Resolved: All the world's problems are Europe's fault.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Ok, now this is just plain trolling.

...said the Kettle to the Pot.

[The Andy-Man]

Adam Smith, what i said is not historical ignorance but based on fact. The europeans werent nice to the natives, but atleast they didnt obliterate them from excitsence.

atleast (until 1885) the british empire tried to do good (fighting nations that refused to end slavery, gladstone refused to support an opresive turkey to have a nation against russia - this during the great game).


but i am not saying europe has done less then america, but when they did it it was more acceptable (a time when racial predudice was high). alllot of stuff the USA supports and does would be considered an atrocity in the 19thC, so it is pretty bad for the 20th/21stC.

But it is the way for a hegamonic power in decline to take drastic and evil measures to stay in power, you just dont hear of them till they have fallen (no one new much of british treatment of the colonists till after 1945).

neither is better or worse then the other, the next nation to become a great power will face similar external lack of support that america does. just the way it goes.

[Comrade Tribune]

All the world´s problems are the fault of the fish...

If they hadn´t evolved and left the water...

[mactbone]

People in Europe

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Wo kann affen etwa sonst?
Dos cervesos, por favor
Zu heizen, yes, doch
Ha ha sir, et paradis
Jacqueteure, au secours, mon taille
Europa is AOK
Hola del puerto
Ba ba ba
People in Europe
Ba ba ba
People in Europa

Ciao ciao bella, Monaco
Bon voyage in Sverige
Kom nu med
Vi får dricka mañana
Honi soit mal qui mal y pense
Wo kann affen etwa sonst?
Dos calvesos, por favor
Svenskar in James Bond
-Blur

[Adam Smith]

Andyman:

Please read your own post before replying.

and what was done to the natives was nothing to what was done the the American Blacks till the 1960's (NINTEEN)

Your first comment compared European treatment of natives to US blacks, not Native Americans. This comment also applied through the 1960's. (YOUR emphasis.) Was the treatment of US blacks up through the 1960's was in any way comparable to that experienced under Clive, Hastings, Rhodes, and British opium traders in China? Not even close.

and look what the US did to the north american natives - wipped them out compltely. the British tried to stop this, hence the AAmerican war of independence.

So the British fought the Americans in order to prevent further deaths of Native Americans?

[devilmunchkin]

lol..you guys are getting all worked up....
realize thatlonestar is most likely drunk off his rocker.
person opinion: nobody likes to accept blame. This is apparent even in the way our languages are formed. we'd rather our problems be the cause of something else rather than take responsibility for it (well, 9-11 is an exception).....perhaps europe is the same...but both sides do alot of *****ing.

[Roland]

As Chris delivered another jewel...:

"Explain this, sweethart:"

The EU trades with Iran ? That's.. shocking! And Iran's other big trading partners: Japan, South Korea, UAE, Argentina, Australia, South Africa. What exactly do you need to have explained about that ?

"Of course, we know France and the other EU countries have only the best of intentions."

So France trades with Iraq within the limits of the UN sanctions ? Again, whadda shocker.

"Unreasonable americans, eh?"

On Cuba ? Yes. It's a freakin' dictatorship. But is there a specific reason for isolating it ?

Iraq has one of the worst regimes in the world. Your solution ?

Iran is in a power struggle between reformers and fundamentalists. Your recommendation: A trade embargo ?

"Outside of Asian nations, there favorite trade patner is...Germany:"

No really ? 3 % of a whoppin' 960 million $ in imports? About 30 million $ in... tanks ? rockets ? Wehrmacht memorabilia ? A Schröder-Kim axis of evil ? Sensational.

"But Germany has no "interests" with them."

Yup, the 30 million $ from about 600.000 million $ total exports makes Germany NK's loveslave. NK should rank about 160 or 170 among germany's trading partners. Even Liechtenstein is a much more important trading partner for Germany.

"The whole case against the axis of evil is false, ancient history, and the facts prove it."

Indeed, and I told you all the time that dubya is an idiot. Or did you mean to show that Bush is right about those 3 countries because Europeans trade with them ?

[Chris 62]

Ah, perfect!

Originally posted by Roland
As Chris delivered another jewel...:

And as usual Roland, it went straight over your head.
You and your appologists have been droning on how Europe only acts for "moral reasons".
What a joke.
Do you have any morals at all?
From what follows, obviously not.

The EU trades with Iran ? That's.. shocking! And Iran's other big trading partners: Japan, South Korea, UAE, Argentina, Australia, South Africa. What exactly do you need to have explained about that ?

it must have parted your hair as it went over.
What country suddenly doesn't like US policy?
France.
Who has major trade ties with Iran?
Do you need diagrams at this point, or are you getting it yet?

So France trades with Iraq within the limits of the UN sanctions ? Again, whadda shocker.

Roland fails to admit that France has major trade links with Iraq, and when the US says it may attack Iraq, it says the US is now out of hand, despite Iraq's long history of wrong doing.
What a shocker.
Tell me Roland, do you take responcibility for anything?

On Cuba ? Yes. It's a freakin' dictatorship. But is there a specific reason for isolating it ?

Typical Roland reaction.
Who cares if they drive the people into the dirt, ain't no big thing.
Nice selective morality.

Iraq has one of the worst regimes in the world. Your solution ?

Stop dealing with them, and get off your asses and do something about it, instead of buisiness as usual.

Iran is in a power struggle between reformers and fundamentalists. Your recommendation: A trade embargo ?

On the surface, this seems the case, but the moderates seem to be far more in line with the fundimentalists then first suspected.
My "solution" is to stop being hypocritical, and addmitting Europe opposses action against them on financial grounds, instead of the smoke screen thrown out by the French foriegn minister.
Phoney is the word that most applies to him.

No really ? 3 % of a whoppin' 960 million $ in imports? About 30 million $ in... tanks ? rockets ? Wehrmacht memorabilia ? A Schröder-Kim axis of evil ? Sensational.

Isn't it?
No other non-asian nation deals with them, and Germany was in full accord with the US UNTILL North Korea was mentioned.
Want to make more excuses here?

Yup, the 30 million $ from about 600.000 million $ total exports makes Germany NK's loveslave. NK should rank about 160 or 170 among germany's trading partners. Even Liechtenstein is a much more important trading partner for Germany.

Yet it still is your partner, and yes, you did make the expected excuse.
It's always "trifiling", isn't it?
But then, so is morality.

Indeed, and I told you all the time that dubya is an idiot. Or did you mean to show that Bush is right about those 3 countries because Europeans trade with them ?

This is a perfect example of all your posts, Roland.
You refute nothing, make one excuse after another, and end with Dubya attack.
It's all in the USA's imagination, sure.
I knew you would stick with that fairey tale.
I was showiing, and quite successfully, that France and Germany's sudden opposition seems to fit perfectly with their trade partners, but, as usual, Roland tells us it's just buisness.

On to more fun and games:

Originally posted by a clueless newbie
Really? It's so annoying when people want to forgive and forget isn't it? Got to keep old wounds flowing haven't we?

Stop being an apologist, boy.
I was showing a clear point, that maybe Europe is far more self-serving then you thought.
Roland and several other regulars here know I'm no USA apologist, when the USA does wrong I say so.
People like you just love to blame, and when called, it's all in the past.
You wanted to pile on the Yanks, sorry sonny, some of us fight back.
Get used to it.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You must learn the way of these boards.
Just because your post was the one quoted, doesn't mean all remarks are directed at you.

A cop-out. Are you suggesting that we should not strive to solve the worlds problems because they are too complicated for us?

I suggest nothing of the kind, except that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I agree with the first part, which is just common sense. I agree with the second part as well, but because the USA is social-political construct, not a person.

All governments are, or didn't you know?

Next case:

Originaly posted by a petulant child
Quit rhetoric-ing then.

And buy a dictionary

Maybe someday you will get a life, but we can see, it won't be anytime soon.

Originaly posted by MarkL
Predictable post. If you like I can give you dozens of links easily about American policies. Let's talk about the UN Treaty for Human Rights. The US didn't sign it, they refused to sign a Human Rights treaty. I wonder why.

From you, it always is.
Why did you change your handle?
You sure didn't change your attitude.
BTW, try your dis-information campaign elsewhere, there is no such treaty and you know it.

Just one small observation: Why are only a few countries criticising European foreign policies in the same way most of the world is criticising the US' policies? Must be a reason for that, I'll leave it to you to figure it out.

The easiest answer of all:
You and your boys do anything for a buck, and wouldn't give a fig if Israel is steamrolled, so the rest of the worl loves ya.
We do care, so your Muslim friends hate us with a passion.
But then, selling jews down the river is an old European story, isn't it?

Of course, the average American reply will most likely be . In other words, ignoring the whole subject.

It's not the subject that's ignored, it's your attempts to twist it.
See the difference?

Originally posted by Lightblue
Chris62, don't quote Amnesty 'cause its gonna bite you in the backside.

Now I don't care much, but if look at some of the stories on this page the US doesn't come of too well either.

You misunderstand, LB.
I'm no appologist, I'm well aware there are US problems to be addressed, I just fight people like Mark and Roland, and the new guy, I suppose also, because they refuse to admit that Europe is no better then the USA in world affairs.
As usual in this thread, all we saw from them was spin doctoring and excuses.
Typical of them (though Roland is much fairer then most, I will admit).

And I don't see why we should have the same enemies as the the US. OK we're in NATO but that doesn't mean we have to think the same. I personally think that Iran has been changing for the better, and that more Western contacts will only facilitate this process. As for the Iraq food for fuel thing: do you want to deny the iraqi people medical supplies? The best thing to do is to show that we still care about the people, eventhough we despise their leaders. It is not all guns and bombs...

If you wish this, then renouce alliance.
And every exception you make, only helps Saddam and weakens the effects of what is trying to be accomplished.
The best thing to do is stand up to a thug, not do buisiness with them.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
So the British fought the Americans in order to prevent further deaths of Native Americans?

No, it was the other way round: Americans fought their war of independence in part to be able to murder the Indians and steal their territory without being annoyingly interrupted in this profitable activity by the British.

[Adam Smith]

I refuse to fight a battle of wits against unarmed opponents.

2.5 and that's being generous.

[Comrade Tribune]

You can read this over here in the history books. We don´t have US censorship, yet.

[Adam Smith]

And these books present some kind of evidence that Britain prevented the killing of Native Americans, or that this had anything to do with the American Revolution?

(Note to self: bookmark this as Exhibit A for the next US vs. Euro quality of education debate)

[Comrade Tribune]

Think about it for a moment: Natives usually sided with the Brits; they did this for a reason, right?

The English were against uncontrolled colonial expansion. The reasons may have been purely bureaucratic; but there is no doubt their policies helped the Indians.

That the American Revolution was mostly propelled by the selfish reasons of a clique of wealthy businessmen/landowners (and not by the usual freedom-blah-blah) not even most US university history teachers will dispute; ask a few. And those landowners (including Washington himself) profited, some directly, some indirectly, from the theft of Indian territory. Do Americans really not know that?

[mactbone]

You mean that Washington, as a member and ranking official of the British army, was instructed to fight Amerindians, in the French & Indian War? Yeah, of course Americans fought the Amerindians then.

[lightblue]

Re: Ah, perfect!

Originally posted by Chris 62
If you wish this, then renouce alliance.
And every exception you make, only helps Saddam and weakens the effects of what is trying to be accomplished.
The best thing to do is stand up to a thug, not do buisiness with them.

As far as I know NATO is a military alliance, not a politcal or econmic one. Therefore NATO statutes are only invoked in military matters. Trading in the Fuel for Food programme, which was passed by the UN Security Council (and therefore wasn't vetoed by the US), is not unethical. Admittedly, you don't know where the supplies go, but it is not like the French are shipping them Mirages for oil.

But you are saying that French oppose military action in Iraq because they stand to lose financially, right? I reckon they would get a lot more cash when a new government is in place and all those building and defense contracts are going to handed around. I think the French government genuinely has an ethical problem with tackling Iraq.

I personally thought at the time (though i was only 14) that the Americans should've finished the job in Gulf war 1. Now it looks like it will take GW2 to get him out. Good riddance, I say.