America Vs. Europe: Another Cold War?!

[Ike 2K#]

America Vs. Europe: Another Cold War? !

*From Pravda.ru

A lot of people say that the crisis of relations between the United States and France (and Germany also) will be over soon. However, things are right where they started at the moment. Of course, the commotion settled down to a certain extent, but it is too early to say that the cold period is over in the relations between the USA and France. Countries try to be more sober in the evaluation of their role and place in this world. Washington has already determined its position, whereas Paris and Berlin just get started.

The world press has been writing recently that the United States of America is drawn to the idea of cutting its military presence in Europe. Of course, America is not going to withdraw its troops completely. However, the Pentagon develops plans to shut down its army bases in Germany. Pursuant to the official version, the USA is not intended to punish Berlin for its Iraqi war stance. A part of the allied American army will be moved to East Europe, on the territory of the countries, which have recently joined NATO. American officials say that it is allegedly easier to control the situation in the Middle East from there.

Incidental or not, but several European countries (France and Germany) suddenly thought that it would be good for Europe to have the armed forces of its own, in order not to be so dependant on the USA. Anyway, one may not say that this is a new idea, for it appeared at least ten years ago. However, preliminary calculations for maintaining the 60-thousand strong European army cut enthusiastic sentiments off. Yet, the war in Iraq pushed the economic constituent of the issue into the background.

For the time being, it is hard to say, which influence those plans will exert on NATO's unity. Nevertheless, the split in the European Union is not going to recede. France and Germany (together with Belgium and Luxembourg) do not mind becoming the leaders of the new Europe. Are they going to make it?

On April 29th, Vladimir Putin conducted negotiations with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Novo-Ogaryovo (the Moscow region) residence of the Russian president. The major subject of negotiations was definitely Iraq. To all appearances, after negotiations were over, the sides adhered to their opinion anyway. Moreover, the British press considered the results of negotiations insulting to the British prime minister. The Russian president, newspapers wrote, made fun of the head of the British government, especially when they talked about searching for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Guardian wrote that Putin made a scathing remark about Mr. Blair: "Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in a bunker underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and bring down the lives of thousands of Iraqi people." The Times wrote that the British premier even interrupted his interpreter on several occasions.

This seems to be rather surprising: if American and British officials release various statements blaming Russia of all sins possible, it is considered to be fine. Yet, if Moscow allows harsh statements, it is considered to be an outrageous violation of everything. On the other hand, it is not ruled out that British reporters exaggerated the situation in order to intrigue the public with the subject of top political negotiations, which is not very interesting for people. This way or other, but it is too early to say that two opposing groups have appeared in Europe. However, if it really happens, it will not surprise anyone.


Vasily Bubnov

[straffo]

it's more a kind of coopetition.

[Toad]

LOL!

Bringing our troops home is now considered "punishment"?

Jeez, to read these boards, most Euros are in favor of US troops going home, as I am.

But let's see.. if we leave them, we're aggressive colonialists but if we bring them home we're punishing those that didn't support us?

Best part is the

preliminary calculations for maintaining the 60-thousand strong European army cut enthusiastic sentiments off.

"What? It's going to cost actual MONEY to have an army! Sacre Bleu! Count us out!"

Gotta laugh. And 60K troops isn't much of an army anyway.

[Syzygyone]

If it is to be another cold war, with free enterprise going up against growing Western EU socialistic countries again, the outcome will be the same as the previous cold war.  Only now they don't have a wall to tear down to show that the end has come.


Geeez, can't we all just get along!:rolleyes:

[ra]

Pravda.

[OIO]

Thats a really small army for Europe, but if its to be used in places like ivory coast or small hot-spots then it might be good.

Im sure the german and *chuckles* french own military forces would bolster #'s if needed.

Aside from that, its just a gesture.


They shouldve instead proposed to finally give the United Nations their own armed forces.

[Ike 2K#]

the US defense budget is at $400 billion estimated. THATS more than all countries (191) in the world combined. But we all dont know what to do with that money.

[Dowding]

lol Pravda is seen as authoritive source of European sentiment and quality journalism? The erstwhile voice of Soviet communism?

Jeeeeeeezus, some of you are sooooooooooo desperate for a peg to hang your hat on. Try and keep a modicum of opacity, please.

If it is to be another cold war, with free enterprise going up against growing Western EU socialistic countries again...

The UK is part of the EU. We are a democracy with a longer history than the US. Get your facts straight.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Dowding
lol Pravda is seen as authoritive source of European sentiment and quality journalism? The erstwhile voice of Soviet communism?

Looks like I have to explain it personally to everyone...

Pravda.ru doesn't have anything common with Pravda, the former official newspaper of the Communist Party.

But I have to admit that they have probably the best translated news site from Russia, and use the old brand very effectively

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dowding
The UK is part of the EU. We are a democracy with a longer history than the US. Get your facts straight.

I've always been a little fuzzy on the monarchy thing. How is a monarchy a democracy? Not being sarcastic, just ignorant.

[Dowding]

It's a constitutional monarchy, not the absolute monarchy of old. In the latter case, the Monarch had unrestricted power to do as they pleased and claimed divine right (i.e. chosen by god).

The English Monarchy has been bound by constitution for centuries. The Queen is above politics - executive power of government is instilled in the elected parliament, and it firmly resides there.

So basically, the Queen is a little redundant in terms of power - she handles ceremonial occasions and foreign dignitories and is seen as the figurehead of the United Kingdom - basically something to pin our flag to.

The restrictions on the Monarchy were first set down in 1215 in the Magna Carta. Over the next 800 years, they gradually came to fruition (after some stops and starts, including the formation of short-lived republic after the English civil war), and are exceeded by today's modern democracy.

The system works well. I think since the reinstatement of the monarchy after the civil war, we've had several centuries of stability and internal peace, whilst maintaining a strong sense of personal freedom and liberty.

That's my uderstanding of things anyway. Hope that helps.

[AKIron]

It did help Dowding, thanks. Sorta what I thought, that the Queen was a figurehead.

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
the US defense budget is at $400 billion estimated. THATS more than all countries (191) in the world combined. But we all dont know what to do with that money.

You dont have the money either,,,,LOL:D

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Dowding
It's a constitutional monarchy, not the absolute monarchy of old. In the latter case, the Monarch had unrestricted power to do as they pleased and claimed divine right (i.e. chosen by god).

The English Monarchy has been bound by constitution for centuries. The Queen is above politics - executive power of government is instilled in the elected parliament, and it firmly resides there.

So basically, the Queen is a little redundant in terms of power - she handles ceremonial occasions and foreign dignitories and is seen as the figurehead of the United Kingdom - basically something to pin our flag to.

The restrictions on the Monarchy were first set down in 1215 in the Magna Carta. Over the next 800 years, they gradually came to fruition (after some stops and starts, including the formation of short-lived republic after the English civil war), and are exceeded by today's modern democracy.

The system works well. I think since the reinstatement of the monarchy after the civil war, we've had several centuries of stability and internal peace, whilst maintaining a strong sense of personal freedom and liberty.

That's my uderstanding of things anyway. Hope that helps.

heheh...you obviously know not your own history...England has never been a democracy, and is still ruled by the whims of the queen



Queenie :It all started last night at about two o'clock.  I was tucked into bed having this absolutely scrummy dream about ponies when I was wakened by a terrific banging from Lord Melchett.

 Tronsky

[Dowding]

No problem AKIron.

lol Tronski. I love Miranda Richardson, she must be 45 years old now, but I'd still give one. She does have remarkably small breasts though, but her accent is very horny.