Leaving aside the bizarre argument that increasing cctv usage in the UK means we are destined for a war with Europe, or that the ongoing rivalry between the Flemish and the Wallons that has been happening for centuries, will suddenly lead to all out war unless we have a stronger European parliament, all of the things you mentioned happened and continue to happen at the same time as closer ties develop between European countries. How do you explain that?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Leaving aside the bizarre argument that increasing cctv usage in the UK means we are destined for a war with Europe, or that the ongoing rivalry between the Flemish and the Wallons that has been happening for centuries, will suddenly lead to all out war unless we have a stronger European parliament, all of the things you mentioned happened and continue to happen at the same time as closer ties develop between European countries. How do you explain that? [/QUOTE]
CCTV is part of governments trying to keep a closer hold on their people; that is happening everywhere, and is a process started in the Cold War. Flemish and Wallon rivalry hasn't been around for 'centuries' unless you mean the informal kind that exists between, for instance, New Yorkers and Californians. The actual hate of one another is a development from, again, the Cold War era, which was also the time Wallonian industry collapsed. I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.
CCTV is part of governments trying to keep a closer hold on their people; that is happening everywhere, and is a process started in the Cold War. Flemish and Wallon rivalry hasn't been around for 'centuries' unless you mean the informal kind that exists between, for instance, New Yorkers and Californians. The actual hate of one another is a development from, again, the Cold War era, which was also the time Wallonian industry collapsed. I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.
*afraid of entering the discussion*
Wouldn't it be the case of struggling for improving the E.U instead of weakening it? If some authorities are not accountable enough or if the people have a little say in the decision-making, people could rally around a proposal to make the system more responsive to the people through institutions like, I don't know, the European Parliament!? Just a thought.
Because, well, I don't know what would be the alternative to the E.U, but European history has been so bloody and full of hatred and wars and stuff, that it may be a good idea to improve and enhance institutions which could over time, it'd take a bit long, accostume people to, and help the new generations identify with, the tought of "being European", of belonging to a commonwealth which all are equally responsible for and could contribute to in order to achieve some common goals, peace being one of them!
The E.U is still "young", isn't it? Well, maybe it needs some time to be improved as an institution, much like any other successful institution.
I don't know, I think the idea of an E.U is cute. That's the bottom line. :op
Does the cuteness of an idea have some bearing on the debate!? :o) Because it's one of those ideas I feel like huging, if only it had a body!
Well...better stop before being charged with doing ilegal drugs, which I don't.
Wouldn't it be the case of struggling for improving the E.U instead of weakening it? If some authorities are not accountable enough or if the people have a little say in the decision-making, people could rally around a proposal to make the system more responsive to the people through institutions like, I don't know, the European Parliament!? Just a thought.
Because, well, I don't know what would be the alternative to the E.U, but European history has been so bloody and full of hatred and wars and stuff, that it may be a good idea to improve and enhance institutions which could over time, it'd take a bit long, accostume people to, and help the new generations identify with, the tought of "being European", of belonging to a commonwealth which all are equally responsible for and could contribute to in order to achieve some common goals, peace being one of them!
The E.U is still "young", isn't it? Well, maybe it needs some time to be improved as an institution, much like any other successful institution.
I don't know, I think the idea of an E.U is cute. That's the bottom line. :op
Does the cuteness of an idea have some bearing on the debate!? :o) Because it's one of those ideas I feel like huging, if only it had a body!
Well...better stop before being charged with doing ilegal drugs, which I don't.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Leaving aside the bizarre argument that increasing cctv usage in the UK means we are destined for a war with Europe, or that the ongoing rivalry between the Flemish and the Wallons that has been happening for centuries, will suddenly lead to all out war unless we have a stronger European parliament, all of the things you mentioned happened and continue to happen at the same time as closer ties develop between European countries. How do you explain that? [/QUOTE]
CCTV is part of governments trying to keep a closer hold on their people; that is happening everywhere, and is a process started in the Cold War. Flemish and Wallon rivalry hasn't been around for 'centuries' unless you mean the informal kind that exists between, for instance, New Yorkers and Californians. The actual hate of one another is a development from, again, the Cold War era, which was also the time Wallonian industry collapsed. I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Mandates for what? What type of policies? You have not explained why any of these problems is due to there not being enough cooperation between European states or the European parliament not being strong enough. We have basically had peace in the EU since 1945 and in many ways life has improved considerably. You however, paint a picture of doom and gloom that really doesn't affect the way the majority of Europeans live their lives. There is simply no evidence that if we just maintain the status quo then war in inevitable. On the contrary, one could argue that the democracy gap in the EU and the increasing feeling of powerlessness that many people have over control of their own futures is what is leading to many of the problems you mentioned. Whether that's true or not is debatable but it's at least as feasable as your assertions about forthcoming wars being due to current levels of devolved power in Europe.
CCTV is part of governments trying to keep a closer hold on their people; that is happening everywhere, and is a process started in the Cold War. Flemish and Wallon rivalry hasn't been around for 'centuries' unless you mean the informal kind that exists between, for instance, New Yorkers and Californians. The actual hate of one another is a development from, again, the Cold War era, which was also the time Wallonian industry collapsed. I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Mandates for what? What type of policies? You have not explained why any of these problems is due to there not being enough cooperation between European states or the European parliament not being strong enough. We have basically had peace in the EU since 1945 and in many ways life has improved considerably. You however, paint a picture of doom and gloom that really doesn't affect the way the majority of Europeans live their lives. There is simply no evidence that if we just maintain the status quo then war in inevitable. On the contrary, one could argue that the democracy gap in the EU and the increasing feeling of powerlessness that many people have over control of their own futures is what is leading to many of the problems you mentioned. Whether that's true or not is debatable but it's at least as feasable as your assertions about forthcoming wars being due to current levels of devolved power in Europe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not.
So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do?
Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage.
So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises.
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not.
So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do?
Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage.
So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
...
I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but now you lost me completely. Are we even living on the same continent? "Ethnic cleansing" has happened in the former Yugoslavia which is not in the EU. Independence movements like the Basques or Catalanes fight against their national central administration, not the EU. There has not been an increase of ultra nationalists in my country, on the contrary, they lost completely in the last 10 years. The reason for increase of nationalistic ideas in the last 20 years was the neglected immigration issue and the reason for xenophobia is the terror hysteria after 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks - none of them has anything to do with power delegated from nations to the EU.
Also, speculation about what happens if certain developments do NOT happen is not a scientific method, it's just speculation.
...
I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but now you lost me completely. Are we even living on the same continent? "Ethnic cleansing" has happened in the former Yugoslavia which is not in the EU. Independence movements like the Basques or Catalanes fight against their national central administration, not the EU. There has not been an increase of ultra nationalists in my country, on the contrary, they lost completely in the last 10 years. The reason for increase of nationalistic ideas in the last 20 years was the neglected immigration issue and the reason for xenophobia is the terror hysteria after 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks - none of them has anything to do with power delegated from nations to the EU.
Also, speculation about what happens if certain developments do NOT happen is not a scientific method, it's just speculation.
Microwave, are you still operating under the impression that the US is a moral authority in the world? Cause, I hate to tell you this, but we lost that a LONG time ago. I, for one, get a kick out of watching the US ambassador to the UN trying to dance around the issue, saying that "The time for taking over countries and replacing their leaders IN EUROPE" is done; because you know very well he can't take the IN EUROPE part out. We just did the same thing. Not to mention Gitmo, Abu Gharib, extraordinary rendition etc etc etc that we also apparently don't do. Now I'm not saying we are any worse than any other country out there and I'm not trying to bash us, I'm simply pointing out that we lost our position of moral authority a while ago (if indeed we ever had it in the first place, which can be argued).
As heartless as this is going to sound...the girls who were raped and murdered in this case are not important to this story. Their importance ended with the conviction and sentence of the criminal. This story is about whether the US violated international law (and common international courtesy) by executing him. What crime he committed is irrelevant. The plain truth is that you executed someone who was not given access to his government, a violation of international law. (of course by international law executing him at all in any case is illegal, but that's another issue) Don't you remember the ruckus and hell that was raised here in the US when that kid went over to Singapore and got sentenced to caning for spray painting? All of the sputtering and "How DARE they do that to an American?" that went on...just over a caning! What were we angry over? That the kid wasn't given the rights and access to the help the government should have given him and he was sentenced to something that we considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the exact same thing here, only in reverse. This guy got sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment (in international definition) and wasn't given all avenues of access to his government to assist. That is the issue.
I believe that this guy was a despicable human being and the crimes he committed were atrocities. It is truly heartbreaking for the families of the victims, you are right about that. But executing him isn't going to bring the girls back and it isn't going to make the pain of losing them go away. The families and loved ones will still have to deal with the heart ache of their deaths, whether or not their killer is dead. Not to mention, having the death penalty is an inherant hypocrisy. Society decided that to take another person's life for any purpose is murder, and murder is illegal (and yes, that includes self defense because self defense is legally classified as 'justifiable homicide'; so you aren't punished, but you still are guilty of homicide AKA murder). We create a police force to enforce the law that taking another human life is illegal; we create courts to try accusations of it. And then, when you are found guilty, the court takes your life. Ummm...is anyone else sensing a problem with this picture? The court took a human life...same damn thing we call murder in any other circumstance. But somehow, because it's a court saying it's OK, then it's not murder. You take a life=murder...that's the definition. Circumstances don't matter (thus the degrees of murder and classifications of it in legal code). So please, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a giant hypocrisy?
As heartless as this is going to sound...the girls who were raped and murdered in this case are not important to this story. Their importance ended with the conviction and sentence of the criminal. This story is about whether the US violated international law (and common international courtesy) by executing him. What crime he committed is irrelevant. The plain truth is that you executed someone who was not given access to his government, a violation of international law. (of course by international law executing him at all in any case is illegal, but that's another issue) Don't you remember the ruckus and hell that was raised here in the US when that kid went over to Singapore and got sentenced to caning for spray painting? All of the sputtering and "How DARE they do that to an American?" that went on...just over a caning! What were we angry over? That the kid wasn't given the rights and access to the help the government should have given him and he was sentenced to something that we considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the exact same thing here, only in reverse. This guy got sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment (in international definition) and wasn't given all avenues of access to his government to assist. That is the issue.
I believe that this guy was a despicable human being and the crimes he committed were atrocities. It is truly heartbreaking for the families of the victims, you are right about that. But executing him isn't going to bring the girls back and it isn't going to make the pain of losing them go away. The families and loved ones will still have to deal with the heart ache of their deaths, whether or not their killer is dead. Not to mention, having the death penalty is an inherant hypocrisy. Society decided that to take another person's life for any purpose is murder, and murder is illegal (and yes, that includes self defense because self defense is legally classified as 'justifiable homicide'; so you aren't punished, but you still are guilty of homicide AKA murder). We create a police force to enforce the law that taking another human life is illegal; we create courts to try accusations of it. And then, when you are found guilty, the court takes your life. Ummm...is anyone else sensing a problem with this picture? The court took a human life...same damn thing we call murder in any other circumstance. But somehow, because it's a court saying it's OK, then it's not murder. You take a life=murder...that's the definition. Circumstances don't matter (thus the degrees of murder and classifications of it in legal code). So please, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a giant hypocrisy?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Don't you remember the ruckus and hell that was raised here in the US when that kid went over to Singapore and got sentenced to caning for spray painting? All of the sputtering and "How DARE they do that to an American?" that went on...just over a caning! What were we angry over? That the kid wasn't given the rights and access to the help the government should have given him and he was sentenced to something that we considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the exact same thing here, only in reverse. This guy got sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment (in international definition) and wasn't given all avenues of access to his government to assist.
[/QUOTE]
Without getting into the debate (since Holly and YV seem to be doing a bang-up job), one point should be noted. The man in question came to the US when he was 3. It is not fair to equate someone who grew up within the bounds of the US and still commits a heinous crime, with someone who visits a foreign country and screws up.
Don't you remember the ruckus and hell that was raised here in the US when that kid went over to Singapore and got sentenced to caning for spray painting? All of the sputtering and "How DARE they do that to an American?" that went on...just over a caning! What were we angry over? That the kid wasn't given the rights and access to the help the government should have given him and he was sentenced to something that we considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the exact same thing here, only in reverse. This guy got sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment (in international definition) and wasn't given all avenues of access to his government to assist.
[/QUOTE]
Without getting into the debate (since Holly and YV seem to be doing a bang-up job), one point should be noted. The man in question came to the US when he was 3. It is not fair to equate someone who grew up within the bounds of the US and still commits a heinous crime, with someone who visits a foreign country and screws up.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Not to mention, having the death penalty is an inherant hypocrisy. Society decided that to take another person's life for any purpose is murder, and murder is illegal (and yes, that includes self defense because self defense is legally classified as 'justifiable homicide'; so you aren't punished, but you still are guilty of homicide AKA murder). We create a police force to enforce the law that taking another human life is illegal; we create courts to try accusations of it. And then, when you are found guilty, the court takes your life. Ummm...is anyone else sensing a problem with this picture? The court took a human life...same damn thing we call murder in any other circumstance. But somehow, because it's a court saying it's OK, then it's not murder. You take a life=murder...that's the definition. Circumstances don't matter (thus the degrees of murder and classifications of it in legal code). So please, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a giant hypocrisy? [/QUOTE]
It's not a hypocrisy because circumstances DO matter. That's why there is no punishment for justifiable homicide. That's why there are varying degrees of homicide, with varying degrees of punishment.
By definition, "murder" is UNLAWFUL and with MALICE. Capital punishment is neither of these.
As I mentioned before, certain rights are forfeited when one is convicted of a crime. Property rights can be forfeited in the form of fines. Rights to liberty can be forfeited in the form of incarceration. Comparing the death penalty to murder is like comparing these to theft and kidnapping, respectively.
Once again, I am against the death penalty, but there are far better arguments than "killing killers is hypocritical," which is a heavily flawed argument.
Not to mention, having the death penalty is an inherant hypocrisy. Society decided that to take another person's life for any purpose is murder, and murder is illegal (and yes, that includes self defense because self defense is legally classified as 'justifiable homicide'; so you aren't punished, but you still are guilty of homicide AKA murder). We create a police force to enforce the law that taking another human life is illegal; we create courts to try accusations of it. And then, when you are found guilty, the court takes your life. Ummm...is anyone else sensing a problem with this picture? The court took a human life...same damn thing we call murder in any other circumstance. But somehow, because it's a court saying it's OK, then it's not murder. You take a life=murder...that's the definition. Circumstances don't matter (thus the degrees of murder and classifications of it in legal code). So please, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a giant hypocrisy? [/QUOTE]
It's not a hypocrisy because circumstances DO matter. That's why there is no punishment for justifiable homicide. That's why there are varying degrees of homicide, with varying degrees of punishment.
By definition, "murder" is UNLAWFUL and with MALICE. Capital punishment is neither of these.
As I mentioned before, certain rights are forfeited when one is convicted of a crime. Property rights can be forfeited in the form of fines. Rights to liberty can be forfeited in the form of incarceration. Comparing the death penalty to murder is like comparing these to theft and kidnapping, respectively.
Once again, I am against the death penalty, but there are far better arguments than "killing killers is hypocritical," which is a heavily flawed argument.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
...
I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but now you lost me completely. Are we even living on the same continent? "Ethnic cleansing" has happened in the former Yugoslavia which is not in the EU. Independence movements like the Basques or Catalanes fight against their national central administration, not the EU. There has not been an increase of ultra nationalists in my country, on the contrary, they lost completely in the last 10 years. The reason for increase of nationalistic ideas in the last 20 years was the neglected immigration issue and the reason for xenophobia is the terror hysteria after 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks - none of them has anything to do with power delegated from nations to the EU.
Also, speculation about what happens if certain developments do NOT happen is not a scientific method, it's just speculation.[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of what ultra nationalist parties WANT to do, not what they have done already. And I'd say that forced deportation of everyone with non-Western parentage qualifies as ethnic cleansing.
May I remind you that in the Rhineland, the number of hate crimes has almost doubled since 2000 (2007 numbers, published last March in a large number of papers; I got my info from the Dutch NOS article on it)?
As for separatists fighting their national governments...the EU is a conglomerate of sovereign nations, ergo attacking part is attacking the whole.
Your visions on the rise xenophobia and nationalism are short-sighted; you can't blame structural problems on short-term events.
...
I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but now you lost me completely. Are we even living on the same continent? "Ethnic cleansing" has happened in the former Yugoslavia which is not in the EU. Independence movements like the Basques or Catalanes fight against their national central administration, not the EU. There has not been an increase of ultra nationalists in my country, on the contrary, they lost completely in the last 10 years. The reason for increase of nationalistic ideas in the last 20 years was the neglected immigration issue and the reason for xenophobia is the terror hysteria after 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks - none of them has anything to do with power delegated from nations to the EU.
Also, speculation about what happens if certain developments do NOT happen is not a scientific method, it's just speculation.[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of what ultra nationalist parties WANT to do, not what they have done already. And I'd say that forced deportation of everyone with non-Western parentage qualifies as ethnic cleansing.
May I remind you that in the Rhineland, the number of hate crimes has almost doubled since 2000 (2007 numbers, published last March in a large number of papers; I got my info from the Dutch NOS article on it)?
As for separatists fighting their national governments...the EU is a conglomerate of sovereign nations, ergo attacking part is attacking the whole.
Your visions on the rise xenophobia and nationalism are short-sighted; you can't blame structural problems on short-term events.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not.[/QUOTE]
Your country is one of the few not to recognize it.
[QUOTE]So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do?[/QUOTE]
I for one am going to ignore this argument, as it is flat out stupid.
[QUOTE]Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage.[/QUOTE]
Your obsession with the economy is starting to affect your brain.
[QUOTE]So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises. [/QUOTE]
You might not have noticed, but no country with even an inkling of legitimate government has asked the US for help for ages. The US imposes it, then finds some group who likes them, places them in power, then has them tell the public how they retrospectively would like to ask the US to have come already.
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not.[/QUOTE]
Your country is one of the few not to recognize it.
[QUOTE]So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do?[/QUOTE]
I for one am going to ignore this argument, as it is flat out stupid.
[QUOTE]Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage.[/QUOTE]
Your obsession with the economy is starting to affect your brain.
[QUOTE]So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises. [/QUOTE]
You might not have noticed, but no country with even an inkling of legitimate government has asked the US for help for ages. The US imposes it, then finds some group who likes them, places them in power, then has them tell the public how they retrospectively would like to ask the US to have come already.
And Micrówave:
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And Micrówave:
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.[/QUOTE]
But, but.....it makes making your life difficult all the more fun :o
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.[/QUOTE]
But, but.....it makes making your life difficult all the more fun :o
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]*afraid of entering the discussion*
Wouldn't it be the case of struggling for improving the E.U instead of weakening it? If some authorities are not accountable enough or if the people have a little say in the decision-making, people could rally around a proposal to make the system more responsive to the people through institutions like, I don't know, the European Parliament!? Just a thought.[/QUOTE]
There are currently three currents in European politics regarding the EU:
*Liberals and progressive left: tend to support it, but have an ever-shrinking power base, and for some reason cannot phrase the subject in terms appealing to the public
*Nationalists and Ultra-Nationalists (including orthodox socialist parties): they violently oppose it, and frequently employ lies and distortions to convince people that the EU is evil (up to and including branding it a large plot by Freemasons to take over the world). Sadly, many people, especially those who did not have much of an education, believe these people
*Moderates: a very small portion of them hesitantly support the EU, most are moderately opposed, and thus indirectly help the nationalists, because these moderates seem to expect a fully functioning EU to rise from thin air, without any flaws and errors in the first years. They spot a small fault, they jump ship.
Because people fall en masse for the nationalists, they don't want to improve the EU "because it doesn't work", which is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
[QUOTE]Because, well, I don't know what would be the alternative to the E.U, but European history has been so bloody and full of hatred and wars and stuff, that it may be a good idea to improve and enhance institutions which could over time, it'd take a bit long, accostume people to, and help the new generations identify with, the tought of "being European", of belonging to a commonwealth which all are equally responsible for and could contribute to in order to achieve some common goals, peace being one of them![/QUOTE]
The future is never certain, but in European history, the relationships between countries have mostly been binary: either close cooperation, or war (with cooling-down periods in between wars to rebuild strength).
[QUOTE]The E.U is still "young", isn't it? Well, maybe it needs some time to be improved as an institution, much like any other successful institution. [/QUOTE]
I completely agree, but people with opinions similar to YV and Holly block this out of unjustified fear. I don't know why, but they seem to feel safer with nationalists.
[QUOTE]I don't know, I think the idea of an E.U is cute. That's the bottom line. :op
Does the cuteness of an idea have some bearing on the debate!? :o) Because it's one of those ideas I feel like huging, if only it had a body!
Well...better stop before being charged with doing ilegal drugs, which I don't. [/QUOTE]
I don't consider the EU huggable, mainly because I don't feel physically attracted to political bodies, but that is probably a matter of personal taste...
Wouldn't it be the case of struggling for improving the E.U instead of weakening it? If some authorities are not accountable enough or if the people have a little say in the decision-making, people could rally around a proposal to make the system more responsive to the people through institutions like, I don't know, the European Parliament!? Just a thought.[/QUOTE]
There are currently three currents in European politics regarding the EU:
*Liberals and progressive left: tend to support it, but have an ever-shrinking power base, and for some reason cannot phrase the subject in terms appealing to the public
*Nationalists and Ultra-Nationalists (including orthodox socialist parties): they violently oppose it, and frequently employ lies and distortions to convince people that the EU is evil (up to and including branding it a large plot by Freemasons to take over the world). Sadly, many people, especially those who did not have much of an education, believe these people
*Moderates: a very small portion of them hesitantly support the EU, most are moderately opposed, and thus indirectly help the nationalists, because these moderates seem to expect a fully functioning EU to rise from thin air, without any flaws and errors in the first years. They spot a small fault, they jump ship.
Because people fall en masse for the nationalists, they don't want to improve the EU "because it doesn't work", which is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
[QUOTE]Because, well, I don't know what would be the alternative to the E.U, but European history has been so bloody and full of hatred and wars and stuff, that it may be a good idea to improve and enhance institutions which could over time, it'd take a bit long, accostume people to, and help the new generations identify with, the tought of "being European", of belonging to a commonwealth which all are equally responsible for and could contribute to in order to achieve some common goals, peace being one of them![/QUOTE]
The future is never certain, but in European history, the relationships between countries have mostly been binary: either close cooperation, or war (with cooling-down periods in between wars to rebuild strength).
[QUOTE]The E.U is still "young", isn't it? Well, maybe it needs some time to be improved as an institution, much like any other successful institution. [/QUOTE]
I completely agree, but people with opinions similar to YV and Holly block this out of unjustified fear. I don't know why, but they seem to feel safer with nationalists.
[QUOTE]I don't know, I think the idea of an E.U is cute. That's the bottom line. :op
Does the cuteness of an idea have some bearing on the debate!? :o) Because it's one of those ideas I feel like huging, if only it had a body!
Well...better stop before being charged with doing ilegal drugs, which I don't. [/QUOTE]
I don't consider the EU huggable, mainly because I don't feel physically attracted to political bodies, but that is probably a matter of personal taste...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inu-liger wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And Micrówave:
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.[/QUOTE]
But, but.....it makes making your life difficult all the more fun :o[/QUOTE]
My life is not yet so empty that I look forward to changing Micrówave's name for my leisure.
Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.[/QUOTE]
But, but.....it makes making your life difficult all the more fun :o[/QUOTE]
My life is not yet so empty that I look forward to changing Micrówave's name for my leisure.