All I know is the future leader of the EU is supposed to be the Anti-christ according to Nostradomus (sp) so at least they have that to look forward to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, you can blame the EU - they are the major governing body of Europe now, aren't they? If you cannot keep your own front yard policed, how do you expect to handle bigger situations? WW1 started when you ignored conflict in eastern europe; time to learn from past mistakes. More importantly, letting things like continous civil war continue in south east europe, as well as aligning yourselves with a Russia which has been slaughtering Chechnyan moslems for 20 years, is no way to gain the moral highground.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, come on, Mons, now you're just being stubborn. The EU - the "major governing body of Europe"? Europe - <i>all</i> of Europe - being majorily governed by a not yet transfixed supranational institution of western European states? Nobody assumes that. The EU has limited influence on its member states, but that's it. That 'front yard' you are talking about has been under Soviet reign for a good part of the timeperiod you cited (20 years). Additionally, one might argue that big parts of Europe made a point out of <i>not</i> policing the world. Furtherly, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between trying to achieve the goodwill of a nuclear power that was quite suspicious towards the extension of any western institution (including the NATO) into territories it held before, and algining oneself to it. As before, the EU is so far a mostly domestic institution. It has so far not reached any kind of fixed representation within foreign politics. It can thus not be held completely responsible for foreign policies of member states.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for English speaking, you greatly overestimate the number of fluent speakers. In some parts, like urban areas of Germany, or the Netherlands, or pretty much all of scandanavia, I would wholeheartedly agree. In Italy, France, Spain, Protugal, Turkey - nonsense. People do not speak nearly fluent enough to consider it a true cross-country language EU-wide. Maybe in a few more generations, although I doubt it sincerely in France alone...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And once again, you're missing such tiny words as 'development'. Yes, English is not a true cross-country language - <i>yet</i>. The situation is improving rapidly, and I'd like to note that your ordering of countries in English and non-English seems a little random - my little sister spent the summer in France, and used English by far more regularily than French, mainly as she met many people from the Netherlands and had many French speaking acceptable English.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the US being culturally heterogenous... again, this is a popular misconception. While we are far more heterogenous as a whole than any european country, we are on average quite homogenous throughout the country. You need to come experience this for yourself in order to see what I mean, but trust me as someone who has been to 42 states and lived in Chicago, california, the south, the north east, and elsewhere. The laws, the culture, the social mores, the standards, etc. are very similar anywhere you go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can imagine what you mean - that the different cultures aren't steadily intemingling, but generally focussed on certain areas in which they are predominant (urban areas being a little different, of course). Seeing that the French, German, Spanish, and British cultures are as well focussed on certain EU-intern areas where they are predominant (such as France, Germany, Spain, or Great Britain), and mainly intermingle at the borders and in the cities, I can however not see how that's a big difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To your first point about the benefits - tell that to all these farmers I keep reading about, complaining about the trade agreements that put many of them out of business. I'm not sure that propping up poorer european states is going to have the intended result. It weakens the stronger countries, and leads to yet more resentment and regional animosities between the haves and have nots. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're mainly complaining because they're used to living off tremendous subventions that're in gross violation with any free trade treaty any European country has ever signed, and now see the EU removing those subventions via new trade agreements.
I'll agree with you that the integration of economically weaker countries will lead to a number of problems, but the alternative was even bleaker: The main motivations behind at long last opening the EU to the east were political - trying to stabilize the new democratic governments in those countries and thus increasing the future security of the EU, and attempting to put an end to a never ending stream of illegal immigrants whoms treatment would've created even bigger problems, both financially and socially. It's admittedly a problematic decision, but does also open a number of chances, such as enlarging the trade zone and thus possible markets greatly. We'll have to see how it pans out, and having lived in the former Eastern Germany for a while, I'm honestly not too optimistic, but it was nonetheless the best of a number of rotten alternatives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like I have said, I think the EU is a good idea, and I hope it works out - you can never have enough stability in the world. But I think you need to get realistic about your chances, considering that the manner in which the EU is being created is pretty flawed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And like I said, while I consider a large number of political decisions on the basis of the EU lacking, I see the societal impact it already had and will have as strong enough to outweight those.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The EU - the "major governing body of Europe"? Europe - all of Europe - being majorily governed by a not yet transfixed supranational institution of western European states? Nobody assumes that. The EU has limited influence on its member states, but that's it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter and complete nonsense. The EU says jump and countries will say how high. Its economic sphere is second only to the US, and exerts immense leverage. You know, this of course, but it's counter to your other arguments so I think you let it slide a bit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That 'front yard' you are talking about has been under Soviet reign for a good part of the timeperiod you cited (20 years). Additionally, one might argue that big parts of Europe made a point out of not policing the world. Furtherly, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between trying to achieve the goodwill of a nuclear power that was quite suspicious towards the extension of any western institution (including the NATO) into territories it held before, and algining oneself to it. As before, the EU is so far a mostly domestic institution. It has so far not reached any kind of fixed representation within foreign politics. It can thus not be held completely responsible for foreign policies of member states. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err, it has not been under the Soviet control during the those 20 years - but instead the 60 before then. Not sure what you mean here. Regardless, it is hopelessly naive to belive that economics, politics, and warfare are multually exclusive - by binding all of your economic futures, you are binding all of your political and military ones as well. Wars are all caused by economic issues at their core, and that's what the EU is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And once again, you're missing such tiny words as 'development'. Yes, English is not a true cross-country language - yet. The situation is improving rapidly, and I'd like to note that your ordering of countries in English and non-English seems a little random - my little sister spent the summer in France, and used English by far more regularily than French, mainly as she met many people from the Netherlands and had many French speaking acceptable English. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happy to hear it. Now show me some real statistics that do not include your sister and french coffee houses. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can imagine what you mean - that the different cultures aren't steadily intemingling, but generally focussed on certain areas in which they are predominant (urban areas being a little different, of course). Seeing that the French, German, Spanish, and British cultures are as well focussed on certain EU-intern areas where they are predominant (such as France, Germany, Spain, or Great Britain), and mainly intermingle at the borders and in the cities, I can however not see how that's a big difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still don't think you comprehend the differences - it's hard to do so without practical experience. You can go anywhere - ANYWHERE - in the USA, and instantly communicate with all people easily, and have 99% similarities in culture, minus some small regional differences. It is in no way like Europe at all.
I'd reply to your other points, but I think I've answered them previously. And yes, I am being stubborn. It's another very homogenous American trait... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I have little to add to this discussion(since my points get ignored) but I would like to tell Mons that scand<b>i</b>navia is spelled with an i. Not with e or a. Thank you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 24 2003, 09:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 24 2003, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The EU - the "major governing body of Europe"? Europe - all of Europe - being majorily governed by a not yet transfixed supranational institution of western European states? Nobody assumes that. The EU has limited influence on its member states, but that's it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter and complete nonsense. The EU says jump and countries will say how high. Its economic sphere is second only to the US, and exerts immense leverage. You know, this of course, but it's counter to your other arguments so I think you let it slide a bit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Counter-utter and complete nonsense. Problem is, EU says, always means that EU excluding France and Germany, or France and UK or some other constellation, DON'T say. And there's a small share of countries that aren't willing to integrate completely into the EU as of yet. Denmark, UK, Sweden are acting like refuseniks. My country, Denmark, currently has four .... whatchacallums, exclusions or reservations about key, written into the treaty. And it causes some annoyance among the better integrated countries that feel the process of integration is hampered.
A lot of nationalism still rules the day. France always want some speacial deal cut out for them. And Spain are feeling mighty gutsy right now and demanding this or that. Why, just yesterday a new draft for a law banning 30.000 chemicals was watered out by France, Germany and another country I believe, to just 20.000 chemicals in consumer products UNTILL they have been proven harmless. As well as they made a clause that stated that no ban would be implemented if it would worsen competitiveness of the industry. Which is really making the legislation quite impotent and a waste of time.
As for one of the first poster mentioning Italy; yeah, we get complete jokers like Berlusconi to rule a country. If the man has any comeptence as a politician, I'm still waiting for proof. He's got a wily foxy mind well fit to run a conglomerate of media businesses, but he's causing a lot of irritation and in no way helping the EU as a whole, and not his own country at all it seems. I'm glad he's the formal head of the EU and not of USA!
That's the kind of thing plagueing the EU, and the main reason that EU rarely says "Jump". On many areas, countries conform, but not nearly enough to the region being homogenized in foreign policy. Not yet. Economic power isn't the same as saying EU is a whole. Compare it to the americans firing a large caliber <a href='http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons3.html' target='_blank'>sniper rifle</a> versus the EU 12 gauge, where 15 soldiers all try to get a hold of the gun and aim it in each their direction. Wide spread, low range, no focus at all.
If the EU decides that they are going to embargo Russia for attacking Chechnya, unless Russia immediately halts their agression, you can damn-well bet that Russia would do so. Just because the EU has not yet sucessfully excercised its power (although ask the Polish if they would agree with that, after the recent pressures and threats brought on them), does not mean that it cannot. The one and only true purpose of the EU is to consolidate economic power - you and I both know that will lead to it being used to further the interests of EU members. Why else does it exist? To say otherwise is to believe in complete and utter nonsense... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The economic consolidation is a reality, and it was the very reason the EU was begung way back when it was but a steel and coal union between Germany and France (that, and a bit of geopolitical stability, perhaps). But all the ifs and the buts of the world doesn't do me much comfort. The fact is, currently the EU doesn't do a very good job of sticking together as a union when it comes to dealing with foreign policy. So even IF the EU could say "hiss boo" to Russia for their chechznyan war, they ain't doing it. There's no formal way of making sure it will happen due to the political make-up of the EU parliament. When push comes to shove, it's always the Chiracs and the Schröders and the Bliars of the union that calls the shots. Not the EU parliament or it's commissairs. They got the economic legislative power.
In the end, it might turn out as you predict.
Oh, and good to see you back in the discussion forums, MonsE
I like seeing europe as a whole, "team-work" is the key. Right now people feel strangly about this new thing. In sweden people don't know what EU do and what kind of decisions they make. Let along what the new currency means for the nation.
People don't like the idea of people hundreds of miles away making very important calls for the economy not even speaking the same language, diffrences pluage the united Europe. The swedish answer to the euro was a big no with big questions. The politics towards a united europe coulden't make most voters believe that it would make the nation stronger. So all "not sure" voters voted no.
Big set back, hopefully these kind of wounds will heal in time. When the EU finally does something that gets the worlds eyes on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 24 2003, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 24 2003, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...Brussels, its main location, was conciously chosen as it's the capital of one of the smallest members of the EU and thus symbols the parliaments relative independence from France, Great Britain, and Germany.
Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you mean brussels isnt in germany??
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 24 2003, 04:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 24 2003, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 24 2003, 06:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 24 2003, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...Brussels, its main location, was conciously chosen as it's the capital of one of the smallest members of the EU and thus symbols the parliaments relative independence from France, Great Britain, and Germany.
Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I look at it the other way, the capital was choosen to please the small nations and perhaps reduce some of the feelings that the big nations rules. But besides, what relevance does the location of EU's headquarter have to do with the EU itself ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My nitpicky side would like to add that WW2 started in 1933 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And my nitpicky side says it started in 1919 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It clearly started in 1872. No wait, it was Napelon's fault. No wait, I blame the Visigoths who smacked up the roman empire <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany and France accused over EU rules By George Parker in Brussels Published: November 3 2003 20:50 | Last Updated: November 3 2003 20:50
Germany and France were on Monday accused of trying to "kill" Europe's fiscal rules, as EU finance ministers met amid mounting political tension in the 12-country eurozone.
They claim to have found a legal loophole that might allow them to escape the threat of sanctions under the EU's stability and growth pact. But their manoeuvre has enraged the European Commission and some smaller countries, which claim it would destroy the pact's already weakened credibility.
Karl-Heinz Grasser, Austrian finance minister, urged his EU colleagues to stand up to pressure from France and Germany, the eurozone's two most powerful economies.
Speaking ahead of Monday night's eurogroup meeting of 12 single currency finance ministers, Mr Grasser said both countries must face the consequences of breaching the pact's deficit rules for three years in a row. "We all are obliged for our own credibility and the credibility of the euro to find a way out," he told Reuters news agency. "The way out cannot be by killing the stability pact and putting one pillar of our monetary union at stake."
The 12 members of the single currency are at the point where they must decide if they are serious about enforcing the pact, designed to enforce fiscal discipline across the eurozone.
They must decide this month - either on Tuesday or more likely at their next meeting on November 25 - whether to support the European Commission's recommendation to start proceedings against France for its third breach of the pact in 2004.
It is the first time the eurogroup ministers have reached this point. Once passed, Brussels assumes powers to direct Paris on how to correct its deficit, and will require Paris to submit progress reports; ultimately fines can be imposed if it fails to comply.
Germany, which will also breach the pact's 3 per cent deficit rule for a third time in 2004, is about to find itself in the same position as France.
But rather than face the humiliation of having to submit to economic direction from Brussels, Germany and France are now trying to draw the stability pact's remaining teeth.
The two countries, who believe they have support from Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, want the Commission to suspend enforcement proceedings and adopt a voluntary approach instead.
But the Commission insisted that such a step would be illegal under the EU treaty, and that it would not agree to such a retreat. "The Commission has done its job under the treaty, and now it is up to ministers to take up their responsibilities," said Pedro Solbes, EU monetary affairs commissioner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm on an EU kick today (blame Google news). This report lends new life into this nearly dead topic; we spoke before about the EU possibly being more like Germany and France as king and queen (no pun intended there <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ). With this latest bit of news (do as we say, not as we do) on circumventing core economic rules, are the western powerhouse duo playing fair, and does this endanger the U in EU?
There is a reason the U in this topic is in lower case, incase you didn't catch that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now, two comparisons are being made which I cannot agree with
1) The Roman Empire = The European Union The Roman Empire conquered Europe, without its civilians consent. The EU isnt a state anyway.
2) The United States = the European Union The united states was culturally homogeneous to begin with, all speaking english, most of the protestant, most of them the same culture. The thirteen states did not fight wars among eachother. No real nationalism.
The European Union is much tougher to unite. Nationalism, a long history of wars, lots of languages, different cultures, etcetera. The European Union has, however, accomplished a lot. It will have a constitution within the next year, has initiated a lot of laws that are applicable (?) in all EU member states, has its own army, has common borders, one common market, one currency. There have been no wars between EU member states since its emergence (Although the dutch province of Zeeland forgot top sign a peace treaty with Spain in 1648, and was still in war with it untill the nineties).
The greatest threat to the European Union is the agricultural subsidies. They currently eat up more than half of the entire budget, and with the coming expansion it will simply not be affordable.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 4 2003, 03:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 4 2003, 03:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2) The United States = the European Union The united states was culturally homogeneous to begin with, all speaking english, most of the protestant, most of them the same culture. The thirteen states did not fight wars among eachother. No real nationalism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Forget about this little thing called the Civil War? Maybe not of the original 13 colonies... But still between states.
And actually... There is A LOT of nationalism within the US. At one time there was some friction between federal or state rights... The Civil War settled that for the most part.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 4 2003, 03:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 4 2003, 03:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forget about this little thing called the Civil War? Maybe not of the original 13 colonies... But still between states.
And actually... There is A LOT of nationalism within the US. At one time there was some friction between federal or state rights... The Civil War settled that for the most part. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so you had one minor war 150 years ago. and that's it? Great!
The US had only a few thousand fewer casualties in the Civil War than in WW2. And the scale of the Civil War as far as geography is roughly comparable to the western front of WW1. As far as us being bad for only having one little war - ehhhh, what? Trust me, our lack of internal warfare is why the US is a superpower and European nations are sitting around trying to steal from each other.
I like how no one ever says 'gosh, I was mistaken - thanks for filling me in on missing information' in this forum. It's always a 'yeah, BUT'...
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 5 2003, 03:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 5 2003, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One little war. Man oh man, I am biting my tongue on history programs these days:
The US had only a few thousand fewer casualties in the Civil War than in WW2. And the scale of the Civil War as far as geography is roughly comparable to the western front of WW1. As far as us being bad for only having one little war - ehhhh, what? Trust me, our lack of internal warfare is why the US is a superpower and European nations are sitting around trying to steal from each other.
I like how no one ever says 'gosh, I was mistaken - thanks for filling me in on missing information' in this forum. It's always a 'yeah, BUT'... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wars are not only about militairy casualties. WWII killed about 56 million people (http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html), largely in Europe. That is about 100 times the number of militairy casualties in the Civil War.'Can't find any useful info on the total number of deaths though <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am not saying the US is bad for lack of internal warfare - I am only saying that having fewer nationalism, and fewer wars, fewer internal strife, makes it logical that the thirteen states were easier to unite than the european states. Read.
There are lots of statistics, and debate is always look at my numbers! No mine say the opposite. That is debate.
The way the wars were fought also account for the difference in casualties... In the Civil War cities were not destroyed like in WWII. This makes a big difference. The Civil War was also not just between the original 13 colonies. The US had expanded a bit since its birth.
The original 13 colonies were initially united because of a common distaste for how they were being treated by England. After that was settled... There were a lot of issues between the different states. But it is almost just luck that they were able to work out their differences. It did help that they were originally English colonies... But that does not mean it was any less daunting than what the EU is trying to achieve.
The Civil War was anything but minor....
It's funny talking about how there has been no war between EU member states since its emergence... How many wars happened between them after WWII ( you can even include those that are not considered "minor" by your opinion )? When was the EU created?
Urza, you miss the point. It is silly to say that some war was bigger or more terrible than some other war, when you get into casualty levels of hundreds of thousands or millions.
And you need to get a lot more polite. Saying things like 'Read.' to me, the way people are so rudely posting today, is very likely to have you made an example of. You have been warned in a PM before, and now you're warned here again. The next time you will not be posting in Discussion ever again, so post wisely.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 5 2003, 04:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 5 2003, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Urza, you miss the point. It is silly to say that some war was bigger or more terrible than some other war, when you get into casualty levels of hundreds of thousands or millions.
And you need to get a lot more polite. Saying things like 'Read.' to me, the way people are so rudely posting today, is very likely to have you made an example of. You have been warned in a PM before, and now you're warned here again. The next time you will not be posting in Discussion ever again, so post wisely. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, I miss your point about the numbers. Anyway, war among current EU member states have been more than common than between the US meber states. A list of wars of the last 150 years might help
Austro-Prussian War (1866) Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) WWI (1914-1919) WWII (1939-1945) The Italian Unification ( lets say 1846-1861)
Since the emergence of centralized states, the European states have been in constant conflict with eachother.
Are you planning on having a relevant point to the topic at hand anytime soon, Urza? Are you saying the EU is doomed to failure? If so, we agreed a long time ago and now you're just being contentious. What does this have to do with France and Germany trying to bypass EU debt laws?
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 5 2003, 04:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 5 2003, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The way the wars were fought also account for the difference in casualties... In the Civil War cities were not destroyed like in WWII. This makes a big difference. The Civil War was also not just between the original 13 colonies. The US had expanded a bit since its birth.*
The original 13 colonies were initially united because of a common distaste for how they were being treated by England. After that was settled... There were a lot of issues between the different states. But it is almost just luck that they were able to work out their differences. It did help that they were originally English colonies... But that does not mean it was any less daunting than what the EU is trying to achieve.**
The Civil War was anything but minor....
It's funny talking about how there has been no war between EU member states since its emergence... How many wars happened between them after WWII ( you can even include those that are not considered "minor" by your opinion )? When was the EU created? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *I know. But on the other hand, showing the willingness to destroy eachothers cities and mass-murder eachothers civilians, shows a greater gap than the gap between the United States.
**The European Union member states have many more differences. Trade. Immigration. Agricultural funds. Language. What countries to allow into the EU. It was less daunting.
***Exactly my point. Since the EU was created (a few years after WWII) there have been no wars between the member states.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 5 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 5 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you planning on having a relevant point to the topic at hand anytime soon, Urza? Are you saying the EU is doomed to failure? If so, we agreed a long time ago and now you're just being contentious. What does this have to do with France and Germany trying to bypass EU debt laws? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I remember correctly, the start of the topic was : "Anyway discuss your thoughs on the EU". Not only about France and Germany neglecting the 3 % rule. About that: Many economists argue that this rule is economically disadvantageous and should be abolished. It is not correct, however, for the two states to simply ignore the rule. But looking more closely at the economy of the EU, it makes perfect sense. The economy in both countries was declining, and needed a boost. Atthe same time, tax revenues were falling.
I am not saying that the EU will fail. It's goals are just different from the thirteen american states. I already summed up the successes of the EU. Problems are further democratization of the EU, agriculture, and general acceptance of the EU among citizens (the number of voters for european voters in elections have fallen drastically since 1980). Sure, the European Union is far from having a common foreign policy, and thus it can not have any real influence in world policies. On the whole, seeing the problems they have solved in the last fifty years, I am optimistic about the EU's future.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the EU was created (a few years after WWII) there have been no wars between the member states. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm. I wouldn't say that is a result of the EU itself.
From 1945 - 1991, the main reason for the lack of major warfare in Europe was that the continent was divided into two armed camps: NATO vs the Warsaw Pact. Both sides, whilst maintaining massive conventional forces, also possessed vast nuclear arsonals. Thus, with Mutually Assured Destruction there was no conflict.
Post-1991 2 European powers (3 if you want to count Russia) still have atomic weaponry. Eastern Europe is more concerned with rebuilding itself after 50 years of communist corruption and mismanagment, and Western Europe is much more interested in commercial and economic gains than military campaigns against other European nations. The spread of capitalist democratic governments has doubtless had an effect upon this.
Yet even so, I still feel that the cultural gaps between the EU member states are too great. You just can't bury centuries of conflict overnight. Sure, it could happen, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that day. Europe's nations still retain too much nationalism for the EU to be anything more than a loose alliance.
Comments
Oh, come on, Mons, now you're just being stubborn.
The EU - the "major governing body of Europe"? Europe - <i>all</i> of Europe - being majorily governed by a not yet transfixed supranational institution of western European states? Nobody assumes that. The EU has limited influence on its member states, but that's it.
That 'front yard' you are talking about has been under Soviet reign for a good part of the timeperiod you cited (20 years). Additionally, one might argue that big parts of Europe made a point out of <i>not</i> policing the world.
Furtherly, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between trying to achieve the goodwill of a nuclear power that was quite suspicious towards the extension of any western institution (including the NATO) into territories it held before, and algining oneself to it. As before, the EU is so far a mostly domestic institution. It has so far not reached any kind of fixed representation within foreign politics. It can thus not be held completely responsible for foreign policies of member states.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for English speaking, you greatly overestimate the number of fluent speakers. In some parts, like urban areas of Germany, or the Netherlands, or pretty much all of scandanavia, I would wholeheartedly agree. In Italy, France, Spain, Protugal, Turkey - nonsense. People do not speak nearly fluent enough to consider it a true cross-country language EU-wide. Maybe in a few more generations, although I doubt it sincerely in France alone...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And once again, you're missing such tiny words as 'development'. Yes, English is not a true cross-country language - <i>yet</i>. The situation is improving rapidly, and I'd like to note that your ordering of countries in English and non-English seems a little random - my little sister spent the summer in France, and used English by far more regularily than French, mainly as she met many people from the Netherlands and had many French speaking acceptable English.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the US being culturally heterogenous... again, this is a popular misconception. While we are far more heterogenous as a whole than any european country, we are on average quite homogenous throughout the country. You need to come experience this for yourself in order to see what I mean, but trust me as someone who has been to 42 states and lived in Chicago, california, the south, the north east, and elsewhere. The laws, the culture, the social mores, the standards, etc. are very similar anywhere you go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can imagine what you mean - that the different cultures aren't steadily intemingling, but generally focussed on certain areas in which they are predominant (urban areas being a little different, of course). Seeing that the French, German, Spanish, and British cultures are as well focussed on certain EU-intern areas where they are predominant (such as France, Germany, Spain, or Great Britain), and mainly intermingle at the borders and in the cities, I can however not see how that's a big difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To your first point about the benefits - tell that to all these farmers I keep reading about, complaining about the trade agreements that put many of them out of business. I'm not sure that propping up poorer european states is going to have the intended result. It weakens the stronger countries, and leads to yet more resentment and regional animosities between the haves and have nots. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're mainly complaining because they're used to living off tremendous subventions that're in gross violation with any free trade treaty any European country has ever signed, and now see the EU removing those subventions via new trade agreements.
I'll agree with you that the integration of economically weaker countries will lead to a number of problems, but the alternative was even bleaker: The main motivations behind at long last opening the EU to the east were political - trying to stabilize the new democratic governments in those countries and thus increasing the future security of the EU, and attempting to put an end to a never ending stream of illegal immigrants whoms treatment would've created even bigger problems, both financially and socially. It's admittedly a problematic decision, but does also open a number of chances, such as enlarging the trade zone and thus possible markets greatly.
We'll have to see how it pans out, and having lived in the former Eastern Germany for a while, I'm honestly not too optimistic, but it was nonetheless the best of a number of rotten alternatives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like I have said, I think the EU is a good idea, and I hope it works out - you can never have enough stability in the world. But I think you need to get realistic about your chances, considering that the manner in which the EU is being created is pretty flawed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And like I said, while I consider a large number of political decisions on the basis of the EU lacking, I see the societal impact it already had and will have as strong enough to outweight those.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter and complete nonsense. The EU says jump and countries will say how high. Its economic sphere is second only to the US, and exerts immense leverage. You know, this of course, but it's counter to your other arguments so I think you let it slide a bit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That 'front yard' you are talking about has been under Soviet reign for a good part of the timeperiod you cited (20 years). Additionally, one might argue that big parts of Europe made a point out of not policing the world.
Furtherly, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between trying to achieve the goodwill of a nuclear power that was quite suspicious towards the extension of any western institution (including the NATO) into territories it held before, and algining oneself to it. As before, the EU is so far a mostly domestic institution. It has so far not reached any kind of fixed representation within foreign politics. It can thus not be held completely responsible for foreign policies of member states.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err, it has not been under the Soviet control during the those 20 years - but instead the 60 before then. Not sure what you mean here. Regardless, it is hopelessly naive to belive that economics, politics, and warfare are multually exclusive - by binding all of your economic futures, you are binding all of your political and military ones as well. Wars are all caused by economic issues at their core, and that's what the EU is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And once again, you're missing such tiny words as 'development'. Yes, English is not a true cross-country language - yet. The situation is improving rapidly, and I'd like to note that your ordering of countries in English and non-English seems a little random - my little sister spent the summer in France, and used English by far more regularily than French, mainly as she met many people from the Netherlands and had many French speaking acceptable English.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happy to hear it. Now show me some real statistics that do not include your sister and french coffee houses. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can imagine what you mean - that the different cultures aren't steadily intemingling, but generally focussed on certain areas in which they are predominant (urban areas being a little different, of course). Seeing that the French, German, Spanish, and British cultures are as well focussed on certain EU-intern areas where they are predominant (such as France, Germany, Spain, or Great Britain), and mainly intermingle at the borders and in the cities, I can however not see how that's a big difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still don't think you comprehend the differences - it's hard to do so without practical experience. You can go anywhere - ANYWHERE - in the USA, and instantly communicate with all people easily, and have 99% similarities in culture, minus some small regional differences. It is in no way like Europe at all.
I'd reply to your other points, but I think I've answered them previously. And yes, I am being stubborn. It's another very homogenous American trait... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter and complete nonsense. The EU says jump and countries will say how high. Its economic sphere is second only to the US, and exerts immense leverage. You know, this of course, but it's counter to your other arguments so I think you let it slide a bit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Counter-utter and complete nonsense. Problem is, EU says, always means that EU excluding France and Germany, or France and UK or some other constellation, DON'T say. And there's a small share of countries that aren't willing to integrate completely into the EU as of yet. Denmark, UK, Sweden are acting like refuseniks. My country, Denmark, currently has four .... whatchacallums, exclusions or reservations about key, written into the treaty. And it causes some annoyance among the better integrated countries that feel the process of integration is hampered.
A lot of nationalism still rules the day. France always want some speacial deal cut out for them. And Spain are feeling mighty gutsy right now and demanding this or that. Why, just yesterday a new draft for a law banning 30.000 chemicals was watered out by France, Germany and another country I believe, to just 20.000 chemicals in consumer products UNTILL they have been proven harmless. As well as they made a clause that stated that no ban would be implemented if it would worsen competitiveness of the industry. Which is really making the legislation quite impotent and a waste of time.
As for one of the first poster mentioning Italy; yeah, we get complete jokers like Berlusconi to rule a country. If the man has any comeptence as a politician, I'm still waiting for proof. He's got a wily foxy mind well fit to run a conglomerate of media businesses, but he's causing a lot of irritation and in no way helping the EU as a whole, and not his own country at all it seems. I'm glad he's the formal head of the EU and not of USA!
That's the kind of thing plagueing the EU, and the main reason that EU rarely says "Jump". On many areas, countries conform, but not nearly enough to the region being homogenized in foreign policy. Not yet. Economic power isn't the same as saying EU is a whole. Compare it to the americans firing a large caliber <a href='http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons3.html' target='_blank'>sniper rifle</a> versus the EU 12 gauge, where 15 soldiers all try to get a hold of the gun and aim it in each their direction. Wide spread, low range, no focus at all.
In the end, it might turn out as you predict.
Oh, and good to see you back in the discussion forums, MonsE
People don't like the idea of people hundreds of miles away making very important calls for the economy not even speaking the same language, diffrences pluage the united Europe. The swedish answer to the euro was a big no with big questions. The politics towards a united europe coulden't make most voters believe that it would make the nation stronger. So all "not sure" voters voted no.
Big set back, hopefully these kind of wounds will heal in time. When the EU finally does something that gets the worlds eyes on it.
Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you mean brussels isnt in germany??
crap.
thats why i dropped geography before GCSE...
umm...
Come back all i said?
Also, I'm a little bewildered at that fear of Germans. You know, I happen to be one, and so far, I haven't tried to invade you... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I look at it the other way, the capital was choosen to please the small nations and perhaps reduce some of the feelings that the big nations rules. But besides, what relevance does the location of EU's headquarter have to do with the EU itself ?
And my nitpicky side says it started in 1919 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565590715' target='_blank'>http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...d=1066565590715</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany and France accused over EU rules
By George Parker in Brussels
Published: November 3 2003 20:50 | Last Updated: November 3 2003 20:50
Germany and France were on Monday accused of trying to "kill" Europe's fiscal rules, as EU finance ministers met amid mounting political tension in the 12-country eurozone.
They claim to have found a legal loophole that might allow them to escape the threat of sanctions under the EU's stability and growth pact. But their manoeuvre has enraged the European Commission and some smaller countries, which claim it would destroy the pact's already weakened credibility.
Karl-Heinz Grasser, Austrian finance minister, urged his EU colleagues to stand up to pressure from France and Germany, the eurozone's two most powerful economies.
Speaking ahead of Monday night's eurogroup meeting of 12 single currency finance ministers, Mr Grasser said both countries must face the consequences of breaching the pact's deficit rules for three years in a row. "We all are obliged for our own credibility and the credibility of the euro to find a way out," he told Reuters news agency. "The way out cannot be by killing the stability pact and putting one pillar of our monetary union at stake."
The 12 members of the single currency are at the point where they must decide if they are serious about enforcing the pact, designed to enforce fiscal discipline across the eurozone.
They must decide this month - either on Tuesday or more likely at their next meeting on November 25 - whether to support the European Commission's recommendation to start proceedings against France for its third breach of the pact in 2004.
It is the first time the eurogroup ministers have reached this point. Once passed, Brussels assumes powers to direct Paris on how to correct its deficit, and will require Paris to submit progress reports; ultimately fines can be imposed if it fails to comply.
Germany, which will also breach the pact's 3 per cent deficit rule for a third time in 2004, is about to find itself in the same position as France.
But rather than face the humiliation of having to submit to economic direction from Brussels, Germany and France are now trying to draw the stability pact's remaining teeth.
The two countries, who believe they have support from Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, want the Commission to suspend enforcement proceedings and adopt a voluntary approach instead.
But the Commission insisted that such a step would be illegal under the EU treaty, and that it would not agree to such a retreat. "The Commission has done its job under the treaty, and now it is up to ministers to take up their responsibilities," said Pedro Solbes, EU monetary affairs commissioner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm on an EU kick today (blame Google news). This report lends new life into this nearly dead topic; we spoke before about the EU possibly being more like Germany and France as king and queen (no pun intended there <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ). With this latest bit of news (do as we say, not as we do) on circumventing core economic rules, are the western powerhouse duo playing fair, and does this endanger the U in EU?
1) The Roman Empire = The European Union
The Roman Empire conquered Europe, without its civilians consent. The EU isnt a state anyway.
2) The United States = the European Union
The united states was culturally homogeneous to begin with, all speaking english, most of the protestant, most of them the same culture. The thirteen states did not fight wars among eachother. No real nationalism.
The European Union is much tougher to unite. Nationalism, a long history of wars, lots of languages, different cultures, etcetera.
The European Union has, however, accomplished a lot. It will have a constitution within the next year, has initiated a lot of laws that are applicable (?) in all EU member states, has its own army, has common borders, one common market, one currency. There have been no wars between EU member states since its emergence (Although the dutch province of Zeeland forgot top sign a peace treaty with Spain in 1648, and was still in war with it untill the nineties).
The greatest threat to the European Union is the agricultural subsidies. They currently eat up more than half of the entire budget, and with the coming expansion it will simply not be affordable.
The united states was culturally homogeneous to begin with, all speaking english, most of the protestant, most of them the same culture. The thirteen states did not fight wars among eachother. No real nationalism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget about this little thing called the Civil War? Maybe not of the original 13 colonies... But still between states.
And actually... There is A LOT of nationalism within the US. At one time there was some friction between federal or state rights... The Civil War settled that for the most part.
And actually... There is A LOT of nationalism within the US. At one time there was some friction between federal or state rights... The Civil War settled that for the most part. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so you had one minor war 150 years ago. and that's it? Great!
<a href='http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm</a>
The US had only a few thousand fewer casualties in the Civil War than in WW2. And the scale of the Civil War as far as geography is roughly comparable to the western front of WW1. As far as us being bad for only having one little war - ehhhh, what? Trust me, our lack of internal warfare is why the US is a superpower and European nations are sitting around trying to steal from each other.
I like how no one ever says 'gosh, I was mistaken - thanks for filling me in on missing information' in this forum. It's always a 'yeah, BUT'...
<a href='http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm</a>
The US had only a few thousand fewer casualties in the Civil War than in WW2. And the scale of the Civil War as far as geography is roughly comparable to the western front of WW1. As far as us being bad for only having one little war - ehhhh, what? Trust me, our lack of internal warfare is why the US is a superpower and European nations are sitting around trying to steal from each other.
I like how no one ever says 'gosh, I was mistaken - thanks for filling me in on missing information' in this forum. It's always a 'yeah, BUT'... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wars are not only about militairy casualties. WWII killed about 56 million people (http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html), largely in Europe. That is about 100 times the number of militairy casualties in the Civil War.'Can't find any useful info on the total number of deaths though <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I am not saying the US is bad for lack of internal warfare - I am only saying that having fewer nationalism, and fewer wars, fewer internal strife, makes it logical that the thirteen states were easier to unite than the european states. Read.
There are lots of statistics, and debate is always look at my numbers! No mine say the opposite. That is debate.
The original 13 colonies were initially united because of a common distaste for how they were being treated by England. After that was settled... There were a lot of issues between the different states. But it is almost just luck that they were able to work out their differences. It did help that they were originally English colonies... But that does not mean it was any less daunting than what the EU is trying to achieve.
The Civil War was anything but minor....
It's funny talking about how there has been no war between EU member states since its emergence... How many wars happened between them after WWII ( you can even include those that are not considered "minor" by your opinion )? When was the EU created?
And you need to get a lot more polite. Saying things like 'Read.' to me, the way people are so rudely posting today, is very likely to have you made an example of. You have been warned in a PM before, and now you're warned here again. The next time you will not be posting in Discussion ever again, so post wisely.
And you need to get a lot more polite. Saying things like 'Read.' to me, the way people are so rudely posting today, is very likely to have you made an example of. You have been warned in a PM before, and now you're warned here again. The next time you will not be posting in Discussion ever again, so post wisely. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I miss your point about the numbers. Anyway, war among current EU member states have been more than common than between the US meber states. A list of wars of the last 150 years might help
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)
WWI (1914-1919)
WWII (1939-1945)
The Italian Unification ( lets say 1846-1861)
Since the emergence of centralized states, the European states have been in constant conflict with eachother.
The original 13 colonies were initially united because of a common distaste for how they were being treated by England. After that was settled... There were a lot of issues between the different states. But it is almost just luck that they were able to work out their differences. It did help that they were originally English colonies... But that does not mean it was any less daunting than what the EU is trying to achieve.**
The Civil War was anything but minor....
It's funny talking about how there has been no war between EU member states since its emergence... How many wars happened between them after WWII ( you can even include those that are not considered "minor" by your opinion )? When was the EU created? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*I know. But on the other hand, showing the willingness to destroy eachothers cities and mass-murder eachothers civilians, shows a greater gap than the gap between the United States.
**The European Union member states have many more differences. Trade. Immigration. Agricultural funds. Language. What countries to allow into the EU. It was less daunting.
***Exactly my point. Since the EU was created (a few years after WWII) there have been no wars between the member states.
If I remember correctly, the start of the topic was : "Anyway discuss your thoughs on the EU". Not only about France and Germany neglecting the 3 % rule. About that: Many economists argue that this rule is economically disadvantageous and should be abolished. It is not correct, however, for the two states to simply ignore the rule. But looking more closely at the economy of the EU, it makes perfect sense. The economy in both countries was declining, and needed a boost. Atthe same time, tax revenues were falling.
I am not saying that the EU will fail. It's goals are just different from the thirteen american states. I already summed up the successes of the EU. Problems are further democratization of the EU, agriculture, and general acceptance of the EU among citizens (the number of voters for european voters in elections have fallen drastically since 1980). Sure, the European Union is far from having a common foreign policy, and thus it can not have any real influence in world policies. On the whole, seeing the problems they have solved in the last fifty years, I am optimistic about the EU's future.
Hmm. I wouldn't say that is a result of the EU itself.
From 1945 - 1991, the main reason for the lack of major warfare in Europe was that the continent was divided into two armed camps: NATO vs the Warsaw Pact. Both sides, whilst maintaining massive conventional forces, also possessed vast nuclear arsonals. Thus, with Mutually Assured Destruction there was no conflict.
Post-1991 2 European powers (3 if you want to count Russia) still have atomic weaponry. Eastern Europe is more concerned with rebuilding itself after 50 years of communist corruption and mismanagment, and Western Europe is much more interested in commercial and economic gains than military campaigns against other European nations. The spread of capitalist democratic governments has doubtless had an effect upon this.
Yet even so, I still feel that the cultural gaps between the EU member states are too great. You just can't bury centuries of conflict overnight. Sure, it could happen, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that day. Europe's nations still retain too much nationalism for the EU to be anything more than a loose alliance.