What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

I disagree.

The only points I think we agree on is support of a war in Iraq, and that the reconstruction afterwards be done with the people's best interests in mind, and not the USA's best interests.

I do not see that Saddam's removal necessitates the rise of another dictator, and in fact, I think that pains can, should, and will be taken to ensure that doesn't happen.

Further, just as there are UN peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan right now, we need a strong UN pledge to maintain a presence in Iraq to ensure the safety of that nation's people, and to ensure that democratic principles are not overrun by another power hungry warmonger.

That is doable. That is responsible.

To let the situation ride is irresponsible.

As to Saddam's bullying....I'd call gassing the Kurds evidence against your position, no? They have, after all (as you said yourself) asserted their independence.

And the threats made vs. Israel re: lobbing scuds with chemical weapons....was that not an attempt to bully? Of course, if he had an even BIGGER stick (ie - a nuke), that would make even more of an impression.

Shall we give it to him and see if you're right?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


And they do not support your claim, unless you limit them to 1996-2000.

It's common knowledge that population growth rates for all the industrial nations is declining. The same thing is happening here in Canada. If it wasn't for immigration, and the fact that first generation immigrants tend to have larger families, our population would be shrinking.

[Velociryx]

Actually, I get my "information" from you guys. Among my recent sources was an interview conducted with a British Editorialist named Peter Hitchens.....figuring that in order to get accurate information on Europe, the best place to go would be....Europe. Is that wrong-headed, somehow?

Quote from the interview with Hitchens:
One of the main purposes of the EU is to break down the nation-states into other units. The European Parliament will, if you press them, give you a map of these regions. England is divided into things called Northeast Region, Southeast Region, London Region, Eastern Region, which a lot of people don't even know they live in. There are shadow assemblies in these regions alreaady being devised. The British Parliament at Westminster will continue to exist, but its powers, both internationally and nationally, will be sucked away: its national powers will disappear to these artificial EU regions (along with the powers of our historic counties and city governments). This shift may be perfectly suited to Germany, because it was built on provinces, and today's Germans are afraid of being German. But if you happen to be a confident and successful nation, it means death."

Fascinating reading, and interesting insight into the mind of a European.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

He sounds like he works at one of the reactionary scaremongering British papers.

Here's a hint; they're about as credible as the Americans with "black helicopters" delusions...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo

But what's the point if the alternative won't be any better?

Because it will at least end this bickering between nations that are supposed to be allies. Maybe it will give us the time to develop some coherent plan for dealing with these types of regimes, instead of constantly keeping us off balance.

[Ramo]

I do not see that Saddam's removal necessitates the rise of another dictator, and in fact, I think that pains can, should, and will be taken to ensure that doesn't happen.

Consider that the adminstration has dumped Khatami as an ally altogher. It's taken an incredibly hostile stance towards Iran (considering the advances of the reformist). I find it very unlikely that it would allow free elections in an overwhelmingly Shia state which therefore may have sympathies towards Iran. Particularly if Iran starts promoting clients in Iraq (as it might have done in Afghanistan).

Further, just as there are UN peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan right now, we need a strong UN pledge to maintain a presence in Iraq to ensure the safety of that nation's people, and to ensure that democratic principles are not overrun by another power hungry warmonger.

If you consider the Afghan situation, you've got an essentially feudal society split up among warlords, "hunt terrorists" by day and rape and pillage by night, who are starting to reassert sharia and cut back on womens' rights, we don't have anywhere close to enough peacekeepers in the country.

That is doable. That is responsible.

But the question is, will it be done?

As to Saddam's bullying....I'd call gassing the Kurds evidence against your position, no? They have, after all (as you said yourself) asserted their independence.

The Kurds weren't internationally recognized. They were rebels, not independence fighters. So Saddam wasn't bullying a state, he was crushing an insurrection. Which is a vitally important distinction as far as international relations go.

And the threats made vs. Israel re: lobbing scuds with chemical weapons....was that not an attempt to bully? Of course, if he had an even BIGGER stick (ie - a nuke), that would make even more of an impression.

Only after he was invaded, and his regime's stabiltiy was at risk. This is quite a difference from threatening states with WMD's out of the blue.

[Velociryx]

Frogger: I'm sure that's the response I'll get. Bring to light the *reasons* for Europe's current "backseat" position, and we get "yeah yeah, we know, and we're working on it" and "check your facts, ignorant American"

Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans, and you get "ahhh, he's a radical who doesn't know what he's talking about....we got it under control...really."

Okay....I believe you. You got it under control, and Europe is gonna magically come roaring back onto the center of the world stage, all the while supporting low economic growth plans, a burgeoning welfare state, and negative growth rates, even after taking immigration into account.

But hey....you guys are our enlightened superiors, and if you've got it covered, I guess you've got it covered.

I just hope those paper walls are mighty thick, cos with the almost total absence of a European military that has something resembilng an ability to project its power, they had better be.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The EU is a Socialist, Beurocratic machine that is not controlled by the voters. Much of what they do, they do behind closed doors. Their officials are appointed, not elected, and they've already begun redrawing the map of the EU. The power is slowly being siphoned away from the people and into the hands of Europe's "elites"

All these accusations can easily be applied to the US as well frankly, aside from the socialist aspect. Big money has the power in your country, not the guy on the street. It's corporate donations that get someone elected, and it's special interest lobby groups that largely determine the types of issues that are dealt with by your government.

"Let he is without sin cast the first stone."

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

Holy crap, Peter Hitchens.

"The European Parliament will, if you press them, give you a map of these regions. England is divided into things called Northeast Region, Southeast Region, London Region, Eastern Region, which a lot of people don't even know they live in. There are shadow assemblies in these regions alreaady being devised. The British Parliament at Westminster will continue to exist, but its powers, both internationally and nationally, will be sucked away: its national powers will disappear to these artificial EU regions (along with the powers of our historic counties and city governments)."

That has become a popular lie among rightwing nutjobs. But those regions are drawn up by member states for the sole purpose of regional development and statistics. There is no EU power, and no single act of EU law, that would mandate a particular internal structure. It is also totally silly given the wide divergence of internal structures. Hence member states can be federalist like Germany, quasi-federal like Austria, regional like Spain, centralised like Denmark, or devolutionised like the UK.

"Fascinating reading, and interesting insight into the mind of a European."

FOX news is quality compared to this guy. Well, at least I understand now why your view of europe is so strange. Is he the only source?

About growth rates, I was thinking of GDP. For populations, immigration constributes about 0.25 percentage points to EU population growth.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Frogger: I'm sure that's the response I'll get. Bring to light the *reasons* for Europe's current "backseat" position, and we get "yeah yeah, we know, and we're working on it" and "check your facts, ignorant American"

Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans, and you get "ahhh, he's a radical who doesn't know what he's talking about....we got it under control...really."

Okay....I believe you. You got it under control, and Europe is gonna magically come roaring back onto the center of the world stage, all the while supporting low economic growth plans, a burgeoning welfare state, and negative growth rates, even after taking immigration into account.

But hey....you guys are our enlightened superiors, and if you've got it covered, I guess you've got it covered.

I just hope those paper walls are mighty thick, cos with the almost total absence of a European military that has something resembilng an ability to project its power, they had better be.

-=Vel=-

I'm not a Euro.

The thing is, Vel: the EU has virtually no power to meddle in the internal affairs of member states. THe major thing they've done so far is to restrict the deficit governments are allowed to dig themselves into, and the ones that's actually hit at are (dum dum dum) France and Germany, the supposed badasses of the EU. There's a lot of ignorance in Britain about what the EU is and does, just like there's a lot of ignorance in the US about what the UN is and does.

And the claims are eerily similar (subverting the power of sovereign states, breaking up the big countries into more easily managed provinces, etc.)

The fact is that right now, the EU council isn't really democratic. But that's not really a problem because it doesn't really have any power as yet.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo

Saddam hasn't been holding states hostage with chemical or biological weapons. Why do you think he'll be holding states hostage with nuclear weapons?

That's a rather circular argument, don't you think? Of course he's not holding states hostage, as soon as he shows that he has those types of weapons he would be invaded. You certainly can't use that as proof of his good intentions.

[HershOstropoler]

"Bring to light the fact that you're getting your information from other Europeans"

Bull****. If you get your information from the extreme fringes, you would tell me that the US is controlled by ZOG trying to take away the arms of freedomliving militia members. But you have found the classic way to avoid the facts.

But hey, I'm just researching and teaching ia EU law and politics. What would I know. I'm sure you can tell me the legal act (or is it just a conspiracy?) for the dissolution of EU member states?

[HershOstropoler]

Kitty, I'm sorry, you're not really helping here.

"The fact is that right now, the EU council isn't really democratic. But that's not really a problem because it doesn't really have any power as yet."

The main legislative process involves the Council and the Parliament as equals. The Council is about as democratic as the US senate was prior 1913. And the EU has legislative powers that are usually only found in federal states.

[KrazyHorse]

You meant back when the state legislatures elected their Senators?

Forgive me for saying so, but it wasn't democratic back then either.

[KrazyHorse]

dp