Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


A, hello..

1. They did give aid to Turkey (at the second meeting)

2. Turkey was not under attack, and the threat to turkey would only materialize if the US took aggresive action not authorized by NATO or the UN.

They had the second meeting without France, IIRC. France remained implacably opposed to aiding Turkey.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I think you are missing the point. With Russia behaving in an increasingly autocratic manner, with their deliberately keeping bases in two countries against those countries' consent, with the dictator of Belerus doing his "thing," the Eastern front is becoming more dangerous by the minute to bordering states. They need protection.

Agreed. There is a reason Eastern Europe entered NATO, and that was to make sure never to fall under Russia's authority again. I think the American bases would better be located in the new States rather than in Germany.

France and Germany have recently demonstrated that they will not protect an alliance member if that members asks.

I must have missed something, but when did we fail to protect one of our allies? When was the last time an ally was attacked and we didn't scramble to protect it?

Further, France and Germany have all but inked a formal alliance with Putin.

Let's see:

Ont the one hand, we have:
NATO: troops under common command. Foreign bases in the territory. Several interventions already done (Kosovo, Afghanistan), and at least two peacekeeping missions currently occuring.
Atlantic Alliance: The same as above, except for the common command and the foreign bases bit.

On the other hand, we have:
Axis of Ned: common disagreement against an attack by a country on another. No military cooperation, no bases, no common operations.

Yeah, France and Germany are clearly much more integrated with Russia than with the US

Given this, Poland and the Baltic states truly need American support and bases and need France and Germany out of the alliance.

Yes, the bases would be better off in Poland than in Germany. No, there is definitely no need to push France and Germany out the alliance.
I don't know for you, but I much prefer to have a nuclear country, equipped with one of the most modern militaries in the world, within my alliance than without

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


They had the second meeting without France, IIRC. France remained implacably opposed to aiding Turkey.

No NATO member is obligated to give aid BEFORE a member has been attacked, specially when the threat may be non-existent, or when the action is being taken as a precaution in case some party launched and unauthorized aggresive action.

So you are blowing smoke out your butt on this issue Ned.

[Tripledoc]

Since when has Turkey ever been a friend of America?

The way I recall it the Turkish government did not bow to continuing american wooing and bribes to allow troop movements through it's territory before the US agression against Iraq.

No Turk is happy about the American bases in their country.

During the Cuban misslie crisis the USA betrayed Turkey by withdrawing their short range nuclear missiles from US bases, in order that Russia withdraw their missiles from Cuba. That after the US had failed in their invasion of Cuba.

The average Turk knows full well that the Fascist paramilitary group, the Grey Wolves, is supported and trained by NATO. This group is responsible for several murders against Turkish students and political activists.

Despite US support for the former military dictatorship in Turkey and their genocide of kurdish Communists, now the US has changed its stance, when it benefitted them to defeat Saddam, and is now supportive of the Kurdish independence movement.

I fail to see how Turkey can see any good from continuing being America's lapdog. Especially now when Turkey is so desperately trying to evolve into a true Democratic state.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, just like he had allies in pretty much the whole Arab world, a large chunk of Asia, etc.

The offensive war decided by the US went completely against France's interests, and France opposed it. Just like you'd oppose France going to war against one of your clients.

This hostility to the American offensive did not mean we were hostile to America itself.

And regarding the Poles: we were disappointed that they didn't follow France and Germany like the poodle we expected them to be. Yet, even with this disappointment, there is not any reason to go to war and invade them. Maybe this little bit espace Americans, but countries generally don't decide invasions on a whim.

Stop dissing Americans - it's just Ned being a moron

[Spiffor]

Don't worry Skywalker, I know Americans generally have a better understanding of the world than Ned (but it is also true we Euros take wars much, much more gravely than Americans)

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Man Serb are you still talking. I figured with a mouth as big as yours your government would have silenced you long ago.

Aside you, I live in a free country.

[Ned]

Spiffor, anyone who claims to speak for Americans, for the American right, or anyone with reason, is, well ....Skywalker.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by paiktis22
From what I know you only need to see the UK negotiating within the EU family to actually start wondering wether it is a member of this family or a NAFTA member. As for concrete actions, Shenghen, constitution (even such silly things as echelon) and of course euro and federalist idea not to mention euroarmy and of course foreign policy (3rd pillar) are just some of the most concrete examples. The UK is creating way too many variable geometries in critical matters. Getting it out of the EU or isolated is thge only way to effectively deal with it untill and if it changes. It's actually something that has characterized its relations with what the continental states have achieved so far.

The european idea is something clear, those who wonder is because they propably haven't really understood it.

I don;t think it's suspicion. Suspicion is when sopmeone looks at you the wrong way. When he's trying to rip your arm apart I think it goes beyond suspicion

Your examples are pathetic. Britain is not the only country to not have joined the euro, and of those that have, France and Germany are failing to be good europeans by flouting the budget rules. The failure of the constitution had little to do with Britain, and everything to do with other members.

As far as trade goes, Britain almost always takes the side of the EU in trade negotiations, and gets punished just as much as any other EU member by America's erratic trade policies.

Britain was hardly alone in supporting the war in Iraq; what about Spain and Italy? And British public opinion was opposed to the war, like in the rest of Europe. Also, Britain has worked with France and Germany in the diplomatic approach towards Iran.

Britain supports the European rapid reaction force, whilst other, traditionally neutral, countries do not. Britain was also the last country to impose controls on economic migrants from the new Eastern members, as Blair caved into pressure from the right-wing press. All the other EU members except Ireland have also taken such anti-European measures.

Britain is not standing in the way of reforming EU agriculture, either. That's France's job, protecting its hordes of little farms.

If the European idea is so clear, could you please articulate it?

Your problem with Britain is basically prejudice. Anything Britain does is viewed through that prism.

[Tripledoc]

Here is an article by paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan published in Anti-war.com.

What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity.

With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic.

In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763.

Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande.

Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad.

Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence.

Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics."

The lead graph reads like something out of the London Times in the salad days of Kipling and Queen Victoria: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that the United States might establish military bases in parts of the former Soviet empire, but he sought to reassure Russians that increased U.S. influence in the region does not pose a threat to them." With bases already in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, we apparently intend to build a base in Georgia, birthplace of Stalin.

Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism."

But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives?

After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind.

Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana?

Have we forgotten our history? When Reagan put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, 241 perished in the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks. Reagan retaliated, but got out. He should never have gone in. Who runs Beirut or rules Lebanon is not our business.

When we intervened in Somalia's civil war, we got "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu and 18 dead Rangers. Again, we pulled out. We should never have gone in. When we planted a U.S. army on Saudi soil after the Gulf War, we got 9-11. Now we have pulled out of there.

How often must we be taught the lesson?

Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow?

A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it.

Even a cursory reading of U.S. history shows us to be an almost paranoid people about any foreign military presence near our frontiers. The French, British, Spanish and Russians were all bought off or driven out. Moscow's presence in Cuba and meddling in Grenada and Nicaragua in the Cold War were constant causes of American outrage.

But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus?

But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here?

So essentially the bases to the south of Russia are sitting ducks for targeting by fundamentalist guerillas.

Even if Russia is not as paranoid as the US, and believe the Americans have the best of intentions, the bases will be a potential source of distabilisation.

So if a base is attacked by suicide bombers like in Lebanon in 82 America will naturally have to retaliate and pour more troops and firepower into the area.

[Barinthus]

Just in case... the following countries are member of EU:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdoms.

[Spiffor]

Yep, but in two months, you will add the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.

[Tripledoc]

A 'right of passage' between Europe and China?

Brussels, 12 February 2004

European Union signs landmark tourism accord with China today in Beijing

On 12 February 2004, the European Community and the China National Tourism Administration signed a landmark accord that will facilitate Chinese group tourism to Europe. Chinese tourists going through selected travel agencies will benefit from simplified and facilitated procedures to apply for tourist visas from the Member States of the European Union which have been granted "Approved Destination Status"(ADS) by China. The agreement also includes provisions allowing return of possible Chinese over-stayers. The new accord is expected to enter into force before the summer and will generate significant flows of Chinese visitors to Europe, thus boosting EU-China tourism exchanges and people-to-people contacts.

Commenting on the signature, EU External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten said: "This agreement is good news for China and for Europe. I look forward to seeing more Chinese tourists here, and I hope many will take up the new opportunity to travel. Human contacts really do make a difference, and I believe this new agreement will help Europe and China to understand each other better, as well as bringing new commercial opportunities. The next step is to deepen our co-operation on migration in all its forms".
.....

Thanks to the increase in living standards and gradual relaxation of travel constraints, more and more Chinese people travel abroad. Chinese outbound tourism amounted to 20 million visitors in 2003 (+22%). According to the World Tourism Organization, China could well become the number one tourist destination in the world and a major source of outbound tourism, with an estimated 100 million outbound travellers by 2020.

In 2002, 645,000 Chinese tourists travelled to the EU, whereas 1,3 million European tourists visited China. It is expected that the ADS agreement will generate significant numbers of new Chinese tourists in Europe and foster closer EU-China people to people links.

This seems to be another step towards a Pax Eurasia.

Complete Press release here

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Sandman


Your examples are pathetic.

Let us see why.

Britain is not the only country to not have joined the euro, and of those that have, France and Germany are failing to be good europeans by flouting the budget rules.

Indeed the UK is not the only one. However it is the one ripping huge benefits from not having done it and the one who's the furthest away from actually doing it in the future. In order to protect some rather shortlived national benefits the UK has seriously put a dent to the development of a Union which it does not relly believe at but wants to be a member. 13 of the 15 member states, including Germany and France (BTW without whose great achievement to be friends there wouldn't be an EU) all did that sacrifice in the name and vision of the Union of peace.

UK simply gave it the middle finger after having virtually begged to be a member of it.

Notice a small amount of "difference of mentality" here?

Also UK agreed to have Germany and France escape the sanctions. So blame yourselves if you must blame someone.

The failure of the constitution had little to do with Britain, and everything to do with other members.

The UK has systematically tried to undermine any effort for further integration except a loose economic one since it was let to join and the last effort was no exception. The Uk was instrumental in the failure of the constitution.

As far as trade goes, Britain almost always takes the side of the EU in trade negotiations, and gets punished just as much as any other EU member by America's erratic trade policies.

I'm sorry but :loooooooooooooooooool:

The UK practically acts as the US agent in most trade minister meetings.
The fact that it agrees to uphold EU policy after it is decided is because, frankly, you don't have the right not to.

Britain was hardly alone in supporting the war in Iraq; what about Spain and Italy?

Italy and Spain did it for internal EU pressure reasons. The UK did to remain in the favor of the US. And has always taken a pro US stance not only in this issue.

Britain supports the European rapid reaction force, whilst other, traditionally neutral, countries do not.

Again, Britain systematically lobbied for the american positions. Whichwere incompatible with EU purposes.

Britain is not standing in the way of reforming EU agriculture, either. That's France's job, protecting its hordes of little farms.

And thankfully so some might say. Meanwhile the UK is opposing virtually everything else. Thr factthat you don't want social justice doesn't make you pro EU.

If the European idea is so clear, could you please articulate it?

The commitment to build a peaceful Europe.

Your problem with Britain is basically prejudice. Anything Britain does is viewed through that prism.

The problem is Britain.

[Bereta_Eder]

And to be even more specific the abhorance the UK government shows towards the EU is almost pathological.

However just wanting to make the Union not work because simply you don't want nothing more than a loose economic area to trade your goods is bad enough.

The UK asked twice to be let in the Union it itself has said it won't work. Your national policy seems to be the constant undermining of this Union from the moment you set foot in it. Everything you do IS viewed by this prism since it's the one you use as a way to view the Union.

notes:
When I say you I mean your, all, your governments.
You will notice that many countries have differences but none have taken such an old hardcore nationalistic approach to them and devoided of any spirit of mutual consitiation and compromise as the UK has.

I'm not prejudisted against the UK. It is its stance that makes it anti EU. And since Greece's interests lay in the EU's interests I'm simply more vocal in expressing what is widely acknowledged in Brussels.