I agree. You have to take the rough with the smooth though. Membership of the EU helped us into this position of prosperity and membership could very well lead to a downturn. You can't have all of the good and none of the bad. We accept that.lowing wrote:
I think you are right, your country would be the exception, not the rule in Europe. I hope some less fortunate EU country doesn't decide to come and take it from you, though. Your economies are tied together, what happens to one of you will domino into the others. Remember, the U in EU stands for Union.
and Europe is poised to blame America for it, when the downturn happens.CameronPoe wrote:
I agree. You have to take the rough with the smooth though. Membership of the EU helped us into this position of prosperity and membership could very well lead to a downturn. You can't have all of the good and none of the bad. We accept that.lowing wrote:
I think you are right, your country would be the exception, not the rule in Europe. I hope some less fortunate EU country doesn't decide to come and take it from you, though. Your economies are tied together, what happens to one of you will domino into the others. Remember, the U in EU stands for Union.
Why? And what difference does it make who is to blame? Economies ebb and flow - there is never going to be perpetual growth - and no-one is to blame for that.lowing wrote:
and Europe is poised to blame America for it, when the downturn happens.CameronPoe wrote:
I agree. You have to take the rough with the smooth though. Membership of the EU helped us into this position of prosperity and membership could very well lead to a downturn. You can't have all of the good and none of the bad. We accept that.lowing wrote:
I think you are right, your country would be the exception, not the rule in Europe. I hope some less fortunate EU country doesn't decide to come and take it from you, though. Your economies are tied together, what happens to one of you will domino into the others. Remember, the U in EU stands for Union.
We'll just have to wait and see on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Why? And what difference does it make who is to blame? Economies ebb and flow - there is never going to be perpetual growth - and no-one is to blame for that.lowing wrote:
and Europe is poised to blame America for it, when the downturn happens.CameronPoe wrote:
I agree. You have to take the rough with the smooth though. Membership of the EU helped us into this position of prosperity and membership could very well lead to a downturn. You can't have all of the good and none of the bad. We accept that.
Europe is already blaming the US for all the problems in the world, would be easy to tack yours onto it.
???lowing wrote:
We'll just have to wait and see on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Why? And what difference does it make who is to blame? Economies ebb and flow - there is never going to be perpetual growth - and no-one is to blame for that.lowing wrote:
and Europe is poised to blame America for it, when the downturn happens.
Europe is already blaming the US for all the problems in the world, would be easy to tack yours onto it.
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
North Korea is a threat to your national security.. what are you waiting for to invade? you can liberate a lot of poor north korean too!! LOLlowing wrote:
Ok then, the US deemed Iraqs non-compliance was a threat to national security. The rest of the world ( the UN ) also deemed Iraq a grave threat.QuadDamage@U wrote:
No, nothing bad like that. Just hundreds of thousands of people killed so far, but no "serious consequences" or rule breaking.lowing wrote:
Oh is Darfur breaking a peace treaty that brought a cease fire to war with a coalition of nations that are upholding a UN mandate that "serious consequences" will ensue if they don't comply with said treaty??
NOw, as soon as Dalfur becomes a threat to our national security, we will do something about it. Until then, IF your countries feel so strongly about it, HAVE AT IT, go in and fix it and stop waiting for the US to do something so you can bitch about it.
Funny how you try to justify ISRAEL's war.. WMD, UN, al-qaida link, freedom of the IRAQI people
North Korea is far worst than IRAQ.. but you want to talk first lol..
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sympat … policy.txtCameronPoe wrote:
???lowing wrote:
We'll just have to wait and see on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Why? And what difference does it make who is to blame? Economies ebb and flow - there is never going to be perpetual growth - and no-one is to blame for that.
Europe is already blaming the US for all the problems in the world, would be easy to tack yours onto it.
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015155.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm
yeah, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
China has NK in check. Too bad the EU is too fuckin' weak to keep their fucked up neighbors in check. The reason they are so weak is because they are too busy spending money building free houses for their lazy ass citizens I guess. So the US has got to go over and babysit.[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
North Korea is a threat to your national security.. what are you waiting for to invade? you can liberate a lot of poor north korean too!! LOLlowing wrote:
Ok then, the US deemed Iraqs non-compliance was a threat to national security. The rest of the world ( the UN ) also deemed Iraq a grave threat.QuadDamage@U wrote:
No, nothing bad like that. Just hundreds of thousands of people killed so far, but no "serious consequences" or rule breaking.
NOw, as soon as Dalfur becomes a threat to our national security, we will do something about it. Until then, IF your countries feel so strongly about it, HAVE AT IT, go in and fix it and stop waiting for the US to do something so you can bitch about it.
Funny how you try to justify ISRAEL's war.. WMD, UN, al-qaida link, freedom of the IRAQI people
North Korea is far worst than IRAQ.. but you want to talk first lol..
"European leaders have openly blamed the US for the sharp rise in the value of the euro."lowing wrote:
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sympat … policy.txtCameronPoe wrote:
???lowing wrote:
We'll just have to wait and see on that one.
Europe is already blaming the US for all the problems in the world, would be easy to tack yours onto it.
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015155.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm
yeah, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
Wtf? How can you blame them?
The economy of Europe is not the responsibility of anyone but Europeans. Why are you even listening to such whining? The common man on the ground doesn't blame the US. I'd imagine Eastern Europeans are more concerned about Russian gas shennanigans.lowing wrote:
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sympat … policy.txtCameronPoe wrote:
???lowing wrote:
We'll just have to wait and see on that one.
Europe is already blaming the US for all the problems in the world, would be easy to tack yours onto it.
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015155.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm
yeah, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
Yes we are and we hate the motherland..CameronPoe wrote:
The economy of Europe is not the responsibility of anyone but Europeans. Why are you even listening to such whining? The common man on the ground doesn't blame the US. I'd imagine Eastern Europeans are more concerned about Russian gas shennanigans.lowing wrote:
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sympat … policy.txtCameronPoe wrote:
???
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015155.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm
yeah, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
From what I gather reading on these forums, the average EU citizen does not hold the US in any better a light than the EU leaders do. Am I wrong?CameronPoe wrote:
The economy of Europe is not the responsibility of anyone but Europeans. Why are you even listening to such whining? The common man on the ground doesn't blame the US. I'd imagine Eastern Europeans are more concerned about Russian gas shennanigans.lowing wrote:
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/sympat … policy.txtCameronPoe wrote:
???
Are any European leaders emphatically stating that the USA is the direct cause of their country's economic ills? No sir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4015155.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm
yeah, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
But that has nothing to do with economic matters.lowing wrote:
From what I gather reading on these forums, the average EU citizen does not hold the US in any better a light than the EU leaders do. Am I wrong?
Hey Cameron, yer dead right about the fact that Ireland is anomolous to the rest of Europe and the way it's run, but you're a bit off on one thing. It's Ireland's investment of EU money into Ireland's way of running the economy (read: Capitalism) that has allowed Ireland runaway success in the GDP growth department. it's economy in terms of standard of living ranks very low in the EU standard (new EU members as of Jan 1 2007 excepted). Ireland is totally bucking the trend in EU ranks, as France and Germany grapple with record unemployment and poor GDP growth, Britain bucks the trend in Employment growth but GDP growth is low. As for the suggestion that the EU economy is not meant to rival the US is wrong, as the whole point of original creation of the EEC was to be a runner on the global stage of economics, which failed due to in fighting and an unwillingness to use outside sources for economic trading. Trading kept inside the confines of an economic system becomes stifling and suffocating.CameronPoe wrote:
That's bollocks. America was very much admired here until the last five years or so. I had no preconceived ideas about America when I went there for the first time in 2000. What you printed is just plainly wrong. Besides my country has no imperialistic crimes in it's past. You're generalising - what you should be saying is 'the UK and France' (if anything). The European system of government is designed in such a way that we will never be able to compete economically against USA. If we were so goddamned concerned about our strategic position we'd scrap welfare and adopt the cut-throat capitalism of USA. The fact is we don't aim to be a 'superpower', confirmed by the fact that our system of government could never really allow us to be.
You are also correct in stating that France cannot face the fact that they really are no longer a player on the world's stage of politics, and Germany is beginning to realize the same. Britain's stance on world politics has grown due to playing ball with the US on many levels (believe me Britain has made as many muck ups as any other nation, including European and the US), and the US has rewarded their loyalty with being able to call shots in decision making and also to be invloved in economic rewards. Europe's system of government (basic socialism) was always meant to rival the US to show that their system was better then the US's. They never counted on it blowing up in their faces as much as it has.
As for the US being admired in 2000, is a bunch of BS. I was in the UK during the 2000 elections, and the amount of venom spit at the US during those elections was very plain. Furthermore, in regards to 9/11, the plans to strike were made well before the election waws even decided, and a large amount of terrorist strikes and the like were made during Clinton's reign. After the end of the cold war, there was a large vacuum on the world's stage, and those who weer involved in wanting to make an islam state (the Caliphate) saw their chance, and struck at the world's biggest power base. They knew that the US public does not like to see their own army take casulaties (vietnam, Somalia, ) decided that taking on a major superpower and showing that they could win (especially fighting in Afghanistan, their chances were good, as they fought off the USSR for many years), would motivate the people who also wanted to see a Caliphate. Either way, due to power hungry individuals, the US has always been hated. Either through JEalousy, wanting power of their own, or simple greed.
I have a couple of points. The standard of living/quality of life in Ireland is one of the highest in the world, I don't get where you got the notion of us having a poor standard of living from. It's irrelevent anyway.jarhedch wrote:
Hey Cameron, yer dead right about the fact that Ireland is anomolous to the rest of Europe and the way it's run, but you're a bit off on one thing. It's Ireland's investment of EU money into Ireland's way of running the economy (read: Capitalism) that has allowed Ireland runaway success in the GDP growth department. it's economy in terms of standard of living ranks very low in the EU standard (new EU members as of Jan 1 2007 excepted). Ireland is totally bucking the trend in EU ranks, as France and Germany grapple with record unemployment and poor GDP growth, Britain bucks the trend in Employment growth but GDP growth is low. As for the suggestion that the EU economy is not meant to rival the US is wrong, as the whole point of original creation of the EEC was to be a runner on the global stage of economics, which failed due to in fighting and an unwillingness to use outside sources for economic trading. Trading kept inside the confines of an economic system becomes stifling and suffocating.
You are also correct in stating that France cannot face the fact that they really are no longer a player on the world's stage of politics, and Germany is beginning to realize the same. Britain's stance on world politics has grown due to playing ball with the US on many levels (believe me Britain has made as many muck ups as any other nation, including European and the US), and the US has rewarded their loyalty with being able to call shots in decision making and also to be invloved in economic rewards. Europe's system of government (basic socialism) was always meant to rival the US to show that their system was better then the US's. They never counted on it blowing up in their faces as much as it has.
As for the US being admired in 2000, is a bunch of BS. I was in the UK during the 2000 elections, and the amount of venom spit at the US during those elections was very plain. Furthermore, in regards to 9/11, the plans to strike were made well before the election waws even decided, and a large amount of terrorist strikes and the like were made during Clinton's reign. After the end of the cold war, there was a large vacuum on the world's stage, and those who weer involved in wanting to make an islam state (the Caliphate) saw their chance, and struck at the world's biggest power base. They knew that the US public does not like to see their own army take casulaties (vietnam, Somalia, ) decided that taking on a major superpower and showing that they could win (especially fighting in Afghanistan, their chances were good, as they fought off the USSR for many years), would motivate the people who also wanted to see a Caliphate. Either way, due to power hungry individuals, the US has always been hated. Either through JEalousy, wanting power of their own, or simple greed.
You state that "Europe's system of government (basic socialism) was always meant to rival the US to show that their system was better then the US's." You aren't giving the measure of success here. If you were to talk of quality of life/standard of living/the poverty gap then Europe is best and if you were to talk of purely economic success then USA is best. It all depends on how you measure success.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-06 08:01:10)
Sucess is when there are coca-cola factories and McDonald´s in all countries of the world.
I wouldn't say the US are doing better from a purely economic view. The dollar is weak, national debt is skyrocketing and public expenditure is more than the nation can afford. The Euro on the other hand, is going from strength to strength.CameronPoe wrote:
I have a couple of points. The standard of living/quality of life in Ireland is one of the highest in the world, I don't get where you got the notion of us having a poor standard of living from. It's irrelevent anyway.
You state that "Europe's system of government (basic socialism) was always meant to rival the US to show that their system was better then the US's." You aren't giving the measure of success here. If you were to talk of quality of life/standard of living/the poverty gap then Europe is best and if you were to talk of purely economic success then USA is best. It all depends on how you measure success.
As for standard of living, Ireland come top in the world on standard of living, with the US in 13th place and 10 of the top 12 countries (the other 2 being Australia and Singapore) for standard of living in Europe (according to the Economist 2006).
Please tell me this is all satire. I can't believe any of this.Blehm98 wrote:
well, it all depends if you call WWII, the Cold War, Korean war, and Vietnam wars possible threats to humanity. I do, as all those wars were faught against one enemy who could have destroyed all of europe with ease. If it weren't for the US, none of those wars would ahve been won, and all the thanks we have recieved from europe is a bit from some of the brits and nothing but whining and complaining from everyone else. No matter what america chooses to do, we get screwed, because the world is in a dark age, and the best choices for the world to make right now are not the bad choices and the good choices, more a careful consideration of the bad things the choices will bring and going with that.Drakef wrote:
What has Europe done that is truly so terrible?Blehm98 wrote:
I say next time something really big threatens europe we tell tell them 'tough luck, better luck next time, we decided we won't help out when you guys really need us becuase of the lack of gratitude for our actions... so yeah'
we have saved the world many times, and sometimes it was very preemptive. I say we let europe get shredded by some global threat then we find some stupid excuse not to help them. Then when britain is all thats left we come back and save the world
oh wait, that was world war two... just we didnt have a stupid excuse, it was fairly good
"Many times"? "Very preemptive"? I'd love to read this history I have yet to hear of.
I do consider the Iraq war a preemptive strike against terrorism and a possible threat as well, due to Saddam's obvious attempts to get chemical and nuclear weapons, regardless of whether or not you believe he had them
Way too simplistic. The Americans were fighting because they were denied their deserved rights as British subjects. The insurgents are fighting in Iraq for the right to set up either another Baathist regime or a restrictive Sharia-based government. Sure, they're fighting to get rid of an invading force, but to compare the government set up after the American Revolution to any government that would come out of Iraq without our influence is idiotic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
The irony is painful. I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.
So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil). They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat. So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.
Now we fast forward to today. Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.
It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.
Yeah, our plutocracy is truly something to marvel at.UGADawgs wrote:
Way too simplistic. The Americans were fighting because they were denied their deserved rights as British subjects. The insurgents are fighting in Iraq for the right to set up either another Baathist regime or a restrictive Sharia-based government. Sure, they're fighting to get rid of an invading force, but to compare the government set up after the American Revolution to any government that would come out of Iraq without our influence is idiotic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
The irony is painful. I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.
So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil). They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat. So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.
Now we fast forward to today. Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.
It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.
Better than stoning women in a pit for adultery or cutting off the hands of theives. I don't care if you don't like America, but you have to be pretty dense to believe that a representative democracy is inferior to a religious state or totalitarian dictatorship.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Yeah, our plutocracy is truly something to marvel at.UGADawgs wrote:
Way too simplistic. The Americans were fighting because they were denied their deserved rights as British subjects. The insurgents are fighting in Iraq for the right to set up either another Baathist regime or a restrictive Sharia-based government. Sure, they're fighting to get rid of an invading force, but to compare the government set up after the American Revolution to any government that would come out of Iraq without our influence is idiotic.CommieChipmunk wrote:
The irony is painful. I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.
So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil). They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat. So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.
Now we fast forward to today. Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.
It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.
Muslims of the Mid-east require a great devil(Guess Who) to explain why over a thousand years of effort have came to nothing in the end. All their rage and appetite for cruelty, the truth is the Muslim civilization has become ineffective. Until they can begin to take responsibility for their success or failures, accept change, the rule of law, hard work, and the rights of Women, the Mid-east will remain the worlds sick civilization. America has not failed in Iraq. You can not force success. The United States has provided them with th opportunity to repair themselves. The response is demonizing them as opposed to allowing change.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
USA => great devil, but you forgot the Little devil :> uk :pKmarion wrote:
Muslims of the Mid-east require a great devil(Guess Who) to explain why over a thousand years of effort have came to nothing in the end. All their rage and appetite for cruelty, the truth is the Muslim civilization has become ineffective. Until they can begin to take responsibility for their success or failures, accept change, the rule of law, hard work, and the rights of Women, the Mid-east will remain the worlds sick civilization. America has not failed in Iraq. You can not force success. The United States has provided them with th opportunity to repair themselves. The response is demonizing them as opposed to allowing change.
Hey I'm not saying that America is worse than the government in Iraq, I'm saying it should be better.UGADawgs wrote:
Better than stoning women in a pit for adultery or cutting off the hands of theives. I don't care if you don't like America, but you have to be pretty dense to believe that a representative democracy is inferior to a religious state or totalitarian dictatorship.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Yeah, our plutocracy is truly something to marvel at.UGADawgs wrote:
Way too simplistic. The Americans were fighting because they were denied their deserved rights as British subjects. The insurgents are fighting in Iraq for the right to set up either another Baathist regime or a restrictive Sharia-based government. Sure, they're fighting to get rid of an invading force, but to compare the government set up after the American Revolution to any government that would come out of Iraq without our influence is idiotic.
Just because many non-christian nations don´t have coca-cola,McDonalds,KFC,pizza hut and the rest of all "privilliges" from the west they are not retarded.
Many of theese nations has been the place for many wars and conflicts (crusades,forming of new states,blockades,dirty politics and soo on ) that they did not choose themselves, more "civilized" nations has brought them there....many has been colonies and moore or less robbed blank by more "civilized" nations....no wonder some of them have some cathing up to do in some places.
Many "civilized" nations doesn´t have any interest in the evolution of theese less happy nations since they would loose from it themselves.
Many of theese nations has been the place for many wars and conflicts (crusades,forming of new states,blockades,dirty politics and soo on ) that they did not choose themselves, more "civilized" nations has brought them there....many has been colonies and moore or less robbed blank by more "civilized" nations....no wonder some of them have some cathing up to do in some places.
Many "civilized" nations doesn´t have any interest in the evolution of theese less happy nations since they would loose from it themselves.