Germany Pressures US over Nuke Removal

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Wed May 04, 2005 8:53 am

I think the US should not only withdraw its missiles, but should withdraw all American troops from Europe. What do you think?

______________________

Agence-France Presse

Germany is using a meeting to review the effectiveness of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on Monday to urge the United States to remove its nuclear missiles from German soil.

Germany will take the opportunity of a meeting in New York on Monday on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to officially increase pressure on the United States to remove its Cold War-era nuclear weapons from German soil.

The meeting of some 190 nations, convened to address how seriously the world's fight against the spread of atomic weapons has been imperiled since the NPT went into effect in 1970, will give Germany the chance to directly air its concerns over the 150 or so land-based US nuclear weapons still deployed on German soil.

"The nuclear weapons still housed in Germany are a relic from the Cold War," said leader of the Green Party Claudia Roth in Monday's Berliner Zeitung newspaper. "There is no need for them to be there. They should be removed and destroyed." She added that while nuclear states continued to hesitate in disarmament issues, the NPT would be weakened further.

Roth was not alone in calling for the missiles to go. Social Democrat Gert Weisskirchen from the German foreign ministry and Liberal Democrat leader Guido Westerwelle echoed the call for the missiles, mostly based at the Rammstein and BÃƒÂ¼chel air bases, to be removed. The removal of the missiles would "add credibility and strengthen negotiations with other countries," Westerwelle said.

German politicians join in call for nuke removal

Last week, German Chancellor Gerhard SchrÃƒÂ¶der called for progress to be made on strengthening disarmament measures -- but an opposition demand that the US pull its nuclear weapons from Germany fell on deaf ears.

Ahead of Monday's five-yearly review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York, German Chancellor Gerhard SchrÃƒÂ¶der called Thursday for progress on strengthening disarmament measures.

"We have two expectations from the talks," SchrÃƒÂ¶der said in reference to the NPT conference. "The first is that we reinforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it is now and we need to put all our efforts into that," he said. "The second is that there is a credible disarmament mechanism and we hope we will see movement from countries on this point."

Continued purpose of missiles in question

But the opposition Liberal Democrats (FDP), with backing from the Green Party, went further and called for an immediate withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Germany -- a surprise move from a party generally known for its staunchly pro-American stance.

"It's time to reconsider whether their presence still serves a relevant purpose," Liberal Democrat MP Werner Hoyer told German weekly Der Spiegel. Harking back to the days of the Iron Curtain, most of the 480 US nuclear weapons stored in Europe are located in Germany, strategically closest to Eastern Europe.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will be attending the NPT meeting on behalf of Germany and politicians are urging him to make an official case for the removal of missiles will fall to him. The call, however, is likely to go unheeded as Washington has more pressing concerns as the dual crises in North Korea and Iran worsen and threaten to undermine the treaty further.

Rogue states offering new threats

The treaty seems increasingly flawed if not outright ineffective ahead of the conference at the United Nations. Since the treaty was signed, the world has faced a new era of "rogue" states, international nuclear smuggling rings, and trans-national terrorist groups seeking weapons of mass destruction.

"The world has changed but the regime has not changed with it," the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in a recent study.

Events over the past few days have shown how critical the situation is. The United States reported that a short-range missile was fired early Sunday from the east coast of North Korea. It flew about 100 kilometers (62 miles) until it fell into the Sea of Japan, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN.

North Korea ups the stakes with missile test

US State Department spokesman Kurtis Coope said: "We have long been concerned about North Korea's missile program and activities and urge North Korea to continue its moratorium on ballistic missile tests." North Korea shocked the world in August 1998 by firing a long-range missile over Japan that landed in the Pacific Ocean.

On Thursday, US Defense Intelligence Agency director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby told US lawmakers that North Korea is believed capable of arming a long-range missile that could each the United States with a nuclear warhead.

North Korea is currently free of international surveillance of its nuclear activities. It kicked out International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in December 2002, withdrew from the NPT the following month and now claims to have made atomic bombs.

Iran complains of EU ineffectiveness in talks

Iran is showing the strains in the non-proliferation treaty in another way as the United States claims the Islamic Republic is secretly developing atomic weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear power program that is under IAEA safeguards.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Sunday dismissed Washington's concerns over Tehran's nuclear program, the day after Iran said it was unhappy with the progress of nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, and warned it may resume uranium conversion activities in defiance of a November agreement.

The European Union, backed by the United States, wants Iran to halt all nuclear fuel cycle activities. In return, the EU is offering in talks that began in December a package of trade, security and technology incentives.

Iran has said repeatedly that its current enrichment suspension is temporary and voluntary, as it insists on its right under the NPT to conduct nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.

Hawke · Post by **Hawke** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:05 am

Personally, I've thought for years that the United States should stop posing its ideology across the globe and pull our troops home. However, I have to stop and reflect on what would happen, for example, if we pulled our troops from the likes of Korea. Would Kim-Jong Il seize the opportunity to overrun South Korea?

However, the opinions of one man have little sway in international politics, so I ask the other members of our forum: How do YOU feel about American intervention abroad? What would you have us do?

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:19 am

I was only referring to Germany and Europe in general. Korea we should stay.

I think it is a shame that we don't even have enough money to keep our National Parks in good shape and we are sending billions and billions of dollars to Europe to protect them from themselves.

I do think that if we pull out of Europe all together, Europe will eventually implode once again. Europe = a dozen bickering countires.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:35 am

Hawke wrote: Personally, I've thought for years that the United States should stop posing its ideology across the globe and pull our troops home.A basic resource for discussing this would be http://www.alternet.org/story/17563 - or any equivalent that might come to hand.

Should we have a statute of limitations on how long a country stays after winning a war? It's sixty years since Italy lost, but they still haven't got Naples back. Japan would doubtless like fewer rapists in Okinawa. Germany will probably have to wait another hundred years since it didn't just lose, it was plain bad beforehand.

If I could put in a good word for England, though? We didn't actually shoot any Americans when they stormed through, we might be due for remission soon. Now that the Syrians have vacated the Lebanon, perhaps you could buy a base there instead?

I can remember when an American could anticipate "ah, that'll do nicely" wherever they appeared. Heady days. Do you not recall Bill Clinton handshaking massed crowds abroad? I'm amazed how quickly it's evaporated, and how impossible it is to imagine it ever coming back. I prefered it the way it was. I'm saddened that it's changed.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:37 am

CVX wrote: I do think that if we pull out of Europe all together, Europe will eventually implode once again. Europe = a dozen bickering countires.The chance would be a fine thing! Lord, lord... try it and see.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:47 am

spot wrote: The chance would be a fine thing! Lord, lord... try it and see.

Needless to say, the US and Canada bicker all the time.

I dare say, I would bet a dozen donuts that we have no interest or intention of invading Canada. :driving: They already send us most of their beer.

Can the same be said for some of the countries in Europe? (Geographic aggression by one or two countries.) Serious question!

Hawke · Post by **Hawke** » Wed May 04, 2005 9:57 am

Tombstone wrote: Needless to say, the US and Canada bicker all the time.

I dare say, I would bet a dozen donuts that we have no interest or intention of invading Canada. :driving: They already send us most of their beer.

Can the same be said for some of the countries in Europe? (Geographic aggression by one or two countries.) Serious question!

Hmmm...with the vast majority of the American armed forces overseas, I daresay that there is a greater risk of Canada invading us!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed May 04, 2005 10:06 am

lol. A sneak attack by Canada could take the whole country!

But seriously, with the completion of the Swiss Alps tunnel, and the implementation of the Euro, Europe is very close to becoming a single entity. I think we can safely leave them alone now.

KOREA! has anybody seen those pics of them goose-stepping?!! they look just like Nazis!

Let's compare the two countires:

North Korea: Highly Militarized

Nazi Germany: Highly Militarized

check

NK: Totalitarian controls

NG: Totalitarian controls

check

NK: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania, Kim Il sung

NG: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania,Hitler

check

NK: State propaganda rules

NG: State propaganda rules

check

NK: insecure and paranoid

NG: insecure and paranoid

check.

And these guys have the H-bomb?!!!

Question: If Adolf Hitler had had the atomic bomb, would he have used it?

Question: Will Kim Il Jong use his?

Pull out of Afghanistan, pull our of Iraq, start up the draft, arm to the teeth.....

NORTH KOREA HERE WE COME!! :rolleyes:

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed May 04, 2005 10:57 am

Hawke wrote: Hmmm...with the vast majority of the American armed forces overseas, I daresay that there is a greater risk of Canada invading us!
Hmmm...naw! Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota could hold them back!

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:00 am

Jives wrote:

But seriously, with the completion of the Swiss Alps tunnel, and the implementation of the Euro, Europe is very close to becoming a single entity. I think we can safely leave them alone now.

You know, I just don't know. I have a hard time believing that everyone is willing to give up their languages, culture, and borders for this "Union."

You notice they are not giving up their borders. The smart countries are fighting to save their cultures. I just don't know....

Comments?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:16 am

Tombstone wrote: You know, I just don't know. I have a hard time believing that everyone is willing to give up their languages, culture, and borders for this "Union."

You notice they are not giving up their borders. The smart countries are fighting to save their cultures. I just don't know....

Comments?

It's the borders we've given up - I need no passport to travel anywhere in the European Union, I can fly today to Paris, Rome or Krakow and not take a passport with me. That's the honest truth.

The United Kingdom has at least four native languages in everyday use, why should anyone give up their language or culture? The UK has been a union for three hundred years, give or take a bit of Ireland.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:36 am

spot wrote: It's the borders we've given up - I need no passport to travel anywhere in the European Union, I can fly today to Paris, Rome or Krakow and not take a passport with me. That's the honest truth.

The United Kingdom has at least four native languages in everyday use, why should anyone give up their language or culture? The UK has been a union for three hundred years, give or take a bit of Ireland.

Good points. (Especially about the UK language items.)

Regarding the borders - you are talking about travel and commerce across "boundaries." (Like me driving back and forth from Washington to Idaho.)

None of the countries have given up their borders though. To think that France would give up it's border with Germany.

(Of course, Germany would love that.)

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2005 11:44 am

Tombstone wrote: None of the countries have given up their borders though. To think that France would give up it's border with Germany.

(Of course, Germany would love that.)Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by Border, then. How does what we have left differ from, say, your State borders? They're historical lines on the ground, they divide tax boundaries, that's about it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 04, 2005 12:48 pm

posted by jives

Let's compare the two countires:

North Korea: Highly Militarized

Nazi Germany: Highly Militarized

check

NK: Totalitarian controls

NG: Totalitarian controls

check

NK: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania, Kim Il sung

NG: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania,Hitler

check

NK: State propaganda rules

NG: State propaganda rules

check

NK: insecure and paranoid

NG: insecure and paranoid

check.

Can't resist this

Let's compare the two countires:

North Korea: Highly Militarized

Nazi Germany: Highly Militarized

United Stats: Highly Militarised

check

NK: Totalitarian controls

NG: Totalitarian controls

United states: Totalitarian controls, well no but if the christian fundamentalists have their way maybe a theocracy??

check

NK: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania, Kim Il sung

NG: A single bizzare dictator with meglomania,Hitler

United States: well no, mind you we have Tony Blair

check

NK: State propaganda rules

NG: State propaganda rules

United States: Probably not but I do wonder sometimes, dissent seems on the back foot.

check

NK: insecure and paranoid

NG: insecure and paranoid

United States: borderline, borderline

Question: If Adolf Hitler had had the atomic bomb, would he have used it?

What do you think? Most definitely and came frighteningly close to having it bear in mind he did have ballistic missiles which he used on Britain.

see heroes of telemark, it was a true story you know.

Synopsis

In 1943, four men parachuted onto a Norwegian glacier, equipped with only the most basic equipment. Their mission was to prevent the Nazi regime from building an atomic bomb. Wilderness expert Ray Mears tells the true story of this gruelling campaign, showing how these men's ability to survive in extreme conditions influenced the outcome of World War II. The Telemark campaign was an example of the bravery and skill of the SOE trainees. The Norwegians transformed a military disaster into triumph. This title tells the full story.

http://www.countrybookshop.co.uk/books/ ... 0340830158

They recently found the ferry that the commandos sunk and yes there actually is fissionable material aboard it.

posted by tombstone

You know, I just don't know. I have a hard time believing that everyone is willing to give up their languages, culture, and borders for this "Union."

You notice they are not giving up their borders. The smart countries are fighting to save their cultures. I just don't know...

Americans seem to view the EEC very strangely, it's an economic and political union but if you think the poles, greeks, spanish british etc will give up their national identity or language you kind of miss the point. I cannot understand why you think we would or are required to. It's not a united states of europe like the US united states

Post by **spot** » Wed May 04, 2005 1:47 pm

gmc wrote: Americans seem to view the EEC very strangely, it's an economic and political union but if you think the poles, greeks, spanish british etc will give up their national identity or language you kind of miss the point. I cannot understand why you think we would or are required to. It's not a united states of europe like the US united statesA'm no that faur ben wi speakin' Scots, gmc, but I'll allow ye've let us poor English keep to our own tongue, despite you having control of the Kingdom these many years. For which we're aye grateful.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 04, 2005 3:39 pm

posted by spot

A'm no that faur ben wi speakin' Scots, gmc, but I'll allow ye've let us poor English keep to our own tongue, despite you having control of the Kingdom these many years. For which we're aye grateful.

ah weel se here pal we'd raither furget aboot they two ba'heids especialy yon daft bampot tony blair, went tae public schule ye ken, puir wee laddie's no richt in the heid. Labour's fair crapping it up here as they think their number of seats may drop to under 40. They cannae blame the english for the scottish parleyment, "it wisnae me it wis them" disnae work ony mair. Met a died in the wool tory the other day listening to Robin Cook would you believe. Seemed quite normal apart from that :sneaky:

David813 · Post by **David813** » Wed May 04, 2005 3:52 pm

Tombstone wrote: You know, I just don't know. I have a hard time believing that everyone is willing to give up their languages, culture, and borders for this "Union."

You notice they are not giving up their borders. The smart countries are fighting to save their cultures. I just don't know....

Comments?Fighting for seperatism is rolling the clock back, not forward. Countries splitting into little ethno-pieces is a sign of trouble ahead. Check out a WW1 map and then look at Europe today, particularly SE Europe. Spooky. The way of the future is uniting for common resources, financial & military strength. Americans are so nationalist we have fallen in love with borders. More borders mean more problems and conflict over scant resources. I'll bet the citizens of the former Yugoslavia as a whole were much better off as one nation than they are now, divided into religious and racial enclaves. Same can be said of Russia.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:10 pm

France/Germany wants to lead the EU to SuperState SuperPower. I do hope that Britain never becomes a full EU member. Then we might just have to pull out.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:24 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: France/Germany wants to lead the EU to SuperState SuperPower. I do hope that Britain never becomes a full EU member. Then we might just have to pull out.Just curious Captain, why do you want Britain to be sailing outside such a soon to be strong stable alliance of the continent's wealthiest states? Would Britain be better off isolated from the rest of Europe rather than joining in a superpower alliance that could surpass the US someday? Although I am a socialist I still think like a Yank and see no advantages to small nations competing with eachother. It is like the states in the US all becoming independent countries. It would be ruinous! Interested in the opinions of our UK Gardeners on this one. And of course everyone else!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 05, 2005 1:41 am

posted by capn buzzard

France/Germany wants to lead the EU to SuperState SuperPower. I do hope that Britain never becomes a full EU member. Then we might just have to pull out.

Going to be difficult if the rest of the members don't want to go that way. Kind of assumes ebveryone will just agree with them. Eire's done rather well out of the EEC so has Scotland come to that why pull out now

posted by david813

Fighting for seperatism is rolling the clock back, not forward. Countries splitting into little ethno-pieces is a sign of trouble ahead. Check out a WW1 map and then look at Europe today, particularly SE Europe. Spooky. The way of the future is uniting for common resources, financial & military strength. Americans are so nationalist we have fallen in love with borders. More borders mean more problems and conflict over scant resources. I'll bet the citizens of the former Yugoslavia as a whole were much better off as one nation than they are now, divided into religious and racial enclaves. Same can be said of Russia.

Being nationalistc and part of a larger confedaration are not mutually exclusive, if anything it has led to an upsurge of national pride, the more you mic with other nationalities the more you appreciate your own culture and srtat exlolring it.

The kind of socialism you are spouting has basically died the death in Europe, times move on so should political philosophies.

So far as yugoslavia is concermned what communism did was surpress nationalistic and religious conflicts that need to be fought out and would have been, before peoples can live together, you have to learn to appreciate differences not suppress them for the sake of some hangover from the past political idealogy that is out of it's time. At the heart of revolutionary socialism is the arrogant assumption that only those and such as those know what's good for everybody else. It's aload of cobblers that anyone with half a brain can see where it would lead. It's the same flawed logic you find with people at the other end of the political spectrum advocating rampant capitalism or fundamentaist christians, muslims, fundamentalist anything.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu May 05, 2005 9:21 am

gmc wrote:

posted by tombstone

Americans seem to view the EEC very strangely, it's an economic and political union but if you think the poles, greeks, spanish british etc will give up their national identity or language you kind of miss the point. I cannot understand why you think we would or are required to. It's not a united states of europe like the US united states

Spot and GMC,

You are right, I'm trying to get my head around this. The reason I am asking these questions is because I've seen so many conflicting stories about the EU and what it is and what it is meant to be.

I think the American press is picking up the factional stories and not reporting on what's really going on.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu May 05, 2005 9:30 am

David813 wrote: Fighting for seperatism is rolling the clock back, not forward. Countries splitting into little ethno-pieces is a sign of trouble ahead. Check out a WW1 map and then look at Europe today, particularly SE Europe. Spooky. The way of the future is uniting for common resources, financial & military strength. Americans are so nationalist we have fallen in love with borders. More borders mean more problems and conflict over scant resources. I'll bet the citizens of the former Yugoslavia as a whole were much better off as one nation than they are now, divided into religious and racial enclaves. Same can be said of Russia.

I can't argue with that - up to a point. To say that Yugoslavia or the Russian Republics didn't have the same religious and racial problems under the Communist regime is just not accurate. It was the totalitarianism regimes that keep these animosities in check - most of the time.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu May 05, 2005 9:40 am

gmc wrote:

anything it has led to an upsurge of national pride, the more you mic with other nationalities the more you appreciate your own culture and srtat exlolring it.

This is a good point and leads itself to what I was inferring earlier. Will the EU be the next great political experience? My curiosity is piqued in this area:

Will the EU's economic & political framework be strong enough to keep the EU together over time? Or, due to the diverse cultures involved, will there be a rising tide of nationalism that will threaten the Union?

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 10:59 am

This isn't going to sit too well with the European gardeners but here goes anyway. too be honest you guys heap criticism on the US and never think about how the US feels about you,

Most of us would love to leave Europe alone. If you ask the average American what he thinks of Europeans the most you'll probably get is a shrug of the shoulders. And then a comment about how much money you guys cost us.

I've never seen a European yet that wouldn't curse the US and then sell his mother for a US dollar.

Many of us consider you nationalist to the extreme and dispite this EU thing we see no real difference in how you treat each other on the world stage.

I personally would love to get all our troops out of Europe and then make book on how long it would take you to start killing each other again. My bet would be not long.

The US is 225 years old and of those years there have probably been maybe 10 that some European nation or another hasn't been trying to conquer us

Everything you blast the US for doing You only stopped doing when you simply weren't strong enough to continue,

Imperialism, God, you guys wrote the book.

Colonization same book.

We have only been allies when you needed us to save your butts and that is not a farfetched stereotype it is the truth.

To many Americans, including me, if you want to follow a straight and decent path just find out what the Europens want and do the opposite.

As far as terrorism is concerned go back over the last 40 years and see the actions of the IRA, Red Birgade, the Basques you guys talk about how the US is causing terrorist acts, we've had nothing like what you've had, what caused the ones that happened in your land?

According to you we are responcible for the acts done to us but, what, the ones done to you were different right they were done by "bad "people, not the "freedom fighters" that were dealing with, right?

Like the old French saying about the Germans, your either at our feet or our throats.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:08 pm

jahamaa wrote: I've never seen a European yet that wouldn't curse the US and then sell his mother for a US dollar.Then you won't mind if we regard your comments henceforth with all the respect your view deserves, I hope.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:13 pm

jahamaa wrote: The US is 225 years old and of those years there have probably been maybe 10 that some European nation or another hasn't been trying to conquer usI hadn't even seen this one. Firstly, Do you really think the USSR had it in mind to conquer the USA? Have you a dictionary in which we can find a mutually understandable meaning of the word "conquer"? Secondly, you're discussing the European Union - where does either the USSR or Russia fit into that? You switch your meaning of "Europe" half way through your sentence.

I have no problem with discussing these issues with Americans, but it helps if they try to put a coherent argument together.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:25 pm

David813 wrote: Just curious Captain, why do you want Britain to be sailing outside such a soon to be strong stable alliance of the continent's wealthiest states? Would Britain be better off isolated from the rest of Europe rather than joining in a superpower alliance that could surpass the US someday? Although I am a socialist I still think like a Yank and see no advantages to small nations competing with eachother. It is like the states in the US all becoming independent countries. It would be ruinous! Interested in the opinions of our UK Gardeners on this one. And of course everyone else!Hey Socialism died in 1989. One thing we can thank Pope John Paul 11 for. Britian & Ireland would be far better out of this superstate EU. Anyway this cozy united front between eu member states cannot last. The new great dictator cometh and its 1939 revisited.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:38 pm

spot wrote: Then you won't mind if we regard your comments henceforth with all the respect your view deserves, I hope.

Of course not, as I already do yours.

Everyone has prejudices. I like to think the main diffference between us is that I recognize mine. Doesn't mean I don't hold the beliefs just I recognize that they are tainted. As yours obviouly are.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:45 pm

spot wrote: I hadn't even seen this one. Firstly, Do you really think the USSR had it in mind to conquer the USA? Have you a dictionary in which we can find a mutually understandable meaning of the word "conquer"? Secondly, you're discussing the European Union - where does either the USSR or Russia fit into that? You switch your meaning of "Europe" half way through your sentence.

I have no problem with discussing these issues with Americans, but it helps if they try to put a coherent argument together.
Who mentioned the USSR?

I said Europeans and I meant Europeans I did not mention wars there are many ways to take over a country than with a war.

As one of my old history profs said and I agree we owe Europe a much more wary eye than Russia. But only if history is used as the base. And history did not start with the formation of the USSR

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:50 pm

jahamaa wrote: Who mentioned the USSR?

I said Europeans and I meant Europeans I did not mention wars there are many ways to take over a country than with a war.Perhaps then, dear boy, as I asked earlier, you might tell us what "conquer" means, since it's your word that you're discussing here. I was trying to fit ten years into the 20th century when "some European nation or another hasn't been trying to conquer us", and the USSR kept cropping up in my mind as an apology for your suggestion. By all means let's exclude it.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:52 pm

spot wrote: Perhaps then, dear boy, as I asked earlier, you might tell us what "conquer" means, since it's your word that you're discussing here. I was trying to fit ten years into the 20th century when "some European nation or another hasn't been trying to conquer us", and the USSR kept cropping up in my mind as an apology for your suggestion. By all means let's exclude it.We did:D

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:55 pm

[QUOTE=spot]I hadn't even seen this one. Firstly, Do you really think the USSR had it in mind to conquer the USA? Have you a dictionary in which we can find a mutually understandable meaning of the word "conquer"?

On a totally unrelated subject.

The premier of the Soviet Union stood in front of the UN, took off his shoe, banged it on the podium and screamed "we will bury you".

Exactly how would one of your political stripe interpet that.

Be glad to lend you my dictionary as you don't seem able to follow your own advice.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:59 pm

Grand theater, that bit from Nikita Sergeyevich. Did you know it wasn't even his shoe? He had one brought into the UN building especially for the show.

Conquer: to acquire by fighting, win in war; to make a warlike conquest of; to subjugate.

Name ten years during the 20th century when "some European nation or another" *was*trying to conquer you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 05, 2005 1:03 pm

posted by tombstone

This is a good point and leads itself to what I was inferring earlier. Will the EU be the next great political experience? My curiosity is piqued in this area:

Will the EU's economic & political framework be strong enough to keep the EU together over time? Or, due to the diverse cultures involved, will there be a rising tide of nationalism that will threaten the Union?

Don't know would be my answer. I think there will be a rising tide of nationalism but in the form of national pride and recovering lost identities rather than than nationalism hostile to other countries-so you will see lithuania, moldavia Poland etc taking pride in themselves and their independence but not being subsumed in to an amorphous europe but complaining bitterly about the bureaucracy. The enlargement will counteract the influence of France and Germany who have been setting the agenda, Some of the bureaucrats are incredibly corrupt and their powers need to be curtailed and put under scrutiny. It's naive to expect things to work from day one there will always be room for improvement. Nationalism does not always lead to warfare. That's why i get irritated by things like UKIP, it's so negative and insulting to suggest that we can't survive ineurope and have an impact on what happens, hiding from the world has never been a British trait

We all travel to each others countries- the majority of Britons go abroad for their holidays nowadays, it's a bit harder to dislike someone if you know their country. Nowadays we shout abuse at football matches, our hooligans have a good fight and everybody else keeps out the way till they're finished. I suspect most europeans are a lot more cynical about their government than americans-more to the point they will vote out parties that ignore them, that's what happened in Spain-it wasn't caving in to terrorism it was smacking the politicians back in to their place.

I can sit down with a frenchman, german, englishman, austrian and we will all slag each other off and generally take the **** without it being taken seriously. Although there are exceptions to that as you would expect. It seems you can't insult an american without them wanting a fight.

Actually I was in france during the world cup and was talking to an american couple in a cable car over Mont Blanc of all places, they were talking about exactly this and could not seem to grasp that all the hype about the football and the groups of chanting fans was just in fun and seemed convinced we were all going to be at each others throats. Very strange, he just couldn't get it at all.

posted by jahamaa

This isn't going to sit too well with the European gardeners but here goes anyway. too be honest you guys heap criticism on the US and never think about how the US feels about you,

Not so, but we don't worry about it too much.

Most of us would love to leave Europe alone. If you ask the average American what he thinks of Europeans the most you'll probably get is a shrug of the shoulders. And then a comment about how much money you guys cost us.

I've never seen a European yet that wouldn't curse the US and then sell his mother for a US dolla

So why don't you? How many europeans do you know out of curiosity?

If you do pull out where will you out all the troops? Will you cut the size of your armed forces? will the resulting redundancies in the industrial military industries cause major social problems? You have a fairly hefty proportion of your GDP spemt on the military how big an impact would it have if it was not there? Not trying to be funny, just curious.

Many of us consider you nationalist to the extreme and dispite this EU thing we see no real difference in how you treat each other on the world stage.

I personally would love to get all our troops out of Europe and then make book on how long it would take you to start killing each other again. My bet would be not long.

Most americans come across as being blindly patriotic and more than a tad paranoid, the most innocuous comment is taken as a direct insult to americans rather than a comment about your government. Slag off TB all you want take the **** out the royal family, I wouldn't automatically assumed that meant you hated the British people, would think it sad if you did but wouldn't worry about it.

Do you want the Royal family? make an offer, bag of crisps and a mars bar and they're yours. Think what it would do for your tourist industry, you could have then giving guided tours along london bridge in the Arizona desert

The US is 225 years old and of those years there have probably been maybe 10 that some European nation or another hasn't been trying to conquer us

Everything you blast the US for doing You only stopped doing when you simply weren't strong enough to continue,

Apart from us after the war of independence what european nation tried to invade? Not sure the spanish american war counts because i know little of the actual history of it. Or the mexican war when the french were involved either for that matter. 1812 we weren't really serious about itthere was yet another european war going on at the time, that time we all ganged up on the french. Actually the french were alwyas our favouriye enemy till the germans got their act together

Imperialism, God, you guys wrote the book.

Colonization same book.

Very true no one would deny that. In fact the British taught everyone how to do it.

We have only been allies when you needed us to save your butts and that is not a farfetched stereotype it is the truth.

Also true but then you have only been our allies when it was clearly in your interests to be so as well. You didn't get involved in the second world war to fight tyranny in fact most americans did not want to get involved in another european war, neither did most europeans come to that.

As far as terrorism is concerned go back over the last 40 years and see the actions of the IRA, Red Birgade, the Basques you guys talk about how the US is causing terrorist acts, we've had nothing like what you've had, what caused the ones that happened in your land?

Well the red brigade were nasty socialists, ETA and the IRA have their origins in oppression of peoples. Arguably they are a response to an intolerable situation although that is a long topic on it's own. Ireland now where do you want to start? Now they have both turned in to criminal gangs and are a long way from being the freedom fighters they might once have been.

According to you we are responcible for the acts done to us but, what, the ones done to you were different right they were done by "bad "people, not the "freedom fighters" that were dealing with, right?

Not entirely, the French and British colonised the middle east primarily to get at the oil once its importance became apparent. The situation in the middle east was a long time being created, now america is seen as the colonial power, except it is economic and cultural rather than military. Terrorism does not appear out of nowhere there is always a history and a reason usually to do with government policy of some kind. If you really think there is no connection to US foreign policy and the attack on 911 then why do you think it happened?

The next few years should be quite interesting, i think increasingly there will be calls for a stronger europe militarily to seperate us from an increasingly unpredictable united States. Chinas economic growth is likely to increase demand for oil dramatically, they are rattling sabres over Taiwan and sticking it to the japanese as well, hopefully armed conflict will not happen but who knows.

You do tend to forget two thirds of the worlds population is not in america or europe don't you.

The US seems to be getting increasingly in thrall to a group of extreme conservatives that view their own interests as being synonymous with america's and will do anything to achieve their ends, whether that is good for ordinary americans I am not in a position to comment.

I wish we had a clause that stopped Tony Blair standing for a third term. Our first past the post system will probably ensure he gets in but I would bet a good 2/3rds of the population will vote against him.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 1:18 pm

spot wrote: Grand theater, that bit from Nikita Sergeyevich. Did you know it wasn't even his shoe? He had one brought into the UN building especially for the show.

Conquer: to acquire by fighting, win in war; to make a warlike conquest of; to subjugate.

Name ten years during the 20th century when "some European nation or another" *was*trying to conquer you.

Who said anything about the 20th Century? I said in our 225 year history. You cannot challenge my statements with your limitiations

You completely misread what I said I said there were 10 years when there was not a European power trying to subjagate us. And I will admit that was an exaggeration but not a big one.

Shall we start before our Revoluionary war with the Spainish and French and English trying to "own" the American colonies?

Than we can go to what we call the War of 1812, brought on by a European nation exercising what it thought was its right to conscript seaman of American ships because we were still their colony.

Then the French started playing games in Mexico and didn't bother coming into California only bacause our Mexican neighbors handed them their heads.

Spanish American war though I admit who started that one is in conflict.

Then a little thing you may have heard of call WWI.

Followed by the main evevt WWII.

There were other little things along the way like the XYC affair.

And these are just from memory.

Your memory of history may start in 1901 mine does not. My point was and is that we Americans have a long history of reasons to not trust Europeans.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 1:31 pm

jahamaa wrote: Who said anything about the 20th Century?Indeed, you did say there were 10 years when there was not a European power trying to "subjagate" us. I was allowing you the first 120 years as obviously true. I couldn't see even ten years in the 20th Century, though. To be honest, I can't even see one, but you seem to think that WW1 and WW2 were European nations attempting to conquer you (as opposed to you attempting to conquer European nations, which is far more accurate), so we'll let that stand.

Even with that, you've accounted for four years. Just on the dates of the declarations of war and victory, the US involvement in Europe date between April 6, 1917 to November 11th, 1918, that's something under 20 months, and then there's 31 months in the 1940s. Just over 4 years, for some of which you were moving troops over here prior to combat.

So, talk to me about the other ninety six years, perhaps.

While we're at it, Khrushchev didn't pound the podium, he pounded the desk where he was sat with his delegation. He banged his shoe at, of all people, the head of the Philippine delegation, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong. And his "We Will Bury You" speech wasn't at the UN at all.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 1:38 pm

gmc I actuall ydo know some Europeans. Members of my family actually. Good people.

I do beleive that over the centuries there have been many underhand moves to subjagate the US by Europeans, but, no, not invade. Our Civil War was European free ( bacisally) only because the French and English kept each other at bay.

To be honest yeah I would love to get our troops out of Europe and the rest of the world too. I always been one of those guys who would rather take care of the problems at home than mess around overseas.

As far as that crack about the US dollar sorry, Spot pissed me off and I went overboard.

It really does seem that you folks spend a lot of your time on the US and not a lot on Europe.

As far as us wanted to fight when someone bashes us yea Guilty.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 2:02 pm

jahamaa wrote: As far as that crack about the US dollar sorry, Spot pissed me off and I went overboard.Really, you needn't apologize. You'll find that most of us would want rather more than that for close kin these days, the US dollar doesn't buy much by European standards.

You're confusing us with your Latin American cousins, I expect, for whom mere proximity to the USA has meant poverty for life.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu May 05, 2005 2:18 pm

[QUOTE=spot]Really, you needn't apologize.

Good, cause I wasn't to you.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:10 pm

spot wrote: Then you won't mind if we regard your comments henceforth with all the respect your view deserves, I hope.Americans are horrendously arrogant and self righteous, as displayed above. If you are American and don't snap in line behind GW you are a terrorist sympathizer. If you dare to embrace a political perspective that is not Republican or Democrat you are dismissed as "out of touch" or a loony. This ignorance has been fed to us for decades and since we are the Romans we have no problem crushing dissent. Because I am not starving and hold a midwestern address does not mean I am duty bound to embrace either capitalist political party. To hell with the Republicans and Democrats. Time will tell if socialism has truly been erased from our future.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:21 pm

David813 wrote: Americans are horrendously arrogant and self righteous, as displayed above.

They call it arrogance if you don't deserve the respect, since we do, they call it "Pride".

If you are American and don't snap in line behind GW you are a terrorist sympathizer.

I am a very outspoken critic of Bush, yet I get nothing but respect from my colleagues and neighbors.

If you dare to embrace a political perspective that is not Republican or Democrat you are dismissed as "out of touch" or a loony.

You do realize yo are making ridiculous generalizations, don't you? The Libertarian Party is very large and active in my state. I have great respect for them.

This ignorance has been fed to us for decades and since we are the Romans we have no problem crushing dissent.

If it was crushed, how did it last for decades?

Because I am not starving and hold a midwestern address does not mean I am duty bound to embrace either capitalist political party. To hell with the Republicans and Democrats. Time will tell if socialism has truly been erased from our future.

Absolutely correct! You can be whatever you like here, any views you have, no matter how fringe or controversial, are protected in our country. Isn't America great?

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:29 pm

I disagree the US has earned any respect so pride is , for me, the wrong word. Shame is more appropriate. Those that disagree with W ARE compared to terrorists, are excluded from political gatherings, spied upon and some even imprisoned. With the patriot act the current regime is free to clamp down on dissent. Hasn't been this bad until '00. Libertarians are not an alternative to capitalist parties. They are capitalists Squared. I have never seen respect shown to anyone that dislikes Bush. Must be my red state.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:34 pm

David813 wrote: To hell with the Republicans and Democrats. Time will tell if socialism has truly been erased from our future.I'm so delighted to read that, David. I'm sat watching the UK national elections, we're four hours into the declaration of results so far. Most of the seats have been three-horse races (some with up to a dozen also-rans), a few have had four fairly close candidates, only rarely has a seat been divided between just two main candidates. The parties have plenty of clear blue water between them, too, which (from England) is by no means apparent in Democrat/Republican contests.

You'll be pleased to hear that the Socialists (or Labor party) are ahead, and likely to serve a third successive administration.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:38 pm

spot wrote: I'm so delighted to read that, David. I'm sat watching the UK national elections, we're four hours into the declaration of results so far. Most of the seats have been three-horse races (some with up to a dozen also-rans), a few have had four fairly close candidates, only rarely has a seat been divided between just two main candidates. The parties have plenty of clear blue water between them, too, which (from England) is by no means apparent in Democrat/Republican contests.

You'll be pleased to hear that the Socialists (or Labor party) are ahead, and likely to serve a third successive administration.Actually I'm not a supporter of Labor in the UK. Not since the early 90's purge of the Kinnock/Scargill left wing of it. Blair is Bush's lapdog in my view and I would have preferred a Conservative victory instead. New Labor is a capitalist party, not a true labor party. We don't have one either.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:41 pm

David813 wrote: I disagree the US has earned any respect so pride is , for me, the wrong word.

You don't think winning WWII, inventing the airplane, the phone, and the computer are things to be proud of?

OK.....how about walking on the Moon?

With the patriot act the current regime is free to clamp down on dissent.

Well, the spying part is true. I have a Top Secret Clearance.....you should see your file, David.

Libertarians are not an alternative to capitalist parties.

They're nothing like Capitalists:

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

David813 · Post by **David813** » Thu May 05, 2005 6:53 pm

Jives wrote: You don't think winning WWII, inventing the airplane, the phone, and the computer are things to be proud of?

OK.....how about walking on the Moon?

Well, the spying part is true. I have a Top Secret Clearance.....you should see your file, David.

They're nothing like Capitalists:

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtmlIf we have to reach back to who invented what and WW2 then we'll have an endless list of inventions from the rest of the world. Other than helping the Soviets stop Hitler I see nothing at all to gloat about in US history since. Thought Police are certain to be coming after me now but that is how I see it. What is so glorious about the airplane? Rock collecting on the moon? Phones? Computers? Once again it IS possible for a middle aged middle American to not be a teary eyed, flag waving, immigrant hating pro-war, pro death penalty 'Christian'. And Libertarians want unregulated capitalism . Sink or Swim. Like the medieval times in Europe. They show up at some of the same demos and rallies we Reds are but they are not an alternative to capitalist politics.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 7:12 pm

David813 wrote: New Labor is a capitalist party, not a true labor party. We don't have one either.What we have, David, is a functional social safety net. The party we just re-elected this evening is keeping it in good repair. That, in my book, is the essence of socialism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. One of our four main parties would damage that if it could.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 7:17 pm

Jives wrote: They call it arrogance if you don't deserve the respect, since we do, they call it "Pride".You know, Jives - it's not relevant to the thread, just an observation - I dislike pride even more than I dislike arrogance. I was brought up to regard pride as the most uncouth and detestable of sins.

Besides, people who deserve respect tend to be cultured, not loud-mouthed braggarts.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu May 05, 2005 7:38 pm

spot wrote:

Besides, people who deserve respect tend to be cultured, not loud-mouthed braggarts.

Just as you love your country, I love mine. I even volunteered to give my life for it. So often I see, as I do here, people attacking my country. A country that has written huge amounts of history.

When I see the attacks, naturally I defend. Wouldn't you defend Britain?

And I see nothing wrong with being proud to be a part of a great civilization. :wah:

Post by **spot** » Thu May 05, 2005 7:45 pm

Jives wrote: Just as you love your country, I love mine. I even volunteered to give my life for it. So often I see, as I do here, people attacking my country. A country that has written huge amounts of history.I wouldn't ever attack your country, Jives, neither your traditions nor your citizens. You have the greatest heritage anyone could hope to inherit.

I have attacked your robber-baron Administration, as have many admirable Americans too.

Part of your country's heritage which I value is the contribution you made to the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. It's up to your citizens - nobody else, in my opinion - to see that those values are upheld.

How you can breathe the same air as Donald Rumsfeld baffles me.