Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:52:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> Both, but only the first is really important (for the second I prefer
> cunning diplomacy).
> The difficulty in the defense of Europe against any military threat has to
> do with the almost impossibility of establishing standards for a unified
> army. Two come are obvious: WHO decides what to do, and WHICH language do we
> speak as a standard? Both can be solved *in time*, when everyone is prepared
> to drop nationalist feelings (outside of sports arenas :-)
Esperanto: that will simply annoy everyone. French: the french ears will be
offended by the corruption of their language! English: it would drive
everyone nuts trying to figure out whether they should say Lew-ten-ant or
Left-ten-ant, Kernal or Collinoll. German: ever hear impossible germanic
polysyllabic compound words? I still have nightmares about "Battle Turn
Away" in German (Lindsay will support me on this one, I bet). Spanish:
maybe, as long as you don't have to lisp because some ancient Spanish king
had a speech impediment (ooooo, are you gonna correct me so fast on this
one...). Italian: why not jetison the vulgaris and go straight to the
source...Latin: on second thought, too catholic. Greek: it's greek to me,
never mind. Russian: at least they have a phonetic alphabet but who wants
to talk like they are gargling rocks? Irish Gaelic: awright! My choice....
Okay, I think I see the problem. :-)
>
> Mind you, I'm not saying European States can't fight; I'm not even saying
> they can't win a defensive war; all I'm saying is that there would be a
> tremendous inneficience in doing so without the American assistance. The
> paradox is that the only nation who can force Europeans to have a single
> Army is not even European... :-P
That they are not thinking offensively is probably a good thing - look at
the temptations America has with the world's last big fleet.
>
> > > > However, judging by past indiscretions, they aren't to be
> > > > trusted to look after themselves,
> > >
> > > ???
> > > Do you mean anything other than the collapse of Yugoslavia? Which was, by
> > > itself, an artificial creation of WW1 not dealt with after WW2?
> >
> > I mean the whole of the 20th century. The United States was dragged into
> > two massive and terrible land wars in Europe in the preceeding century. The
> > best way to avoid things getting out of hand again is to take an active part
> > in the process.
>
> That argument has little value from the day the Iron Curtain fell. There are
> no longer conflicting blocks of interest in Europe!
> Or am I the only one failing to see where two European countries can find a
> reason to war?
It has less value, primarily because it was applied in the first place (a
victim of it's own success). Everything is going along great for the
moment, but just wait until those British Soccer Hooligans start another of
their chevauchees. :-)
>
> > I specifically ruled out the Yugoslavian collapse - something as you note
> > was a problem left over from WWI that is only now resolving itself. The
> > rest of the east block collapse came about much cleaner.
>
> Precisely. Did any of them have reasons to start a war? Did anyone else have
> reasons to start war against them? No, and the situation remains so.
>
> > > > and for our own sakes, its best we keep an
> > > > eye on things (though Europeans have been doing better of late, with the
> > > > exception of the Balkans which seems to be trying to live up to its billing
> > > > as the powderkeg of Europe).
> > >
> > > Yup, those countries will take a lot of effort to "get along". Anyway, who
> > > said European Unity was a piece of cake? :-/
> >
> > Alas, it never is, Europe or anywhere else.
>
> It never *was*, you mean. It's the first time a Union is being achieved
> without costly wars - there is no term of comparison in History.
Make up your mind: it's a piece of cake or it isn't. :-)
>
> > > > I would like to see some sort of final settlement made that had real teeth
> > > > against any further disrupting party and Israel would have to give up major
> > > > tracks of land, but let's be honest: the best way to diffuse the situation
> > > > is for the various countries of Europe that persecuted the jews so that they
> > > > were inspired to migrate, pay to take them back and re-establish them in
> > > > Europe. Not gonna happen? So, as usual, the US is stuck with a mess
> > > > created by Europe. Not that I care for what we have done with it, mind you.
> > >
> > > Well, I suppose I agree with you in the way to solve the ME problem, as it
> > > is today.
> > > But I'm not sure if I find the same causes for it: IIRC, the British and the
> > > French tried to stop Jewish migration from Europe to (what was then)
> > > Palestine, and later the British tried hard to prevent a Jewish State in
> > > Palestine. Had the intentions of the British been accomplished in '47, and
> > > the present day problem would have totally different contours. In the end,
> > > it was the failure to implement a *secular* federal state in Palestine that
> > > meant 50+ years of conflict; and that failure was NOT due to European lack
> > > of will.
> >
> > I understand all of the above that you note, but I don't think that it
> > changes what I said. The forces that created the migration came about in
> > Europe, even if specific agents within Europe tried to stop it or mitigate it.
>
> I need to investigate further on what I'm about to say, but still, here goes:
> I *think* the first wave of migrants for Israel was before WW2. And that a
> significant portion of the migrants were not from Europe, but from North
> Africa. So a question is valid: if it hadn't been for what happened in WW2,
> would this migration be kept on to the same extent?
I would think not, but perhaps someone more familiar with the subject can
build a compelling case.
>
> But this is a secondary matter, I admit. There are now both Jews and Arabs
> in Israel, and both have the right to live and prosper. Which would be a lot
> easier if they both had less love for the ground itself and more for the
> wealth it generates in peacetime...
Wish it was so.
>
> > > > > Attempt 3: So I can't prove that you have evil toys. Let's turn this around:
> > > > > you have to prove that you don't have them. You can't, so I can finally have
> > > > > my war!
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Bush actually did study: the Austro-Hungarian solution to Serbia
> > > > agreeing to all it's terms. Just declare war and drag all your allies in
> > > > with you, kicking and screaming.
> > >
> > > That's really not that funny in countries with conscript armies, like my
> > > own. It becomes even LESS fun once you know our PM decided to sign a letter
> > > of blind support of US policy WITHOUT the authority for it, nor public support.
> > > It's disturbing for me to think after 29 years of democracy the time to vote
> > > with the feet may be down the road again :-(
> >
> > I was making fun of the parallels, not the consequences.
> >
> > I still have my draft card. 1-H. #157 in the conscription lottery. I
> > still don't know if its good or bad that the draft ended in the US (good
> > that they can't drag people off to a war that didn't volunteer for, bad that
> > the government is more prone to adventurism since they can claim, "Hey, you
> > volunteered!" There would be a much bigger outcry about Bush's
> > war-mongering if there was a draft).
>
> See, at least you had a lottery when there was a draft... we don't - we just
> get a green outfit and a G3. My parent's generation knows that all too well,
> and fortunately has become suspicious of it.
People everywhere should be suspicious of anyone telling them they need to
die for their country/cause/pogrom/divine rights of kings/etc.
>
> > > I only find it pathetic that this war is meant to overthrow a dictator who
> > > has been in power for the past decades, and is likely to die of natural
> > > causes in the next ten years. Patience is the key, IMO: in the
> > > (more-than-likely to happen) chaos that will follow Saddam's death, it will
> > > be a lot easier to establish democracy *without* a large scale war involving
> > > foreigners. Just support the "best" faction in the struggle for power.
> > > Ta-daa! :-)
> >
> > That's the big thing: why is it suddenly so urgent to get Saddam? He's not
> > a particular threat to the US, and nobody else wants to deal with him, so
> > let his neighbors deal with it.
>
> Not even his neighbours feel threatened at present! And it's hard for me to
> believe that Iran (who is not backed by the US) would be so relaxed if they
> knew something was wrong - and they would know that.
A tempest in a teapot.
>
> > > The whole thing just stinks of vendetta this side of the Atlantic...
> >
> > On both sides of the Atlantic.
>
> Yeah, I had forgotten Brazil ;-)
Yeah, but more of them didn't vote against Bush than did. That happened
here. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
