|
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 November 26 2014 06:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2014 20:30 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
Hats off, Sub40APM, this one is by far your best way to camouflage the anti-Russia thread. The opening statement with fake "i wonder why there is no thread about Europe on TL" helps a lot too.
It is obvious today (unfortunately) that politics/economics in EU cannot be discussed without consideration of the Ukraine crisis and its causes/consequences, while a lot of people on TL.net know now very well how badly this usually ends. Hence no such thread.
In other/normal conditions having such a thread would be a brilliant idea, while today its much better to focus on separate/focused subjects (like Germany-Japan or EURO crisis), rather than on European politics. But obviously this is not what you wanted, right? Its impossible to discuss the 'Euro' crisis without understanding European domestic politics -- the rise of a brand new political party in Spain or the Communists in Greece --, just like its impossible to discuss perceived German stagnation without understanding the current state of post-party politics in Germany -- Merkel controls 80% of parliament and there isnt a viable opponent. Hence a unified thread -- the 'different topics' were not separate or focused, they inevitably glided down to a broader discussion and then were lost because they were hidden in threads. This brings unifies them. I didnt force the French fascists -- or I guess not according to WhiteDog -- to borrow money from Putin but it brought up an interesting discussion on the different forms of far right thinking and it really was interesting to see what essentially is a hard leftist like WhiteDog defend French nationalism in the face of German, and have a pushback. Its not my fault noted ballistics expert nunez is having some downtime in between solving crimes so he tried to get himself banned and this thread locked for successfully trolling me into discussing a topic banned on this board. Last time I checked discussing Russia has not been banned here, so your addition of Russian self centered paranoia was very valuable and appreciated. Thank you. I'm not defending the FN, just stating some facts. The core problem of europe is the european system and its inability to face the crisis and propose a positive project to the european citizens. I'm a kind of guy that believe that a society based on work, as the first mean to acquire money and as the first way to realize yourself, cannot work when unemployment is at 10 % on average. The FN capitalize on that first and foremost, and everybody who focus on their so called "facist" side are, my opinion, biased ideologically and didn't hear any of the FN last political messages. But it's pretty normal that germans politicians, who forced a stupid economic policy on europe and who have, my opinion again, no clue on how a global / regional economy work, will try to push away all the political message that the FN defend to focus on its antisemitism, facism, and whatnot. But you yourself in another thread admitted that the idea of one country 'stepping out' of the capitalist system would simply not work. So FN's focus on anti-immigration and protectionism will allow them to capitalize on rage maybe but not really enact anything positive, instead youll be like a second Hungary. But I do think you are wrong that people arent noticing the underlying issue, as you can see in the FT article I posted 'establishment' figures are noticing that (a) current mainline parties are deeply out of touch and the distinction between the nominal left and right parties seems meaningless (b) only the parties further out on both the left or right are talking about debt, European integration as a challenge and all this other stuff. Which is interesting, and falls nicely into also your point about the perception that establishment politicians and the media are in their own bubble and are no longer capable of responding to the common man.
|
Very cool thread, sub40apm! Thanks for making it. This is really interesting (& contentious) economic discussion so I hope it doesn't get banned. We're all adults here, right? this isn't SA.. in any case, are there any more knowledgeable people in TL forum that can explain the situation in Sweden? In my mind it seems like they are not involved in major EU votes or even in economic policy in the EU as a whole. It sort of seems like a 'Germany/France/Spain/Italy vs Russia' show in the European Union, so to speak. Does oil basically fund Sweden's economy at this point, pretty much?
In my opinion the EU is little more than a trade union with a common currency, the Euro, whereas NATO does do unified military actions, even if it is generally the US initiating it. For example, the US got involved in the Iraq conflict, which didn't seem like that good of an idea to me even at the time of engagement but they did anyways. There is a controversial liberal/anarchist undercurrent of opinion that the US went into the Middle East region purely for monetary reasons ('Blood for Oil'). But, here is the big thing about that: There were troops from Canada, Britain & other countries in Iraq under the NATO umbrella also. I think that gossip is unfounded lies. I don't think the European Union has ever had a military intervention effort with troops from multiple countries, whereas NATO has had several. I would say that NATO is more unified than the EU is, at least currently.
e: (admittedly NATO does not have a common standard unit of money unless you count the fact that the american dollar is basically used as the de facto currency in South America & Africa, often superseding the local currencies, but that is not a story for a thread about European economics, as interesting as that topic might be)
|
3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change?
Well first you have to understand the Germany system. Germans don't understand that Merkel and the government are the same. There is indeed a survey where they asked the Germans what they think about their government and 70% thought its shit. In the same survey 70% said that Merkel does a good job. I am now to lazy to search the poll. But thats reality. Germans are strange, yes. Second you have to understand that Germans love to complain but are not willing to fight for a change. They are for example looking at france when they blocked the highways to get stable and good gas prizes but they are afraid to to the same. They rather get fucked by the oil companys than stand up and say no. Simply because they want to pretend that all is in order. Better not complain in public. And thats how the poltic is working too. You will not see partys argue heavy intern about things. Because this looks like their order is not in place and thats not acceptable.
So as this is done we go on. The partys.
CDU is under Merkel and she wants to stay Chancellor. Nothing more and nothing less. That means the party has no real plan. What the majority wants they will jump behind it. Simpel example is the minimum wage job. Was it once a "this will never happen" now its coming. And not to forget the no nuclear power politics. If BadenWürrtemberg would have kept the CDU after Fukushima this would never happen. But as it is now Merkel shut them down without the legal rights and this will costs the tax payers millions and millions of Euro. There is ofc a lot more.
They gather everything from center to hard right. As it was once said. There should be nothing right of the CDU. This includes or lovely nazis too.
SPD should be the worker party but thats not true. Under red green they ruined the country. They licked industry dicks so hard that they had to introduce hartz4 to rescue this bullshit they done. they ruined our social system and now its a huge mess. So this party is a traitor to their base. And they try to get back so they are kind of the CDU. What people want they will jump behind. But ofc lie and go for social things that they instantly forget when they get power. But they try to catch people that would vote for Die Linke. They want everything from Center to the hard left and this includes our lovely communists too.
Green: The rich party. Once for nature now its the new FDP. Rich people vote it and they make politic for the rich with a green touch. But its the rich peoples party. With the SPD they did not remove the terrible things the CDU did under Kohl they made it worse. Ofc not for the rich ones and so the party has a stable foundation of voters. And as "bio" they have a good mix and get voted all the time. They are a carry party for the big partys and nothing else.
FDP: the party is out for now. But it was the rich people party. Fucked with all people that are not rich. They have been fishing for the ones with money, for the stupid ones who believed they could get rich. A carry party for SPD and CDU. What ever was available.
Die Linke: As the party consists ofc of a lot of socialism people they are kind of the only party that tries to fight for the social rights. I am not a fan of them but if I read political programs they are the only one that really has the things that the majority is asking for. For example the minimum wage jobs. They wanted this for ever and people just "lol" and now its coming. There is a lot more but as Germans are here too I dont want to scare them to much. Better let them live in their prejudices.
Ok Partys are explained now lets go on:
Now you have to understand that people want the things that Die Linke wants to do but you don't vote for them becausee people that vote for Die Linke are called silly. But the other partys have proven so many times that they say they want social politic but they dont do it. And ofc a lot of prejudices still. And its not like they want their old DDR back, no! There are some silly people that ofc want this but you have enough people here that want their nazi Germany back.... . But as their core people come from the old DDR for some reason they cant say that the DDR was bullshit and there are still people who dont think that everything was bad. And ofc you have bullshit talks like "Die DDR war ein Unrechtsstaat" admit it! I hope the translation is correct a unjust state? People don't know what this really means and indeed thats not true if you talk with politic professors. So they ask for something that they cant say its true because per definition its not true.
Prejudices are keeping this party out of the game, yes its that simpel. And as the old part of Germany got trained to dislike the "DDR/Sowjets" this still exists. So they are the silly Die Linken. Even if they are the only ones that fight for the things that the majority of Germans really want. If ofc you can believe the public surveys.
But to be true thats all. People are to scared to give them power. And the hugh majority of people that vote don't even fucking read the political program of a party. Or really care. As long there is no big trouble now Germans keep voting the same. Thats why the votes in Germany are shit as fuck.
So why did this vote happen?
Maybe its changing and so people wanted finally some social politic getting done or they are just fed up with the old one and so they voted for the only ones who did not betrayed them. What it was we will find out.
I hope I could help you. And sorry but I hope my English is not to terrible.
@A3th3r: one example Germany army is per definition a defending army and indeed there is a problem. The army is not allowed to fight outside of Germany. Even to send troops to help their own interests is a big problem. Italys army is a joke. Spain its the same. Britain is well lets face it doing what America wants and the only real army force in Europe left is France. So Europe has ofc no functional Army because there is no real fighting forces to gather a good army. And its anyway much cheaper to just call for the Americans that love to play the world police. And Europe will stick to USA because we all know what happens if America decides you are not their best friend any more? And the NATO? Good idea but if America agreed to rules but than dont give a fuck its worthless for example.
|
On November 27 2014 12:18 tadL wrote:
Maybe its changing and so people wanted finally some social politic getting done or they are just fed up with the old one and so they voted for the only ones who did not betrayed them. What it was we will find out.
I hope I could help you. And sorry but I hope my English is not to terrible.
@A3th3r: one example Germany army is per definition a defending army and indeed there is a problem. The army is not allowed to fight outside of Germany. Even to send troops to help their own interests is a big problem. Italys army is a joke. Spain its the same. Britain is well lets face it doing what America wants and the only real army force in Europe left is France. So Europe has ofc no functional Army because there is no real fighting forces to gather a good army. And its anyway much cheaper to just call for the Americans that love to play the world police. And Europe will stick to USA because we all know what happens if America decides you are not their best friend any more? And the NATO? Good idea but if America agreed to rules but than dont give a fuck its worthless for example.
tadL, that feeds into my theory that the EU is really more a committee for European countries than anything. Germany doesn't want to give up military sovereignty to France, France doesn't want to be involved in Russia's wars, and nobody wants to be involved in Greece's bank default/financial system collapse troubles. When I visited Milan (Italy) on my Eurotrip, it seemed nice but remarkably apolitical. great for lounging around & sipping coffee with friends. Scandinavian countries don't want to ruin their perfect 'oil-rich' bubble of tranquility & pretty fun hockey games [SMLiiga = pretty good]. And Russia doesn't want to be part of the EU but also doesn't want neighboring countries to be part of the EU either. So they build a trade union which is basically USSR pt. 2.
Germany still seems to live under the specter of WWII, which, to make a face, was SEVENTY YEARS AGO. I mean, they can evolve past that at some point, I should think. They don't have to be pacifist until the end of their days because of wars that literally everyone involved in is now dead.. just sayin..
|
Though there isn't a lot that actually speaks for wars, at least in my opinion. I see being a nation that preferes to not engage in wars as a good thing, not something that you need to get rid of.
|
depends on the war. it's incredible how apathetic people here are about ISIS slaughtering thousands of civilians. They'd rather stick to their pacifism than actually help. I'm glad that the Greens have actually moved on from this, but it's just insane how much shit they're getting for it.
|
On November 28 2014 03:58 A3th3r wrote:
They don't have to be pacifist until the end of their days because of wars that literally everyone involved in is now dead.. just sayin..
One of the few things I am actually proud of is the pacifism of Germany's population. Like seriously, if Merkel would for example be stupid enough to send troops into Ukraine, Germany would go berserk, streets would be full of protesters and 95% were against it. (Yes we had some Army in Afghanistan but it was deeply unpopular and could not be called a "war" legally)
|
On November 28 2014 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:
depends on the war. it's incredible how apathetic people here are about ISIS slaughtering thousands of civilians. They'd rather stick to their pacifism than actually help.
Why is bombing called "help"?
Why are slaughterings by ISIS worse than by Saudi Arabia or Sudan or all the other hundreds of conflicts?
If it is not on Youtube it does not count?
This is so incredible short-sighted.
Yes, there are a lot of murders in this world, does not compel me to become one too.
|
Everybody who fights for Isis is insane, period. People who rape, murder, behead and stone other people, including children, on a daily and systemic basis aren't humans. There is nothing short-sighted about it. They won't change, they want to build a state on these principles. Sure Saudi-Arabia is fucked up to and we should probably not have any relations with them. Killing these people isn't "murder", it's the only way to protect innocents.
|
we must protect the hobbits from the orcs.
nyxisto, i'm sure there's an opening with assad's rohirrim.
remember to bring your 4-strength, 4-stam leather belt.
|
On November 28 2014 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:
depends on the war. it's incredible how apathetic people here are about ISIS slaughtering thousands of civilians. They'd rather stick to their pacifism than actually help. I'm glad that the Greens have actually moved on from this, but it's just insane how much shit they're getting for it.
Well history has shown us that invading a country of a despotic dictator did not help and the current results of the bombing runs are showing that they are not doing much. Plus, the last thing that the Middle East needs is more people unifying themselves under an anti-Western ideology because the West is involved.
|
This isn't really the same case. Actually stopping ISIS from expanding and killing would probably be an achievement in itself. The Iraq war was a failure for sure but in my opinion that even increases the responsibility to act now. This is pretty much the only time where a military intervention literally couldn't make it worse.
|
On November 28 2014 05:10 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody who fights for Isis is insane, period. People who rape, murder, behead and stone other people, including children, on a daily and systemic basis aren't humans. There is nothing short-sighted about it. They won't change, they want to build a state on these principles. Sure Saudi-Arabia is fucked up to and we should probably not have any relations with them. Killing these people isn't "murder", it's the only way to protect innocents.
yes because outside military intervention into civil wars has such a good track record... lets take a look at recent history
Vietnam? didnt work
Afghanistan? didnt work
Iraq ? didnt work
to a lesser degree Pakistan? that place is getting worse every day
|
@ A3th3r
Yes its still the WW2 thing. But lets be real after 2 WW its likely that Germans would go for a third. But here it gets ofc more complicated. You have many threats that are created. I dont want to talk here about it because its a heavy American forum and even if its true, even if America admitted it, even if you can google it. its just annoying to talk about such things with people that get this "we are the good in the world" pushed into their minds since they get born. And ofc there are things I cant understand about the USA. Like TB said, American believe they have a left and a right wing in their political structure but for him and yes me it looks more like right wing and more right wing are fighting against each other.
Germany is doing fine with wars too. We sell tons of land mines for example and we sell some of the finest prostheses out there. Germany is interested in Wars like so many other countries. They intrigue in country's inner politics. In Ukraine for example too.
But Europe is an Idea. It could now go into State theorys and explain from this point of view why it does not work and why Europe is how it is. But that just goes to far. My girlfriend is French. Her family still is scared of Germans. Till France forgets WW2 this will take time. And 70 years is not a long time. And Europe is not peaceful. We fight here all the time but now its an economic war between the countries from my point of view. All try to get ahead and German is profiting really hard from Europe compared to other countries.
@Nyxisto : Under SPD/Green the German army got send to places that even Hitler could just dream off. And this is not a joke. And the Nato is scaring me. We are now not protecting what is our, now we protect what we want to have too. The fight for resources is real and even Germans went out for it. And this should not be possible considering the constitution. And this scares me a lot. I hope you are in the Army and are fighting in Irak but than you would be the first soldier that I met that loves to be there. Its easy to say yeah its good we go there to fight if you sit on your couch and watching it on TV.
|
On November 28 2014 05:45 tadL wrote:
other countries.
@Nyxisto : Under SPD/Green the German army got send to places that even Hitler could not reach. And this is not a joke. And the Nato is scaring me. We are now not protecting what is our, now we protect what we want to have too.
"The farther the army away, the worse the country"? Sorry, the real world isn't that simple. It actually does matter what you are fighting for or who you are fighting against. I'm also no supporter of the Iraq war, but again: The goals in fighting ISIS are vastly different. This isn't about nation-building or some form or progressive imperialism, it's simply about stopping a humanitarian catastrophy.
|
Thats not what i said but lets go with it. First we mostly don't know shit about Isis. Second we are hypocritical. Isis is a thread we fight because they create chaos in a part of the world that has resources that are important to us. And other parts of the world we don't give a fuck. And the problem with Isis is that's not a thread we installed to keep control over this region. To take a humoristic approach. What did our God thought when he gave all our oil to this Muslims, right?
Africa is a great example. There happens every day a humanitarian catastrophe. And no not Ebola. Ebola is not even close to kill as many people as for example Malaria. Every day 1500 people die to it. Isis would have really try hard to get even close to this numbers. And the best part is we can cure Malaria. So why we don't help African people? Why are so many African dyeing not a humanitarian catastrophe?
You are really a hypocrite my friend, maybe Alex Garfield will give you a job. But its not your fault. You got trained to care about this and forget about others. Or to take a more sarcastic approach. You cant pack 1500 people dying into a news clip. This would be boring and people will turn off and don't watch the show. But Isis you can sell good.
ps: And you forget something. You maybe forgot but our BILD wrote for example "Sind sie bereit für Demokratie" after in Egypt Muslim people voted Muslim partys...and the others where not better too.
|
Pretty much every 1st-world nation is involved in providing aid and charity to Africa......
|
My impression of Eastern Europe is, it seems like Austria, Poland, Croatia, Belarus, Estonia, etc are basically accepted as up&coming factory areas for Germany/France to make Audi's, BMW's & Peugeot's. My brother when on a trip to Croatia with his wife & kid while working on his Master's Degree. That was the critical commentary he had of the place, as I understood it.
On a trip to Switzerland, the snowboarding was phenomenal, like something out of a Shaun White RedBull ad (especially in Zurich), but their 'pointedly neutral' stance on world affairs makes me nervous. I don't trust the people of a country that can't commit to a political framework wholeheartedly. Economically Switzerland is basically 'tourist trap' status. They contribute nothing to Europe's 'Body Politic' & are all heavily armed. They're basically the rednecks of Europe!
|
On November 28 2014 06:15 farvacola wrote:
Pretty much every 1st-world nation is involved in providing aid and charity to Africa......
The difference is we could stop people dying to malaria! We could but we refuse to do it. Seems like 1500 Africans a day are not important enough.
And yes we cant cure Aids but we can keep people alive for a long time. So that this people could finally build something up. But guess what when Africa said they will take the costs. They will produce the pills and sell them to their people for the cost price all they need is the licence America said no. If I remember correctly Bush said "sorry but this would be against the rules of market economy". Or close to it.
So lets stop to pretend we want to stop there a catastrophe if we ignore much bigger ones every day. If Isis would fight in Africa we would not give a shit. But as Isis is close to the oil we have to take care.
|
You have no idea what you're talking about if you think that stopping the spread of infectious disease in Africa is something we can do but haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
