|
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. |
On September 21 2016 02:07 TheDwf wrote:
So, in one of those ridiculous events, Hollande was awarded the World Statesman Award of the Year by war criminal Kissinger. Apparently, Hollande even said that Kissinger is a “reference”. Any time you think you cannot fall lower, you are disappointed.
Next up, they share a Nobel Peace Prize 
|
Turns out two police officers from Belgium were arrested in France because they were transporting migrants from belgium to france.
Congratz europe.
|
On September 17 2016 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. Europe always wanted to be a military power, it was forbid to do so by the US. Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 20:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. A European army doesn't sound too bad if it means we can leave our "alliance" with the US, but I still think the idea is kind of ridiculous mostly on the basis that I dislike using a military with the idea of improving unity/maintaining peace. That said, I could still see it actually having some positive effect. The only way I can see countries in Europe coming together without responding to an external threat is by fostering some kind cultural unity. I can't see any reasonable ways to achieve this, though, what with the language barriers and so forth. There would have to a lot of encouragement in having kids learn various languages in school, somehow opening up the media channels between countries (like, remove/change whatever legislation is causing/allowing, for example, some German Youtube videos to not be available in other European countries) AND getting people to watch media from other countries to slowly absorb it into their own culture. This would have to last for at least 25 years before there'd be a significant effect, since the change in attitude would only come with kids who are exposed to these kinds of things. Come to think of it, maybe this is already kind of going on, although at an even slower rate than that 25 years I mentioned because we're not really actively working towards it. I guess I thought the internet would help speed up this process, but there seems to be a lot of fighting against blending together and rather it is separation that is encouraged through a lot of the recent stuff (past 10-15 years) that has been happening in the online world. Ugh, this is an incoherent mess of a thought-train. Completely and utterly pointless too, AND it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation LOL If you want to understand the way a european army would behave, look at the US or at the french army. It's all over the world (altho at different scale) : it's not about defending our territory (and reacting to agression) but rather defending our values (and promoting them). At least, that is how Hollande present it. Also you are absolutly right about cultural unity ; but that is promoted by a common language, a common core in education, supporting travel through out europe, a common fiscal unity. Those things should come before any kind of army.
Wow, how could I have been so blind. We don't need to form our own European army, we just need to kick America out of NATO. LOL. Might actually be a good way to realize that we are on our own since the US just does whatever it likes to do anyway, and then we can start rebuilding the Union. Stop sending jobs to China, send them to Greece. Get Britain back on board, maybe even Sweden wants to join.
Reach out to Russia and the Middle East through trade and diplomacy with their specific governments regardless of whether or not we agree with their internal structures, and just make sure we know how we behave towards others and act according the standards of peaceful democratic rationality we tend to think we are upholding. Lead by example sort of thing.
|
Hungarian trucker can barely talk after beeing beaten up in Calais.
The trucker beaten in Calais on Thursday at dawn can barely speak. His wife said on a radio interview that the attackers knocked his husband's teeth out and started hitting him with a wrench.
There are a few more details in the original article, but it is in hungarian and I was too lazy to translate all of it. (And the first paragraph I translated isn't the best translation.)
(source :www.origo.hu )
I am just curious if this is news anywhere else?
|
No, we get our own funny stories and videos from Calais. They're never frontpage material though.
|
In Germany I also didn't see it reported but after reading your post I had to think about this video:+ Show Spoiler +
|
So what is the conversation like for the police to drive them to France from Belgium? Who talked to whom and how are they being paid to do that?
Especially considering France has been such a hotbed of terrorism recently with the president claiming they are stopping attacks / plans daily and the last terrorists that came from Belgium really tore up the place.
|
Well I guess thats that. I wanted to hear it from different sources aswell.
This is not the same trucker. But yes, everybody was thinking about him again. I dont think the two has any connections.
|
On September 23 2016 09:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. Europe always wanted to be a military power, it was forbid to do so by the US. On September 17 2016 20:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. A European army doesn't sound too bad if it means we can leave our "alliance" with the US, but I still think the idea is kind of ridiculous mostly on the basis that I dislike using a military with the idea of improving unity/maintaining peace. That said, I could still see it actually having some positive effect. The only way I can see countries in Europe coming together without responding to an external threat is by fostering some kind cultural unity. I can't see any reasonable ways to achieve this, though, what with the language barriers and so forth. There would have to a lot of encouragement in having kids learn various languages in school, somehow opening up the media channels between countries (like, remove/change whatever legislation is causing/allowing, for example, some German Youtube videos to not be available in other European countries) AND getting people to watch media from other countries to slowly absorb it into their own culture. This would have to last for at least 25 years before there'd be a significant effect, since the change in attitude would only come with kids who are exposed to these kinds of things. Come to think of it, maybe this is already kind of going on, although at an even slower rate than that 25 years I mentioned because we're not really actively working towards it. I guess I thought the internet would help speed up this process, but there seems to be a lot of fighting against blending together and rather it is separation that is encouraged through a lot of the recent stuff (past 10-15 years) that has been happening in the online world. Ugh, this is an incoherent mess of a thought-train. Completely and utterly pointless too, AND it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation LOL If you want to understand the way a european army would behave, look at the US or at the french army. It's all over the world (altho at different scale) : it's not about defending our territory (and reacting to agression) but rather defending our values (and promoting them). At least, that is how Hollande present it. Also you are absolutly right about cultural unity ; but that is promoted by a common language, a common core in education, supporting travel through out europe, a common fiscal unity. Those things should come before any kind of army. Wow, how could I have been so blind. We don't need to form our own European army, we just need to kick America out of NATO. LOL. Might actually be a good way to realize that we are on our own since the US just does whatever it likes to do anyway, and then we can start rebuilding the Union. Stop sending jobs to China, send them to Greece. Get Britain back on board, maybe even Sweden wants to join.
Sweden's population is slightly against a NATO membership. So I would assume the same is true about an European army. Current Russian trends slowly make us more positive though. So if the Ukraine, Georgia and similar actions keep happening or continue to be ongoing we would likely join NATO or an EU army. Russia also keeps doing very minor military actions that are aggressive against Sweden, which slowly builds up ill will. If there is no Russian situation it is highly unlikely Sweden would want to join a military union.
~43% against, 35% for, 22% undecided in the two polls I've seen.
One of the things speaking for joining an European army would be that Turkey would not be part of it in the start. The same arguments that are made against Russia regarding way of governing can be made against Turkey. They are an important ally but not somebody comfortable in recent years.
|
I think I speak for most in the US when I say, if you guys are up to taking care of your own defense, that would be great. But we will be very sad if the Russians take over Oktoberfest. I've gone drinking with Germans and with Russians. One is a great deal of fun, and one is a miserable, somber affair. Okay, in their defense, the women wear great outfits... but we'd still miss it.
France, honestly, I think the Russians can take at this point.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Are you saying the women at Oktoberfest don't wear great outfits?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 24 2016 12:06 Yoav wrote:
I think I speak for most in the US when I say, if you guys are up to taking care of your own defense, that would be great. But we will be very sad if the Russians take over Oktoberfest. I've gone drinking with Germans and with Russians. One is a great deal of fun, and one is a miserable, somber affair. Okay, in their defense, the women wear great outfits... but we'd still miss it.
France, honestly, I think the Russians can take at this point.
I had drunk with both and had a lot of fun. Making russians drink canary islands's rum utterly destroys them xD.
|
French President Francois Hollande said on Saturday that thousands of migrants living in the shanty town near Calais known as the "Jungle" would be dispersed across the country, in an attempt to quell criticism of his handling of Europe's migrant crisis.
About 9,000 places will be made available at "reception and orientation centers" for migrants living in the camp which is near the port city in northern France, Hollande said on i-Tele, after visiting a facility in Tours, about 240 km (150 miles) south-west of Paris.
The migrants will be split into groups of 40 to 50 people for a limited period of three to four months, Hollande said. Those who fit the asylum criteria will be allowed to stay in France, while those who do not will be deported, he said.
"There should be no camp in France," the French president said, adding that the goal was to dismantle it completely.
The squalid camp, which Hollande is to visit on Monday, has become a symbol of the migrant crisis in France at a time when immigration is seen as a key theme in next year's presidential election.
Migrants from the camp regularly clash with the police as they try to make their way to Britain via the port.
Former president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Calais this week, as he campaigns for a return to the presidency next year, promising to be particularly tough on immigration.
Some French opposition politicians have called for the ditching of an agreement under which border controls take place on the French side of the channel, saying Britain should handle the problem.
About 7,000 migrants live in the remaining northern half of the camp, up from 4,500 in June, according to local authorities, although humanitarian groups put the number closer to 9,000.
France dismantled the southern half of the camp in February and March and the government said it would shut down the rest, but gave no timeframe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-calais-idUSKCN11U0CL
|
On September 24 2016 17:39 zatic wrote:Are you saying the women at Oktoberfest don't wear great outfits? + Show Spoiler +
Point taken. NATO stays, because those "tracts of land" must be protected against any and all aggression.
|
On September 24 2016 10:36 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 09:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. Europe always wanted to be a military power, it was forbid to do so by the US. On September 17 2016 20:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. A European army doesn't sound too bad if it means we can leave our "alliance" with the US, but I still think the idea is kind of ridiculous mostly on the basis that I dislike using a military with the idea of improving unity/maintaining peace. That said, I could still see it actually having some positive effect. The only way I can see countries in Europe coming together without responding to an external threat is by fostering some kind cultural unity. I can't see any reasonable ways to achieve this, though, what with the language barriers and so forth. There would have to a lot of encouragement in having kids learn various languages in school, somehow opening up the media channels between countries (like, remove/change whatever legislation is causing/allowing, for example, some German Youtube videos to not be available in other European countries) AND getting people to watch media from other countries to slowly absorb it into their own culture. This would have to last for at least 25 years before there'd be a significant effect, since the change in attitude would only come with kids who are exposed to these kinds of things. Come to think of it, maybe this is already kind of going on, although at an even slower rate than that 25 years I mentioned because we're not really actively working towards it. I guess I thought the internet would help speed up this process, but there seems to be a lot of fighting against blending together and rather it is separation that is encouraged through a lot of the recent stuff (past 10-15 years) that has been happening in the online world. Ugh, this is an incoherent mess of a thought-train. Completely and utterly pointless too, AND it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation LOL If you want to understand the way a european army would behave, look at the US or at the french army. It's all over the world (altho at different scale) : it's not about defending our territory (and reacting to agression) but rather defending our values (and promoting them). At least, that is how Hollande present it. Also you are absolutly right about cultural unity ; but that is promoted by a common language, a common core in education, supporting travel through out europe, a common fiscal unity. Those things should come before any kind of army. Wow, how could I have been so blind. We don't need to form our own European army, we just need to kick America out of NATO. LOL. Might actually be a good way to realize that we are on our own since the US just does whatever it likes to do anyway, and then we can start rebuilding the Union. Stop sending jobs to China, send them to Greece. Get Britain back on board, maybe even Sweden wants to join. Sweden's population is slightly against a NATO membership. So I would assume the same is true about an European army. Current Russian trends slowly make us more positive though. So if the Ukraine, Georgia and similar actions keep happening or continue to be ongoing we would likely join NATO or an EU army. Russia also keeps doing very minor military actions that are aggressive against Sweden, which slowly builds up ill will. If there is no Russian situation it is highly unlikely Sweden would want to join a military union. ~43% against, 35% for, 22% undecided in the two polls I've seen. One of the things speaking for joining an European army would be that Turkey would not be part of it in the start. The same arguments that are made against Russia regarding way of governing can be made against Turkey. They are an important ally but not somebody comfortable in recent years.
If you think it's bad being subject to very minor military aggression on this side of the fence, imagine being Russian and having your country almost entirely surrounded by a missile system that is constantly pointing its nuclear weapons capability at you. I'd almost think I might have the right to feel a little threatened and perhaps prepare for the worst and train to take out those military installations in case something bad does happen and they begin to send their payloads of death and destruction into my country. Don't you think that is a reasonable course of action?
Besides, I always thought Sweden was against joining NATO precisely because of the US (who would want to build military installations in their country and demand unilateral control of such and so) so with them out of the picture, they might be more willing to join up. It's all just wild speculation though.
On September 24 2016 12:06 Yoav wrote:
I think I speak for most in the US when I say, if you guys are up to taking care of your own defense, that would be great. But we will be very sad if the Russians take over Oktoberfest. I've gone drinking with Germans and with Russians. One is a great deal of fun, and one is a miserable, somber affair. Okay, in their defense, the women wear great outfits... but we'd still miss it.
France, honestly, I think the Russians can take at this point.
I find it a little astonishing that you can think this is a reasonable argument. Russia invading Europe, really? What would they want to do with it? Visit the mines that dried up 50 years ago and have been converted into museums of an age gone by? Pay off our pensions? I mean... You could make a case for a few parcels of land along Russias borders that may be valuable strategically, but I doubt there's any real danger there.
Also, honestly, I see our military alliance with the US as pretty much the greatest threat to our security in the form of the aggression constantly coming out of them. I just really don't think it was a good idea to essentially take control of the world by building military bases everywhere and whatnot. I think the only way to begin to change that is to just kick them out of NATO. You're on your own, bud.
Edit: I mean, you can make the argument that they try to keep peace, or that there could be some other potential force that tries to take over the world, but that just sounds a little too Machiavellian to me. There will be wars of course, just as there are wars now. Sometimes they are even started by our most generous "peacekeeper" nation resulting in unknown - or perhaps predictable? - consequences. I don't think we'll be much worse off, on a global scale, if the US withdraws its military from occupying the world. Maybe we'll even be a little better in the long run.
|
On September 25 2016 05:10 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 10:36 Yurie wrote:On September 23 2016 09:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. Europe always wanted to be a military power, it was forbid to do so by the US. On September 17 2016 20:42 a_flayer wrote:On September 17 2016 20:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2016 07:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 16 2016 23:53 xM(Z wrote:On September 16 2016 22:03 Godwrath wrote:Bratislava EU meeting: Merkel says bloc in 'critical situation'
The European Union is in a "critical situation", the German chancellor has said, as leaders meet in Slovakia to discuss ways to regain trust after the UK's vote to leave the bloc.
Angela Merkel said they needed to show they could improve on security, defence co-operation and the economy.
But EU countries are deeply divided over how to bolster growth and respond to the influx of migrants.
Meeting in Bratislava without the UK, they will not discuss Brexit talks.
"We need solutions for Europe and we are in a critical situation," Mrs Merkel said as she arrived at the gathering.
"You can't solve all Europe's problems in one summit. What we have to do is show in our deeds we can do things better in the realms of security and fighting terrorism, and in the field of defence."
Even though Britain's referendum result is not on the agenda, and British Prime Minister Theresa May is not attending the summit, there is little doubt that Brexit will overshadow the meeting.
French President Francois Hollande said: "Either we move in the direction of disintegration, of dilution, or we work together to inject new momentum, we relaunch the European project." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37380429 how one should read that - we want an army else there's no European project so we're gonna bullshit people and bribe politicians until we get one. Here is my vision : the european project is the imperialist nostalgia of the european elite in institutional form. Which is why european leaders can only think about an european army to launch the european project anew. It's not imperialism. It's not even a polling of power. The European army idea has been around for a very long time, but all of a sudden (for the slow bureaucracy of the EU) it has gained traction precisely because of what Russia did to Ukraine. A European army doesn't sound too bad if it means we can leave our "alliance" with the US, but I still think the idea is kind of ridiculous mostly on the basis that I dislike using a military with the idea of improving unity/maintaining peace. That said, I could still see it actually having some positive effect. The only way I can see countries in Europe coming together without responding to an external threat is by fostering some kind cultural unity. I can't see any reasonable ways to achieve this, though, what with the language barriers and so forth. There would have to a lot of encouragement in having kids learn various languages in school, somehow opening up the media channels between countries (like, remove/change whatever legislation is causing/allowing, for example, some German Youtube videos to not be available in other European countries) AND getting people to watch media from other countries to slowly absorb it into their own culture. This would have to last for at least 25 years before there'd be a significant effect, since the change in attitude would only come with kids who are exposed to these kinds of things. Come to think of it, maybe this is already kind of going on, although at an even slower rate than that 25 years I mentioned because we're not really actively working towards it. I guess I thought the internet would help speed up this process, but there seems to be a lot of fighting against blending together and rather it is separation that is encouraged through a lot of the recent stuff (past 10-15 years) that has been happening in the online world. Ugh, this is an incoherent mess of a thought-train. Completely and utterly pointless too, AND it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation LOL If you want to understand the way a european army would behave, look at the US or at the french army. It's all over the world (altho at different scale) : it's not about defending our territory (and reacting to agression) but rather defending our values (and promoting them). At least, that is how Hollande present it. Also you are absolutly right about cultural unity ; but that is promoted by a common language, a common core in education, supporting travel through out europe, a common fiscal unity. Those things should come before any kind of army. Wow, how could I have been so blind. We don't need to form our own European army, we just need to kick America out of NATO. LOL. Might actually be a good way to realize that we are on our own since the US just does whatever it likes to do anyway, and then we can start rebuilding the Union. Stop sending jobs to China, send them to Greece. Get Britain back on board, maybe even Sweden wants to join. Sweden's population is slightly against a NATO membership. So I would assume the same is true about an European army. Current Russian trends slowly make us more positive though. So if the Ukraine, Georgia and similar actions keep happening or continue to be ongoing we would likely join NATO or an EU army. Russia also keeps doing very minor military actions that are aggressive against Sweden, which slowly builds up ill will. If there is no Russian situation it is highly unlikely Sweden would want to join a military union. ~43% against, 35% for, 22% undecided in the two polls I've seen. One of the things speaking for joining an European army would be that Turkey would not be part of it in the start. The same arguments that are made against Russia regarding way of governing can be made against Turkey. They are an important ally but not somebody comfortable in recent years. If you think it's bad being subject to very minor military aggression on this side of the fence, imagine being Russian and having your country almost entirely surrounded by a missile system that is constantly pointing its nuclear weapons capability at you. I'd almost think I might have the right to feel a little threatened and perhaps prepare for the worst and train to take out those military installations in case something bad does happen and they begin to send their payloads of death and destruction into my country. Don't you think that is a reasonable course of action? Besides, I always thought Sweden was against joining NATO precisely because of the US (who would want to build military installations in their country and demand unilateral control of such and so) so with them out of the picture, they might be more willing to join up. It's all just wild speculation though. Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 12:06 Yoav wrote:
I think I speak for most in the US when I say, if you guys are up to taking care of your own defense, that would be great. But we will be very sad if the Russians take over Oktoberfest. I've gone drinking with Germans and with Russians. One is a great deal of fun, and one is a miserable, somber affair. Okay, in their defense, the women wear great outfits... but we'd still miss it.
France, honestly, I think the Russians can take at this point. I find it a little astonishing that you can think this is a reasonable argument. Russia invading Europe, really? What would they want to do with it? Visit the mines that dried up 50 years ago and have been converted into museums of an age gone by? Pay off our pensions? I mean... You could make a case for a few parcels of land along Russias borders that may be valuable strategically, but I doubt there's any real danger there. Also, honestly, I see our military alliance with the US as pretty much the greatest threat to our security in the form of the aggression constantly coming out of them. I just really don't think it was a good idea to essentially take control of the world by building military bases everywhere and whatnot. I think the only way to begin to change that is to just kick them out of NATO. You're on your own, bud. Edit: I mean, you can make the argument that they try to keep peace, or that there could be some other potential force that tries to take over the world, but that just sounds a little too Machiavellian to me. There will be wars of course, just as there are wars now. Sometimes they are even started by our most generous "peacekeeper" nation resulting in unknown - or perhaps predictable? - consequences. I don't think we'll be much worse off, on a global scale, if the US withdraws its military from occupying the world. Maybe we'll even be a little better in the long run.
As for US being in NATO being a reason against it. Sure but it is far from a major reason. The major reason has always been that Sweden wants to remain free from military unions to be able to stay out of wars. Sweden does not want wars at all. Being part of NATO would force them to be part in them to stay in the union. Even peace keeping missions from the UN aren't 100% popular but accepted since Sweden mostly accept police actions abroad and try to stay out of the aggressive ones. The last war Sweden was part of that could not be judged as peace keeping or similar was in 1814, if there is none in the rest of history that would be the best thing possible (if unlikely).
I honestly prefer the US variant of world domination to the Russian or Chinese ones. Those are the only current alternatives though Russia is a bit too weak to seriously do anything. China is currently expanding just as the US was up until this decade. A lot of trade deals in Africa for developing regions getting resource ownership in return and so on. They have more government involvement than the US that just helped their companies out but roughly the same. Major downside with the US variant is multiple wars though Russia and China (currently to a lesser degree) has those as well.
Long term we will likely see some African super power due to population, size and resources and perhaps India can climb up to one as well on the back of their population. Not sure if those will be better or not but having multiples of them raises risk of proxy wars. Maybe the EU will unify enough to count as a weak one as well.
|
Russia and China are far less imperialist than the US and Europe, in the sense that they are more concerned with maintaining control within their own sphere of influence than to go on worldwide conquests. Not to say they don't have their own streaks of aggression though.
Population won't make Africa a superpower any time soon. Technological advancement is far more important for that. Israel is a pretty good example of a regional superpower that is tiny but leverages its tech prowess to survive in a hostile environment.
|
On September 25 2016 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
Russia and China are far less imperialist than the US and Europe, in the sense that they are more concerned with maintaining control within their own sphere of influence than to go on worldwide conquests. Not to say they don't have their own streaks of aggression though.
If you just define your "sphere of influence" as whatever region you care about at the moment and declare regions your backyard it's pretty easy to not be imperialist
|
On September 25 2016 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
Russia and China are far less imperialist than the US and Europe, in the sense that they are more concerned with maintaining control within their own sphere of influence than to go on worldwide conquests. Not to say they don't have their own streaks of aggression though.
Population won't make Africa a superpower any time soon. Technological advancement is far more important for that. Israel is a pretty good example of a regional superpower that is tiny but leverages its tech prowess to survive in a hostile environment.
I think the difference is that the US already controls its backyard and so can cast its gaze wider.
Russia lost it with the fall of the USSR and is trying to regain its backyard. If it had control of it then it would almost certainly be trying to expand its reach across the rest of the globe. (and its already doing this to some extent).
China didn't bother for a long time and now climbing out of its isolationist shell. If (when) it gains control of its backyard it will almost certainly try to expand its influence further.
Globalization isn't going to stop and ever shrinking distances means that the need to stretch your influence further in order to enjoy favorable conditions is ever increasing.
|
On September 25 2016 11:26 LegalLord wrote:
Russia and China are far less imperialist than the US and Europe, in the sense that they are more concerned with maintaining control within their own sphere of influence than to go on worldwide conquests. Not to say they don't have their own streaks of aggression though.
Population won't make Africa a superpower any time soon. Technological advancement is far more important for that. Israel is a pretty good example of a regional superpower that is tiny but leverages its tech prowess to survive in a hostile environment.
While technically true, it doesn't help that Russia considers half of Europe and Asia its sphere of influence, and a lot of the countries in its"sphere of influence" are incredibly happy to have gotten out of it 20 years ago and have 0 interest in being Incorporated into some neo-Soviet Union style Russian hegemony.
China has similar troublesome issues with Southeast Asia, and in addition to all those powerless countries, India would probably not be very happy with whatever China's model of hegemony is in their"sphere of influence". And a war between India and China would not be a pretty thing.
Moreover there is a fair amount of land that Russia and China would clash over.
So taken to its logical conclusion, simply leaving those countries to "control their sphere of influence" would not be a good thing. Plus, if history is any guide, what countries consider to be their sphere of influence tends to grow over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J8AnFPt.jpg)
