Whatever is wrong with #1: Old Europe

[Traianvs]

Eh, I am actually not that up to date on this stuff (I don't have a TV, and the paper I can't access every day..)

But on the entrance of eastern Europeans in the EU I would say he shouldn't veto... it would solve many problems if they joined up in my opinion

also, he should have a good nice valid reason to veto
You can't just veto because it thwarts your personal plans..

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Has this person heard of Jacques Chirac?

Chirac can't be worse than Blair, let alone Dubya.

As for Eastern Europe countries - they are looking at Turkey right now.

[Solly]

But on the entrance of eastern Europeans in the EU I would say he shouldn't veto... it would solve many problems if they joined up in my opinion

also, he should have a good nice valid reason to veto
You can't just veto because it thwarts your personal plans..

Well Chirac was threatening to use the veto as those countries agree with the US' rational policy rather than his irrational one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Well Chirac was threatening to use the veto as those countries agree with the US' rational policy rather than his irrational one.

How is the US policy more rational Nimrod?

[Solly]

At last week's EU summit in Brussels, he savaged 13 eastern European governments for supporting the United States over Iraq.

He called their behaviour "childish, reckless and dangerous", and warned Romania and Bulgaria they had damaged their chances of joining the EU in 2007.

His ministers have even hinted that France might block the Accession Treaty for 10 new EU members that is due to be signed in April.

Last week, Mr Chirac welcomed Zimbabwe's autocratic leader, Robert Mugabe, to a conference in Paris, after winning an exemption from the EU's sanctions policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2793297.stm

[Urban Ranger]

That is more irrational than planning to attack Iraq but not Saudi Arabia and Israel? How?

[Solly]

Answer your own questions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Answer your own questions.

Why would I do such a thing when you are the one who's making that bald assertion?

[Solly]

bald assertion

[Urban Ranger]

Evidently, you have yet to make an argument to back yourself up.

[Solly]

And you have already?

[Urban Ranger]

Boddie, do pay attention.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why would I do such a thing when you are the one who's making that bald assertion?

[Solly]

[Kramerman]

Re: Whatever is wrong with #1: Old Europe

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
What's the problem here? Surely Rumsfeld has a decent point.

We're the continent that has been war-torn for centuries, have experienced some of the worst atrocities seen by man and we're now venerable and wise, having learnt that fighting is not the answer and able to behave in a dignified, civilised manner.

Meanwhile, you're the young foolish upstarts who've yet to have your character built up by experience and brusquely brushing aside all reason to pursue your desires.

No problem with that description at all!

O...M...G...

can you seriously say this with a straight face???

I mean, i would agree with you 100% if the whole world was as 'civilized' as yourselves. But practically none of the world is! As long as there are people out there like Kim, Saddam, etc, military action for protection is a must! how can you be 'diplomatic' and negotiate s**t with a lunatic that has a gun, and you dont? you cant! your f**ked...

The fact that yall have seen the effects of diplomatic appeasement, even if on a different scale, it matters not. Yall should know the world is not a safe place, and 'civilization' needs big guns now, and we'll need them until the world is only made of stable democracies.

[Japher]

We're the continent that has been war-torn for centuries, have experienced some of the worst atrocities seen by man and we're now venerable and wise, having learnt that fighting is not the answer and able to behave in a dignified, civilised manner.

They're also a continent that has their own personal agendas that has nothing to do with the US's national security, nor does it take them into consideration. Looking out for numero uno is a must, and it is nice to see that even the Europeans still know how to do this.

I also agree that the ages of man cannot be carried over so easy from generation to generation. The history of the Europeans is one long war, of course, but how can we say they have learned from it? What proof is there? Maybe the centuries of this violent continent has finally made them come to, yet I will not say for certain. What is to say that the Imperialism that was so perfect by these states is still not as strong within their bloodlines as it was in days of yore? There is a reason why these countries have been war torn for centuries, and it is the same reason that they will be war torn for centuries to come; it is their nature.

Meanwhile, you're the young foolish upstarts who've yet to have your character built up by experience and brusquely brushing aside all reason to pursue your desires.

How long does it take to build character? If one never goes to war will they never receive it as the comment seems to suggest? I am sure Europe feels this way about the US, and probably always will, since they had a few thousand year head start in blowing each other up. Now there's someone I want to listen to! (<- sarcasm).