Rugby - Autumn Beckons!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm fleeing Australia for Italy to avoid John Howard...

Fair point... if you are considering Berlusconi better than Howard of course.

- to where do I flee to avoid Witless!?

The North Pole seems rather safe... at least for the moment.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Fair point... if you are considering Berlusconi better than Howard of course.

As I said in a post a couple of days ago - when you were too p*ssed to read! - the difference in Italy is that it doesn't really matter who's in government. Life goes on as it has for hundreds and hundreds of years. With some rare exceptions, day-to-day government has little impact on Italians' lives. They expect their politicians to be cynical self-aggrandisers and ignore them accordingly. Just as, for the most part, they ignore the Pope. They love him, they kiss his ring, and go out and buy contraceptives by the truckload. They have their priorities right.

The North Pole seems rather safe... at least for the moment.

Only until someone finds oil there! Mmmm. I wonder how the US military would cope with a polar bear insurgency.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar

Bullsh*t! The whole EU thing is a typically European cocktail of ideas and intentions doomed to failure because self-interest will forever be paramount.

Petty national self interests are indeed the scourge of Europe, I am convinced that creating a strong European trans-national state is a matter of survival and I am amazed that so few people are realizing it. On the contrary, an European state is seen as a threat to national self determination, to national independence and so on...

The real question is to know what you want or not. You can't be a member of a group without alienating a part of your freedom and this is the same thing for a nation. The question is thus to know if some states (like the United Kingdoms for example ) are ready or not to make some sacrifices (and I am not talking about the mere monetary or financial ones) to really become a part of the European Union. If they are not they should say it clearly and quit an organization they will beg to return to in the following years.

Of course I am a bit exaggerating but Europe is at a turning point. But our politicians are so dumb that they will manage to convince most of the European countries to reject a set of laws I believe we really need. In France, for example, the opponents of the said constitution will wave the threat of the Turkish membership and link it to the vote over the European Constitution.

Why do we need a Constitution? Because the EU is still ruled through laws and principles dating back from the time the member states were only five or so. If we consider the Rule of Unanimity, it is obvious that this principle is no more appropriate with 25 members and that it would be suicidal to keep it.

In the meantime, the stronger power on the other side of the Atlantic (which does not care a dime about Europe) get the giggles each time it looks at those s*ds on this side of the Atlantic unable to ally themselves in order to build a better future for themselves.

My words are bitter, I am sorry, but I am really angry today. We, the Europeans, could be a power that counts in the world and we are endlessly repeating the errors of the past because of a fading glory amounting today to a petty arrogance. The United States of America are strong because its member states are united around a common vision. We are not yet united and we even do not agree about the fact we should at least share a common ground.

Once again I am sorry about the sadness and pessimism of these words but I felt the urge to say it... I won't do it again.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar

As I said in a post a couple of days ago - when you were too p*ssed to read! - the difference in Italy is that it doesn't really matter who's in government. Life goes on as it has for hundreds and hundreds of years. With some rare exceptions, day-to-day government has little impact on Italians' lives. They expect their politicians to be cynical self-aggrandisers and ignore them accordingly. Just as, for the most part, they ignore the Pope. They love him, they kiss his ring, and go out and buy contraceptives by the truckload. They have their priorities right.

Only until someone finds oil there! Mmmm. I wonder how the US military would cope with a polar bear insurgency.

New fur coats?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

New fur coats?

The mind boggles at the thought of a polar bear insurgency. Polar bears lumbering up to igloos and detonating their explosives belts.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Once again I am sorry about the sadness and pessimism of these words but I felt the urge to say it... I won't do it again.

I completely understand what you're saying. The world can't afford to have one super power, regardless of who it might be. The problem is, the more you try to legalise the union with constitutions, rights, et al, the more you threaten the sacred ground of its members - their independence. You also bring into play the matter of equality - is everyone equal regardless of population, wealth, influence, et al? I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly can't see the current system working for the reasons addressed above. You can't - and never will - legislate human nature.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

In the meantime, the stronger power on the other side of the Atlantic (which does not care a dime about Europe) get the giggles each time it looks at those s*ds on this side of the Atlantic unable to ally themselves in order to build a better future for themselves.

I think you're wrong about the US of A not caring about Europe (current squabbles aside).
In the last century they intervened twice with enormous effort and at a great cost in American lives - Not to mention spending the last half of the century fortifying the portions they could against an outside threat.

Unlike the EU they had the 'great' advantage of coming together in actual conflict against an exterior threat (ie: Havak's mob) without the pressures of centuries of internal feuding to divide them.
Even then they had to fight a gruelling civil war less than a century later, coming back together stronger in the aftermath.

If the cold war had ever given rise to a shooting war then you might see a very much more united Europe than you do today.
Without such an impetus though, a United Europe has such a long history to overcome that it almost certainly won't do (to your satisfaction anyway) so during your lifetime.
That's not necessarily a bad thing either - After all the concept of a united EU has only been a political reality for, what, less than a decade?

My feeling is that the EU has too many unrealistic expectations - not in the sense that they will ever be a true united entity but in the sense of the timeframe it'll take for this to occur.

Far better to be thankful for the lack of an 'outside impetus' and a much longer unification process IMHO.

[Havak]

I'm all for installing Howard as President. The words President and assassination have an historical link.

There is one consequence of events in the US not yet fully appreciated here – it has made it even easier for Tony and his pseudo-Labour party to win a third term next year. Bush will not work with Howard (he won’t even speak to him) and whilst in France that might work for him here I suspect it will work against.

I wonder how the US military would cope with a polar bear insurgency.

The Intelligence services would write a report citing the potential for Weapons of Mass Seal Destruction before the military went in eliminating the Polar bear Politburo. Twelve months later they would admit there were no WMSD but that the war was right anyway – and by the way US Seal Fat Industries profits are up 400%.

Blair has turned the security services here into political PR tools – I have no reason to doubt his US colleagues have done the same.

Petty national self interests are indeed the scourge of Europe

I will remind you of that the next time French fishermen blockade ports, French farmers burn sheep and French governments impose illegal bans on Beef imports.

On the contrary, an European state is seen as a threat to national self determination, to national independence and so on...

Which is exactly what a European state is. This ‘Union’ concept was brought in by stealth and even as a Labour supporter I want no part of it.

I can see why countries like Ireland, Portugal, Poland et al are pro-European – the former has been transformed in the last fifteen years by EU money. Trouble is that was partly my money – and would have been better spent in the UK.

If they are not they should say it clearly and quit an organization they will beg to return to in the following years.

Quit? Certainly. Beg to return? Brits? Beg to the Germans and French – not until it snows in Hell.

We are fine anyway – being the 51st state makes us the lapdog to the big dog.

You can't - and never will - legislate human nature.

You can’t tell Brits what to do either. Unless you are a Brit. Or a Yank.

Unlike the EU they had the 'great' advantage of coming together in actual conflict against an exterior threat

Interesting take on a war of treason. You can read history books on that war from both sides – and the ones by UK historians have the advantage of not trying to Cannonise certain individuals totally regardless of the facts.

Look at history with a critical eye – and don’t just accept what the big dog of today now says.

Having said that some French histories of Waterloo are worth reading too – did you know Napoleon lost because his piles played up on the day?

And without any deep knowledge of US politics I think you are dreaming if you think the US states are ‘together’ on anything much at all domestically. Only the largest of external matters - or internal threats - produce a ‘United States’. That’s what a Federal system is like.

Even then they had to fight a gruelling civil war less than a century later, coming back together stronger in the aftermath.

See my point above – the war fought ‘to end slavery’ according to revisionist history. Did it end in 1865? The Civil war was all about power and vested interests – as most wars are.

The sacrifices the US made for the UK in both world wars is not belittled by me in any way – without them we would either have been defeated or forced to ally with the devil - and Marshall aid saved this country from quite literally starving in the late 40s – but it was a bitter pill for the UK to find itself bankrupt and struggling post WWII whilst US money rebuilt Japan and Germany entirely and laid the foundations for them to be economic powers larger than us. Who won that war – and who lost?

But ultimately get this – Scotland should beat the Wallabies this coming Saturday do you think? It’s a rugger thread after all.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

But ultimately get this – Scotland should beat the Wallabies this coming Saturday do you think? It’s a rugger thread after all.

Ah yes, but we need something to fill in the time between matches. Poor David Lyons. A couple of weeks after he's voted last season's Wallaby Player Of The Year - by the players - he can't make the team against Scotland. He started last season brilliantly and gradually tapered off, unfortunately. Because the votes were awarded post-match, he built up a lead that no one could peg back. He had a pretty average S12 season. John Roe played spectacularly off the bench in a couple of the Tri Nations matches, so we'll see how he goes starting. Also nice, finally, to see Matt Rogers and Elton Flatley getting back into action off the bench.

[Havak]

So what we are saying here is...Scotland by 15?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
I will remind you of that the next time French fishermen blockade ports, French farmers burn sheep and French governments impose illegal bans on Beef imports.

This is what I said: petty national self interests...

Which is exactly what a European state is. This ‘Union’ concept was brought in by stealth and even as a Labour supporter I want no part of it.

As far as I am concerned we should create a federal state, a political organization that is able to guarantee the rights of its member states. Hopeless...

I can see why countries like Ireland, Portugal, Poland et al are pro-European – the former has been transformed in the last fifteen years by EU money. Trouble is that was partly my money – and would have been better spent in the UK.

So what? As soon as we are talking about the EU, the subject is reduced to money, money, money and money. As if the financial issue were the only drive of the European experience. Though it is an important matter this is not the main objective, you should see the money spent on the development of some countries as an investment that will benefit all of Europe in the future.

Quit? Certainly. Beg to return? Brits? Beg to the Germans and French – not until it snows in Hell.

As far as I remember there is a preceding coming back from the earlier days of the first European Communities.

We are fine anyway – being the 51st state makes us the lapdog to the big dog.

Half in the EU, half in the USA, not really in both, there is indeed a choice the United Kingdoms will have to make one day.

You can’t tell Brits what to do either. Unless you are a Brit. Or a Yank.

This is not only true for the Brits.

Look at history with a critical eye – and don’t just accept what the big dog of today now says.

The external threats already exist, will we wait until it is too late?

[Caligastia]

I see ole W has won re-election. Can't say I'm particularly overjoyed, but I think he was the (slightly) lesser of two evils.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
So what we are saying here is...Scotland by 15?

There he goes again, exploiting the same faultless rugby nouse he employs when analysing Leicester matches.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I see ole W has won re-election.

Did he? I hadn't noticed.

What's truly scary is that the same sort of evangelical christian fundamentalism is on the rise here. They won a federal Senate seat in the recent election.

[Caligastia]

Who? The Fundimentalist Evangelical Christian Party?