EPTNo really xm(z, you are vehemently anti-EU, against a EU military, against EU economic and diplomatic influence, so what's the problem here?
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1235
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
No really xm(z, you are vehemently anti-EU, against a EU military, against EU economic and diplomatic influence, so what's the problem here? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 13 2019 07:41 xM(Z wrote: good to know you're as useless as ever. people are dying and will keep dying because EU can't get their shit right but you know, that's just different countries having different interests, no big deal. it even gets Dangermousecatdog and Plansix seal of approval!; how cute. User was warned for this post. Yeah, it's not a big deal. That sounds rough, but in fact, that's how the world works and always had. What, do you expect that either country now drop their interests as a sovereign nation? Why doesn't Romania step in, shit on their interests, and pay out both france and italy? It's as realistic as asking a sovereign nation to completely ignore their interests and watch another one gobble it up. Does it suck that people are dying? Obviously. Has that ever, at any point in time, stopped a country from pursuing their interests? The entire middle east is a big clusterfuck thanks to the US protecting their interests, starting in the 80s. Quite a few countries (including yours) traded with Nazi Germany during the war. It is what it is. To argue that the EU should prevent that is literally advocating what all the right wingers argue. EU does nothing: "Look why does the EU even exist" EU sorts it out: "Look EU literally hitler, totalitarian federalist regime grabbing power from sovereign countries" | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
It's as realistic as asking a sovereign nation to completely ignore their interests and watch another one gobble it up. that happens within the EU as well and it is why EU is failing. how can you be pro-EU but condone the things that make it fail?. is that condescending, duplicitous ethic of yours that makes nationalism flare up. Has that ever, at any point in time, stopped a country from pursuing their interests? the point is about you, not about you dumbing down whats what so i'll get it, it's about you and your double standards. why don't you go to the topic about Venezuela(as it stands now), say shit happens, Russia defends its interests, nothing to see here, walk away contended, then expect others to follow/accept your cynic(which i put on Dangermousecatdog), bleak, defeatist view of reality. because dude ..., it's because people take fucking sides in spite of perceived realities on the ground. taking sides makes change happen while tacitly glossing over interests, excuses them. so now take a side, France or Italy, shit on the country you're against of, then shit on EU for allowing it while pretending to be a single unitary block without diverging interests.+ Show Spoiler + read this garbage: Current activities how dude?, how would they achieve that when they're on both sides of the war?.The EU remains fully committed to Libya and its transition to a democratic, law-based state. This will bring benefits to both Libya and the EU. The EU currently provides funding of around €374 million for various vital projects and activities in Libya, including: - the political process reconciliation, elections and the constitutional process - protection of human rights and women's empowerment - economic recovery - security and justice - border management and security - migration - public administration reform - health - education, vocational training and culture - media, youth and civil society. @Dangermousecatdog - you're wrong on everything. you can't be talked to, i can't talk to you because you can't see how someone can criticize something while not necessarily be against it. @No one will receive it - i disagree that i shouldn't insult people. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9251 Posts
so now take a side, France or Italy, shit on the country you're against of, then shit on EU for allowing it while pretending to be a single unitary block without diverging interests. It's not within the EU's competence to allow or disallow that. If there's a disagreement between France and Italy, the EU can help in resolving it (or pressure one side to back off), but it's not up to the EU to decide how it's going to be resolved. You can argue that the EU should have more or fewer competences in foreign affairs, but I disagree with saying that it failed at something regarding Libya. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
you then go on with the argument and search for excuses for the fail; you'll find reasonable/valid ones and invalid ones. what France and Italy do, falls into the later category, thus inexcusable. on EU's competence: when you start with - not within the competence of ... to allow or disallow that, you've already started off on the wrong foot because that kind of phrasing implies a faulty premise to begin with: uncertainty, ambiguity, indecisiveness, innocent or ignorant, on the side of EU. that's not acceptable. valid criticisms can be made here but i'll just say that while some talk about unity, the reality shows only multiplicity and divisiveness. “It is in the interest of European states to strengthen the community and speed up the process towards a European Union, exactly in those areas where citizens are calling for it”, Mr Bettel said, highlighting his conviction that only a European response can ensure the well being of the continent’s peoples and address today’s global challenges. pretty words for the gullible, aren't they?.what should or shouldn't EU have more of could be theoretically explored but the bottom line here is that EU will be what you(all EU citizens) want it to be and if the citizens attitude is "shit happens", you'll just get shit happening ... in perpetuity. Edit: as a glaring example you can read on the arms embargo issue. In March 2018, in response to coalition violations in Yemen, Angela Merkel's governing coalition announced that it would suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia, excluding contracts already in place. That changed in November. Following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Germany started enforcing a complete arms embargo, triggering the ire of France and the UK, Germany's two partners in European arms projects. France has argued that Germany's arms export policy would undermine "the credibility of the European defence project". After president Emmanuel Macron called the German position "demagogic" last year, French diplomats recently increased their pressure on Germany to drop its embargo. The ban has divided Merkel's governing coalition, but it has also drawn criticism from France and Britain. Both countries have decried the fact that the Saudi weapons freeze also bars sales of arms manufactured in different countries that happen to have German components in them. then boom:Germany's secret security council, consisting of chancellor Angela Merkel and chief ministers, allowed on Thursday certain weapons shipments to members of the war coalition in Yemen, including Saudi Arabia. that begs the question: what was it traded for?. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9251 Posts
The lack of unity in the European Union may look awkward, but as long as the EU exists in its current form, it is understandable. We all want to continue doing business with each other, but Germans don't want others to tell them where they can get their gas from, the French don't want others to tell them what to do with their interests in Africa, Italians don't want others to tell them what kind of deals they can make with China, etc. You can say that it is a problem that needs to be solved, but that's not doable in the next few years. I also think that shit will keep happening regardless of our attitude. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Tonight he will announce tax cuts for sure. On the general philosophy, my bet is on an acceleration of his maintained neoliberal agenda. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On April 15 2019 05:30 Sent. wrote: to me that's an argument made in vitro, an argument that is yet to be compared/matched up against in vivo realities.Okay, I shouldn't make it look like I'm saying the EU (and its members) did nothing wrong. I meant that it did as much as it could because the member states weren't interested in giving it the power to do more. The lack of unity in the European Union may look awkward, but as long as the EU exists in its current form, it is understandable. We all want to continue doing business with each other, but Germans don't want others to tell them where they can get their gas from, the French don't want others to tell them what to do with their interests in Africa, Italians don't want others to tell them what kind of deals they can make with China, etc. You can say that it is a problem that needs to be solved, but that's not doable in the next few years. I also think that shit will keep happening regardless of our attitude. and a reality is that when you talk about a country's interests, you talk about politicians propped by lobby coming from massive corporations. Ex: Merkel is pushing for NS2 on behest of Germany’s Uniper and BASF’s Wintershall; her excuse with which she's trying to calm down other EU states that have valid fears about EU's growing reliance on energy imports from Russia, is that as long as EU diversifies its energy inputs, that reliance will not happen. (as a parenthesis here: in mid last year there was "a political agreement on new rules for improving energy efficiency in Europe with negotiators from the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council, and among other eye catching statements was: Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said: "Europe is by far the largest importer of fossil fuel in the world. Today we put an end to this. This deal is a major push for Europe's energy independence. Much of what we spend on imported fossil fuels will now be invested at home in more efficient buildings, industries and transport. some wishful thinking/hoping there but giving it was clean/renewable energy related, some could still praise it for its intent, which makes EU look as a good actor there. now, anyone knowing some basics about clean energy knows that, as it stands, it's not reliable to put it mildly(it's an utter fail vis-a-vis fossil fuels). that reality makes the above statement nothing but a ploy, a trick to save face.) going back to the first paragraph, EU diversification meant a gas pipe from Azerbaijan(was hoping from Turkmenistan too but that doesn't look likely) to Italy(the Southern Gas Corridor) and one from Iran; there were also talks about importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from US. that's diversity, fuck yea!, we got this. but now here's the reality - the SGC can only transport ~2% of EU needs(project designers were hoping for 4-5% at least but somewhere shit happened). even at ~5% it would've been a joke, sort of. if, in our naivety, we assume the EU is still the good guy here, with the reasoning that it's at least trying, here's the catch: it is built by Russian's Lukoil, it is only competitive within eastern and south-eastern markets, the stream is required to open its capacity expansion to the most cost-competitive supplier and that is <drums> yes, Russia's Gazprom(huge reserves+low prices) coming into EU via the Black Sea's TurkStream which becomes operational this year. Trump bitched slapped Iran with sanctions not because, omg nukes!, but to stop EU's gas imports from Iran, then pressure EU to import high priced US LNG which Germany doesn't want to 'cause screw Trump or something. so the conclusion, you diversify from russian gas into russian gas while feeding the gullible renewed energy bs. for many, that looks like a mini Ribbentrop-Molotov the 2nd. from where i'm sitting the West looks fragmented, weak and loosing while the East wins, with a lot of small countries caught in-between, left to fend for themselves. in a not so distant future with half of the EU(16+1) trading more with China, who would care what Germany or France wants?. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23489 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7712 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
On April 16 2019 02:55 Plansix wrote: Could they even get water up there? It looks like the top of the building is burning and I have no context for how tall it is. There might be limitations on the equipment they have available. That would also likely do just as much harm as good if they can somehow contain it in the upper floors. But it does not look like that from the pictures... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: Youtube doing great stuff too. Related videos to the live news coverage of the fire on youtube are 9/11 videos. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/15/18311727/notre-dame-fire-youtube-september-9-11-attack-fact-check | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7712 Posts
On April 16 2019 03:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I wonder if the renovation crews that were working on the building had already left, as the fire started around 7pm, had they left equipment plugged in possibly or something. Could be a leaking gas tank left by the workers (like for a blowtorch), the fire wouldn't start until air concentration was high enough to ignite from a random spark or sth. This is all speculation of course, but an accident is the most logical and probable cause. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
I can't see the Yellow Vests protests targeting such a iconic place. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 13 2019 15:06 xM(Z wrote: that happens within the EU as well and it is why EU is failing. how can you be pro-EU but condone the things that make it fail?. is that condescending, duplicitous ethic of yours that makes nationalism flare up. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" , F. Scott Fitzgerald Sorry, politics is a little bit more complicated than nationalists might make you want to think, and when you're talking about global politics involving several layers of conflicting interests then yes, you will have to be able to deal with contradictions, that what it's all about. And of course nationalists get angry when they're faced with complexity and ambiguity. The primary motivation for all sorts of extremism is resolving tension. Be it different religions, ethnic groups, political organisations, whenever a situation requires to hold competing ideas in mind at the same time, nationalists tend to go for their guns, because they're inherently unable to accept that a situation demands juggling opposing interests. It says a lot about a person if they think that the ability to navigate conflict is "condescending" or "duplicitous", rather than a necessary skill to govern responsibly in the modern world. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
edit: All of the artwork has apparently been saved. | ||
| ||
