Velociryx]

Actually, I get my "information" from you guys. Among my recent sources was an interview conducted with a British Editorialist named Peter Hitchens.....figuring that in order to get accurate information on Europe, the best place to go would be....Europe. Is that wrong-headed, somehow?

Quote from the interview with Hitchens:
One of the main purposes of the EU is to break down the nation-states into other units. The European Parliament will, if you press them, give you a map of these regions. England is divided into things called Northeast Region, Southeast Region, London Region, Eastern Region, which a lot of people don't even know they live in. There are shadow assemblies in these regions alreaady being devised. The British Parliament at Westminster will continue to exist, but its powers, both internationally and nationally, will be sucked away: its national powers will disappear to these artificial EU regions (along with the powers of our historic counties and city governments). This shift may be perfectly suited to Germany, because it was built on provinces, and today's Germans are afraid of being German. But if you happen to be a confident and successful nation, it means death."

Fascinating reading, and interesting insight into the mind of a European.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

He sounds like he works at one of the reactionary scaremongering British papers.

Here's a hint; they're about as credible as the Americans with "black helicopters" delusions...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo

But what's the point if the alternative won't be any better?

Because it will at least end this bickering between nations that are supposed to be allies. Maybe it will give us the time to develop some coherent plan for dealing with these types of regimes, instead of constantly keeping us off balance.

[Ramo]

I do not see that Saddam's removal necessitates the rise of another dictator, and in fact, I think that pains can, should, and will be taken to ensure that doesn't happen.

Consider that the adminstration has dumped Khatami as an ally altogher. It's taken an incredibly hostile stance towards Iran (considering the advances of the reformist). I find it very unlikely that it would allow free elections in an overwhelmingly Shia state which therefore may have sympathies towards Iran. Particularly if Iran starts promoting clients in Iraq (as it might have done in Afghanistan).

Further, just as there are UN peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan right now, we need a strong UN pledge to maintain a presence in Iraq to ensure the safety of that nation's people, and to ensure that democratic principles are not overrun by another power hungry warmonger.

If you consider the Afghan situation, you've got an essentially feudal society split up among warlords, "hunt terrorists" by day and rape and pillage by night, who are starting to reassert sharia and cut back on womens' rights, we don't have anywhere close to enough peacekeepers in the country.

That is doable. That is responsible.

But the question is, will it be done?

As to Saddam's bullying....I'd call gassing the Kurds evidence against your position, no? They have, after all (as you said yourself) asserted their independence.

The Kurds weren't internationally recognized. They were rebels, not independence fighters. So Saddam wasn't bullying a state, he was crushing an insurrection. Which is a vitally important distinction as far as international relations go.

And the threats made vs. Israel re: lobbing scuds with chemical weapons....was that not an attempt to bully? Of course, if he had an even BIGGER stick (ie - a nuke), that would make even more of an impression.

Only after he was invaded, and his regime's stabiltiy was at risk. This is quite a difference from threatening states with WMD's out of the blue.

[Velociryx]

Frogger: I'm sure that's the response I'll get. Bring to light the *reasons* for Europe's current "backseat" position, and we get "yeah yeah, we know, and we're working on it" and "check your facts, ignorant American"

Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans, and you get "ahhh, he's a radical who doesn't know what he's talking about....we got it under control...really."

Okay....I believe you. You got it under control, and Europe is gonna magically come roaring back onto the center of the world stage, all the while supporting low economic growth plans, a burgeoning welfare state, and negative growth rates, even after taking immigration into account.

But hey....you guys are our enlightened superiors, and if you've got it covered, I guess you've got it covered.

I just hope those paper walls are mighty thick, cos with the almost total absence of a European military that has something resembilng an ability to project its power, they had better be.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The EU is a Socialist, Beurocratic machine that is not controlled by the voters. Much of what they do, they do behind closed doors. Their officials are appointed, not elected, and they've already begun redrawing the map of the EU. The power is slowly being siphoned away from the people and into the hands of Europe's "elites"

All these accusations can easily be applied to the US as well frankly, aside from the socialist aspect. Big money has the power in your country, not the guy on the street. It's corporate donations that get someone elected, and it's special interest lobby groups that largely determine the types of issues that are dealt with by your government.

"Let he is without sin cast the first stone."

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

Holy crap, Peter Hitchens.

"The European Parliament will, if you press them, give you a map of these regions. England is divided into things called Northeast Region, Southeast Region, London Region, Eastern Region, which a lot of people don't even know they live in. There are shadow assemblies in these regions alreaady being devised. The British Parliament at Westminster will continue to exist, but its powers, both internationally and nationally, will be sucked away: its national powers will disappear to these artificial EU regions (along with the powers of our historic counties and city governments)."

That has become a popular lie among rightwing nutjobs. But those regions are drawn up by member states for the sole purpose of regional development and statistics. There is no EU power, and no single act of EU law, that would mandate a particular internal structure. It is also totally silly given the wide divergence of internal structures. Hence member states can be federalist like Germany, quasi-federal like Austria, regional like Spain, centralised like Denmark, or devolutionised like the UK.

"Fascinating reading, and interesting insight into the mind of a European."

FOX news is quality compared to this guy. Well, at least I understand now why your view of europe is so strange. Is he the only source?

About growth rates, I was thinking of GDP. For populations, immigration constributes about 0.25 percentage points to EU population growth.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Frogger: I'm sure that's the response I'll get. Bring to light the *reasons* for Europe's current "backseat" position, and we get "yeah yeah, we know, and we're working on it" and "check your facts, ignorant American"

Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans, and you get "ahhh, he's a radical who doesn't know what he's talking about....we got it under control...really."

Okay....I believe you. You got it under control, and Europe is gonna magically come roaring back onto the center of the world stage, all the while supporting low economic growth plans, a burgeoning welfare state, and negative growth rates, even after taking immigration into account.

But hey....you guys are our enlightened superiors, and if you've got it covered, I guess you've got it covered.

I just hope those paper walls are mighty thick, cos with the almost total absence of a European military that has something resembilng an ability to project its power, they had better be.

-=Vel=-

I'm not a Euro.

The thing is, Vel: the EU has virtually no power to meddle in the internal affairs of member states. THe major thing they've done so far is to restrict the deficit governments are allowed to dig themselves into, and the ones that's actually hit at are (dum dum dum) France and Germany, the supposed badasses of the EU. There's a lot of ignorance in Britain about what the EU is and does, just like there's a lot of ignorance in the US about what the UN is and does.

And the claims are eerily similar (subverting the power of sovereign states, breaking up the big countries into more easily managed provinces, etc.)

The fact is that right now, the EU council isn't really democratic. But that's not really a problem because it doesn't really have any power as yet.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo

Saddam hasn't been holding states hostage with chemical or biological weapons. Why do you think he'll be holding states hostage with nuclear weapons?

That's a rather circular argument, don't you think? Of course he's not holding states hostage, as soon as he shows that he has those types of weapons he would be invaded. You certainly can't use that as proof of his good intentions.

[HershOstropoler]

"Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans"

Bullshit. If you get your information from the extreme fringes, you would tell me that the US is controlled by ZOG trying to take away the arms of freedomliving militia members. But you have found the classic way to avoid the facts.

But hey, I'm just researching and teaching ia EU law and politics. What would I know. I'm sure you can tell me the legal act (or is it just a conspiracy?) for the dissolution of EU member states?

[HershOstropoler]

Kitty, I'm sorry, you're not really helping here.

"The fact is that right now, the EU council isn't really democratic. But that's not really a problem because it doesn't really have any power as yet."

The main legislative process involves the Council and the Parliament as equals. The Council is about as democratic as the US senate was prior 1913. And the EU has legislative powers that are usually only found in federal states.

[KrazyHorse]

You meant back when the state legislatures elected their Senators?

Forgive me for saying so, but it wasn't democratic back then either.

[KrazyHorse]

dp

[KrazyHorse]

Which legislative powers?

Does it exercise them? What have they done? Have they written criminal law? Tax law?

By the way, I live in a federal system (much more federal than the US' is currently). The federal government still exercises a hell of a lot more power than the EU council seems to.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo


OBL is primarily motivated by US presence in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Isolationism is not the answer; rather, we need to start acting responsibly in the world stage.

And one of the first places to start would be to withraw troops from foreign countries, and let the people there assume the responsibilty of security for themselves. Perceived domination can be just detrimental as de facto subjugation.

Here in Canada we have lots of oil that we sell to the US as well. But the US doesn't need to have troops in our country in order to protect their interests here. We can operate solely on a basis of trust. That goes much further towards building good relations than parking an army on some country's territory.

[HershOstropoler]

"You meant back when the state legislatures elected their Senators?"

Yes. It is a more indirect democratic legitimacy, but one that is perfectly normal for federal systems. If your definition of democracy is narrower, than you have to say that eg Germany isn't a democracy either.

"Which legislative powers?"

Mostly economic law. Free movement of workers, goods, services and capital; telecom deregulation; public procurement law; control of state aids; merger law etc.

"Have they written criminal law?"

That's a relatively new one. There is a limited power in making so called framework desisions that need to be transposed into national law. The main legislative process I mentioned does not apply there, and there is a serious lack of democratic legitimacy in that area. Who was most against getting the EP involved? The UK.

"Tax law?"

Harmonization of indirect taxation, recently capital gains taxes.

[HershOstropoler]

"The federal government still exercises a hell of a lot more power than the EU council seems to."

The EU is not yet a fully federal system, but it is way beyond the usual international organization. What's missing? Add foreign policy and defense, and you're pretty much there.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx

I do not see that Saddam's removal necessitates the rise of another dictator, and in fact, I think that pains can, should, and will be taken to ensure that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, I think you're off base here. Iraq is a socially fractured country, with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites all jockeying for position. Democracy is not really an option because a one man, one vote system would put the Shiites into power through sheer numbers. That gives Iran a much stronger position in the region which certainly would not be a good situation. Plus there'd be a very real possibility of vengeance against the Sunni. We could end up with another Rwanda.

The only real option I see for instituting Democracy at this point in history would be to partition the country and establish seperate nations for each of the groups. And that won't happen since Turkey would never allow a Kurdish homeland on it's border. At least not at the moment.

[KrazyHorse]

Roland:

I understand that the EU is beyond most other international organisations, but at the same time it falls short of being a unified state (even a federated one). It's somewhere in between right now. Similarly, it has democratic tendencies, but is not yet fully democratic (but is more so than other treaty organisations).

[DinoDoc]

Pardon me if I'm behind the times, but why does Roland have a new login?

[HershOstropoler]

"It's somewhere in between right now."

What's missing (apart from foreign/defense as an exclusive competence) ?

"Similarly, it has democratic tendencies, but is not yet fully democratic"

What's missing (apart from unifying all legislative procedures under the council/EP one) ?

[Velociryx]

Hey hey! Just got to work from the morning dentist trip....not bad...it only took me sixteen pages to get a Euro riled up enough to actually start talking! There is hope for you guys after all!

HO: First, let me say that NONE of the above was meant to be in any way personal, and I hope you didn't take it as such.

Second, do you not see, by your own response to my criticisms of the EU, a certain double standard? What I mean is, it's seen as okay for Euros to SLAM the USA on any number of issues (our internal politics, our external politics that don't effect you directly, our handling of....pretty much anything (because of...well, I don't know why exactly....but one would have to guess, given the general attitude and tone, that it has to do with feelings of superiority....that "aristocratic, over-your-shoulder bearing" that we're not very fond of here), and the preferred American response....the one you seem to be looking for is deference to your supposedly more enlightened opinions.

But, when the shoe shifts to the other foot, we get the same kind of cagy, almost catty defensiveness we see when you attack us. Is this surprising? Not at all, but IMO, it drives home the point very nicely.

Several pages ago, in reference to my opinions of Europe, you said you would not call me an ignorant American, but rather, and uninformed American, with regards to Europe.

I agree.

Likewise, I would say that the vast bulk of Euro-criticisms are equally uninformed.

And now that all that's out of the way, and you seem riled enough to actually talk about options and alternatives, rather than just split hairs back and forth and rail against the current plan, shall we?

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Is Roland angry? I hadn't noticed.

Vel, you got him talking, but that isn't hard. Most of the Americans here don't even bother. But at the same time you need to find better sources. The one you gave us for a sampling of European opinion is pretty far out there.

[Velociryx]

Frogger - sixteen pages. That's what it took to get a real, heartfelt *response* from a Euro.

As to my "source," do you not see the parallel between that and your use of sarcasm yesterday, in order to get a response?

THAT's what I was going for. Something engineered to finally get a response that had a little emotional kick to it, and to demonstrate the double standard that seems to be in place in the Euro mindset which seems to say:

You are petulent children who should listen to your elders and betters. Suck up and take it when we criticize you.

And yet, when the criticisms start flying the other way, they are revealed as every bit as defensive and thin skinned.

Given the FACT (and no matter how you slice it, this is fact) that America's economy is orders of magnitude stronger than that of any European nation you'd care to name, given the fact that since WWII, Europeans have chosen to invest in welfare state infrastructure and coast under the umbrella of a strong US military to keep them safe, due to the fact that Europe whines about losing its front seat position on the world stage, but lacks the will and fortitude to change things (germany couldn't even get it's equipment to Afghanistan on its own, such is the sad state of it's military's ability to project its power)....I'd say the will is weak in Europe, even if the spirit is willing (which it hasn't seemed to be lately).

But, you point out any of this to a Euro, and you get:

Yawn.

We know, we're working on it.

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
... and coast under the umbrella of a strong US military to keep them safe, due to the fact that Europe whines about losing its front seat position on the world stage...

In all fairness, do you honestly think that the US hasn't played a role here? Why is the US still so heavily involved in NATO, now that there's no longer a Soviet Union? The Pentagon would not be happy with a strong Europe, and has no intention of reducing their control over military power in the area. Leave NATO, and I think you'll see how quickly they can muster up a capable military force.

[Velociryx]

No....there's more to be said on that, and I hit "reply" too early.

Isn't is possible....just *possible* mind you, that Americans *might* be considered to know a thing or two about what they're doing....that our success since WWII wasn't just some gigantic fluke, and our continuing success isn't some bizzare continuation OF that fluke?

And, given that....is it at all conceivable that perhaps it is the Euros who ought to be taking a couple notes from the playbook of the US, instead of insisting that they know what's best constantly, and never doing anythingn to prove it?

Or, is it easier to join the Rah rah brigade, and just bash the USA without providing any substantial counterpoints and positions?

"We are all Americans."
"Unlimited support."

Two quotes from Euro leaders....France and Germany respectively.

Uh huh. And with friends like these....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Willem, I do not believe that either the US or NATO has any authority to set defense spending levels for any European nation.

If so, I'd say that's pretty big news!

No....that was a conscious decision by those governments, and a continuation of the EXACT same behavior that's gotten them in hot water before.

War, Peace, Disarm, rely on paper treaties to protect them.

Guess what?

Paper treties didn't defeat fascism. Guns did.

Paper treaties didn't win the cold war. Guns did.

If Europe wants to be treated as an equal partner on the world stage, then they should, quite simply, start by acting the part.

Europe itself might be all warm and fuzzy, everybody loves wine and holidays, but the rest of the world is still armed and dangerous, and willing to unmake what we have created together.

Now, how 'bout lending a hand?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


War, Peace, Disarm, rely on paper treaties to protect them.

But the other side of the coin is the chance that a military buildup triggers an accidental war, the way it happened in WWI. One man gets assassinated, and the entire world is dragged into a bloody conflict.