Author Topic: Europe wants to move out of the house... (Read 4017 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2004, 04:36:05 PM »

gimme some lovin GRUN ?? please

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2004, 04:39:11 PM »

Don't drop the soap, Nilsen's been drinking again.

Nilsen · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2004, 04:45:08 PM »

always carry an exra bar just incase some hunk walks by *oops there he goes....dropping the soap and praying for some lovin*

cpxxx · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2004, 04:58:27 PM »

Grunherz you have an awful tendency to resort to schoolyard political posturing. Luckily real politicans know the realities, even George Bush.

But to answer your point to some extent. The quote was from a Frenchman. The French as you may have noticed have a particular view on Europe the world and the USA. They closed US bases in France in the sixtiies and there was even some tension which led to some semi serious 'mock' dogfights with American jets at one stage.

As a European you know quite well the French doesn't represent all of Europe, only themselves.

As for coming out of America's shadow, well the EU was set up to do just that. By linking nation states, war is less and less likely and all of Europe together represents a rival to the American economy. It's already happened. Europe learned it's lesson sixty years ago.

But if you want to use the teenage analogy, America is the young man who despises his parents, Europe. He thinks they are weak and has had to bail them out once. But he is still immature and hasn't learnt the folly and futility of war or learnt to stay out of trouble. Neither has he learned humility, a bit like you Gruny eh?

But ultimately America is, as someone once wrote, a bit clumsy but well intentioned.

Ripper29 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2004, 05:01:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. Grun, I'm getting that VHS tape from Bosnia digitised. If you're interested I'll make it available for you.

What tape is that ... just curious

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2004, 05:03:57 PM »

And dont forget that those that could not make it in europe emigrated to america.... so actually the US is made up of loosers that had to flee to make it on their own

and here we go,,,,

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2004, 05:34:39 PM »

Quote

But he [America] is still immature and hasn't learnt the folly and futility of war or learnt to stay out of trouble.

This is my favorite nonsensical euro opinion.

When excatly did Europe learn the folly of war?

World war 1?

World war 2?

And please dont insult my intelligence and say something like "after the horror of ww2."

Because we all know of all the wars France and Britain and the resat of europe took part in and instigated after ww2....

Did europe learn the folly of war when France restarted colian opression and war in vietnam in the late 1940s?

Did europe learn the folly of war in 1956, when they attacked egypt and tried to steal the suez canal?

What about all the british colinal wars in the mid east and asia?

What about the French colonial wars in africa? alegria ring a bell?

What about the falklands war? Why did the UK attcak thjose helpless argentanian conscrips instead of negotiaing for their withdrawal in un?

What of the french selling of weapons to saddam? I mean why would the enlighted "folly of war" french sell weapons to sucxh n evil warlike man? Its ok for unelighned usa of course, right? So plese dont come back with that...

What about thec war in my country? In the early 1990s. We are fine sophisticaded europeans - did you know the oldest cathedral in the world is in croatia. Yet we tore each other to bits? More shockingly all these euros just stood by. It took the USA to stop the mess. Where was the folly of war there? why didnt the euros stop it if they feel war is so bad?

What about nuclear weapons? France was tesating them as late as 1996... I dont see no folly of war there.

What about the french governments sinking of a greenpeace ship in the 1980s? And murder that went along with it?

What about northern ireland? How much fighting happened there? How much war?

What about the basque terrorists? Surely these "war is folly" europeans would never be violent?

What about the red army fcation terorists who not only created havoc domestically but spread it internationally in hijackings?

So please tell me when exactly, what year, did europe learn of the folly of war? When did it all catch up to them? Tell me, please..

-tronski- · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2004, 05:54:55 PM »

I must have blinked and missed the original point of the post....

Tronsky

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2004, 06:06:49 PM »

Europe is just a bratty teenager and this frenchy guy said it just right. Modern europe, far from being old and wise, is merely a postwar child of America, now they are teenagers and feel they want to move on on their own in some limited way. I think this best explains the conflict we had over iraq.

cpxxx · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2004, 06:27:18 PM »

Quote

What about thec war in my country? In the early 1990s. We are fine sophisticaded europeans - did you know the oldest cathedral in the world is in croatia. Yet we tore each other to bits? More shockingly all these euros just stood by. It took the USA to stop the mess. Where was the folly of war there? why didnt the euros stop it if they feel war is so bad?

You always distort the argument. Do I really have to differentiate between nations policies and that of groups with an agenda.

Yes the Europe stood by too long. But which side should they have joined? Gruny. You tell me that! You know quite well the complications of the region you came from. You also know it's not so simple. Just as I know the intimate details of the Northern Ireland problem. Don't dare say America sorted it out. That is simply not true. They stood by too long too and in the end it was NATO not just America who got involved.

WW1 and WW2 were in part a consequnce of Balkan tension. Once bitten twice shy. But the Balkans were as much internal conflicts and the final effects of colonialism. So too were all of the others you mention, almost all of them were consequences of 19th century and earlier imperialism. Europe learned the folly of war as in invading other countries. They have not finished suffering the consequences of past folly. There will never be another European war between nation states. America and to some extent Britain are still in the war and invasion business European objections to the invasion of Iraq was in part based on bitter lessons learned over and over again. Dying for your coiuntry in some foreign field or even in your own country is no longer a popular idea. I'm sorry to say not enough young American soldiers have died yet for that reality to sink in. Whole generations of young men were killed in ruinous wars in Europe and the battles were fought on their doorstep.

50,000 Irishmen died in WW1 alone. That is similar to the number of Americans killed in Vietnam. But the 50,000 came from a country of less than four million. The rest of Europe lost a lot more. That still has it's effect on the psyche.

That's my opinion.

PS don't call me a Euro. Europe to me is 'over there'.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2004, 06:36:36 PM »

50,000 Irish died in WW2? What did this teach you? To become terrorists like the IRA or the protestant thugs or like the brit army and to kill each other?

Thnaks for proving my argument...

Europe not invading other countries after ww2?

Tell that to egypt and vietnam.

There will never be another European war between nation states.

Really?

NATO is America. Everyone knows that. thats why europe wants its own independant army.

Which side should have they joined? I think not the side which souurounded sarajevo and shelled it indescrimately - not so complicated.

cpxxx · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2004, 06:59:18 PM »

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
50,000 Irish died in WW2? What did this teach you? To become terrorists like the IRA or the protestant thugs or like the brit army and to kill each other?

It was WW1. This was nation states fighting and was a consequence of imperialism predating the conflict as I said. Oh and by the way the correct term is loyalist thugs not protestant.

Thnaks for proving my argument... No I didn't

Europe not invading other countries after ww2?

Tell that to egypt and vietnam.

Again colonialism, France did not invade Vietnam. It was already theirs. Suez too was colonial in nature and to America's credit the nipped it in the bud.

There will never be another European war between nation states.

Really? Yes really. That's the point of the EU

NATO is America. Everyone knows that. thats why europe wants its own independant army.

Not true on both counts.

Which side should have they joined? I think not the side which souurounded sarajevo and shelled it indescrimately - not so complicated.

If only it were so simple. Taking sides in civil wars is very dangerous. There was a fear that the Russians might take an opposing view just like how WW1 started. That one kicked off in Sarajevo too did it not?

Ripper29 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 31, 2004, 07:06:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
It's a tape that a couple of Norwegian officers made (press corps or liaison staff) from 1992 to 1995 in Bosnia. It's basically 2 hours of uncommented ... truth. The quality isn't very good, but I'll do my best.

Okay...When I was in Bosnia I saw a tape that about the Tunnel that was dug under the Sarajevo Airport and was used to bring supplies and people through the Serb blockade. I was going to buy it but it had been copied so many times the quality was crap.

There is a movie that was directed by a Bosnian , No Man's Land, that is very good. It won an oscar, the only one ever won by a Bosnian. I don't believe it's based on a actual event but it helps explain some of the though process that went on. No heros in the movie, it just showed how screwed up things are there.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #28 on:** January 31, 2004, 07:49:18 PM »

So after all those deaths in ww1, which you say so traumatized the irish, they decide its cool to have 80 years of civil war and terrorism. I guess the surviors remembered terrorism. What did they learn except to kill each other better. Awesome example thans...

Colonialism eh? Why wouldnt europe learn it was bad after ww2? But thats no excuse. The french had no requirement to return to vietnam. They chose to cause the war there and bring untold suffering to the vietnamese people. No folly there. algeria same.

Suez was an out and out invasion. Your case is so pathetic you must mask agression with colonialism. But hey whatever works for you... Anyway how or why did america stop i if america never learned of folly of war like you say europe magically has - why didnt we just let it go on.. We in the usa think they are fun!!! Right?

What of enlightened french selling weapons to saddam, blowing up nukes in the late 1990s and sinking greenpeace ships and killing their crews?

Wow you are great comedy there, colianial wars dont fit... OMG like they had to happend...

Its amazing how you deflect european responsibilty for all the wars you cause... ww1 and ww2 were not responsibility of europe but of evil backwards balkans... Colonial wars not fault of europe either, who then the far away brown savages? What inherent racism..

Lets look at ww1. Obviously a serb guy shot the archduke. But are you saying it was fitting in with european morals of the day that 20million would then have to die because of that?

And ww2? Where did europes sophisticatiopn go during the versailles treaty writing? While the US president wilson (evil agressive angry uncultured USA) was promoting his 14 points plan for reconciliation an angry hateful france and here brit allies were drafting up that awful versilles treaty that was one of key and direct causes of ww2....

Not europes fault no, it was all somebody else..

When the USA got involved in the yugo civil war there was no trouble finding the bad guys. An army encamped around a major city and bombing it indesciminaty for years on end is pretty easy to see.. An army which had stolen 1/3 of another nation for years on end is pretty easy to identify... An army that slaughters 10,000 + innocent civilians is easy to identify. An army which flattens hitoric cities and murders all hospital patients and pows they catch is easy to identify and that army was identified very quickly when the war started....

Excucses....

Now all this is past and it is not healthy to be so bitter (thx GS) but I do ask that yiou at least be honest and not provide cheap excuses or wishful false myths of europen moral superority when it comes to understanding the folly of war.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 31, 2004, 08:30:41 PM »