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

[notyoueither]

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

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

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

Which is it, they suck or they are great?

[Harovan]

Great of course. You suck, nye.

[Fake Boris]

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

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

[Ted Striker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[notyoueither]

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

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

Perhaps that highlights the contrast better?

[Ted Striker]

[notyoueither]

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

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

[Harovan]

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

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

[notyoueither]

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

[Fake Boris]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe can't do much against this.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither

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

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

Perhaps that highlights the contrast better?

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

[notyoueither]

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

Nope.

[notyoueither]

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

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fake Boris]

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

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

look at top half of page 2.