|
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 14 2017 02:11 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 02:09 farvacola wrote:
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well. well I have never seen anyone suggest longterm planning in any way? It's always just the discussion about pro/contra refugees. We seem to live in a black and white world. It's either or, no more middle grounds.
Maybe you should try to read more broadly. The subject of development aid and its intentions as well as shortcomings has quite some decades on its belt.
Even more specifically you can just google "syrian war peaceful solution" or "addressing european refugee problem roots".
A little teaser of what, rather broadly speaking, might await you there:
The right wing is cruel to reject the humanity of those whose lives depend on our succour. Yet the pro-refugee politicians will not win the day if they fail to address the deeper causes of the crisis. Accepting the refugees today has to be accompanied by a rapid end to the Syrian war; an end to the US-led wars of regime change; more cooperation in the UN security council; and long-term investments in sustainable development. The flood of refugees will abate to a manageable level only when people everywhere, including in poor and unstable regions, see a safe future for themselves and their children in their home countries.
The Guardian in 2015, almost exactly 2 years ago
The notion that nobody provides ideas or concepts how to prodive pathways to improvement of the forced migration of people is as ridiculous as your earlier blanket statement about charitable organisations overpaying their employees. Don't confuse egoistic "leaders" with hard working personell and above all if you use anecdotal experience, don't conflate it with a general state of affairs.
|
On November 14 2017 04:09 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 02:11 sharkie wrote:On November 14 2017 02:09 farvacola wrote:
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well. well I have never seen anyone suggest longterm planning in any way? It's always just the discussion about pro/contra refugees. We seem to live in a black and white world. It's either or, no more middle grounds. Maybe you should try to read more broadly. The subject of development aid and its intentions as well as shortcomings has quite some decades on its belt. Even more specifically you can just google "syrian war peaceful solution" or "addressing european refugee problem roots". A little teaser of what, rather broadly speaking, might await you there: Show nested quote +
The right wing is cruel to reject the humanity of those whose lives depend on our succour. Yet the pro-refugee politicians will not win the day if they fail to address the deeper causes of the crisis. Accepting the refugees today has to be accompanied by a rapid end to the Syrian war; an end to the US-led wars of regime change; more cooperation in the UN security council; and long-term investments in sustainable development. The flood of refugees will abate to a manageable level only when people everywhere, including in poor and unstable regions, see a safe future for themselves and their children in their home countries.
The Guardian in 2015, almost exactly 2 years agoThe notion that nobody provides ideas or concepts how to prodive pathways to improvement of the forced migration of people is as ridiculous as your earlier blanket statement about charitable organisations overpaying their employees. Don't confuse egoistic "leaders" with hard working personell and above all if you use anecdotal experience, don't conflate it with a general state of affairs.
Trust me my statement about charitable organisations is not a blank statement. I used to work for one in a middle position. Obviously the lowest positions who do all the hard work (most of the time even for free) deserve all the praise. But it's disgusting what happens with all the money such an organisation gets. It really is. E.g. Caritas offices in Vienna have expensive handmade furniture.
|
On November 14 2017 04:28 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:09 Artisreal wrote:On November 14 2017 02:11 sharkie wrote:On November 14 2017 02:09 farvacola wrote:
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well. well I have never seen anyone suggest longterm planning in any way? It's always just the discussion about pro/contra refugees. We seem to live in a black and white world. It's either or, no more middle grounds. Maybe you should try to read more broadly. The subject of development aid and its intentions as well as shortcomings has quite some decades on its belt. Even more specifically you can just google "syrian war peaceful solution" or "addressing european refugee problem roots". A little teaser of what, rather broadly speaking, might await you there:
The right wing is cruel to reject the humanity of those whose lives depend on our succour. Yet the pro-refugee politicians will not win the day if they fail to address the deeper causes of the crisis. Accepting the refugees today has to be accompanied by a rapid end to the Syrian war; an end to the US-led wars of regime change; more cooperation in the UN security council; and long-term investments in sustainable development. The flood of refugees will abate to a manageable level only when people everywhere, including in poor and unstable regions, see a safe future for themselves and their children in their home countries.
The Guardian in 2015, almost exactly 2 years agoThe notion that nobody provides ideas or concepts how to prodive pathways to improvement of the forced migration of people is as ridiculous as your earlier blanket statement about charitable organisations overpaying their employees. Don't confuse egoistic "leaders" with hard working personell and above all if you use anecdotal experience, don't conflate it with a general state of affairs. Trust me my statement about charitable organisations is not a blank statement. I used to work for one in a middle position. Obviously the lowest positions who do all the hard work (most of the time even for free) deserve all the praise. But it's disgusting what happens with all the money such an organisation gets. It really is. E.g. Caritas offices in Vienna have expensive handmade furniture.
I don't want to dispute your experience.
In contrast, in Berlin the executive of an organisation helping among others homeless kids had a Maserati as a company car. You'll find those stories everywhere and I'll agree with you that this is not something to be proud of.
I also happen to know one of the executive board members of a big German charitable organisation that works both domestically as well as internationally. It's just an awesome person, has worked in that organisation for probably more than a decade, humble and hard working, basically the opposite of your former boss' characterisation.
And simple, functional furniture as far as I could tell from my limited view into their premises from out on the street.
All in all we have contrasting experience. Yours as backed by facts as mine. Still they're opposite. What does that tell us?
Not much to be honest; apart from you having witnessed something I, from afar, would be labelling as abuse of funds and freeloading on a good image; and me knowing a good person working in a possibly similar position without the negative traits you described. (and there's Maserati guy of course)
What does that tell us of the other charitable organisations? Hardly anything. And that's my point with your anectdotal evidence. If you put a whole sector in a bad light, backed up solely by personal experience with one branch of a rather big Charity, sorry if I'm not accepting that as a valid argument. Even though similar occurences happen to pass my way, I do not feel inclined to believe that as a core issue of the sector without some further evidence.
|
On November 14 2017 05:53 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:28 sharkie wrote:On November 14 2017 04:09 Artisreal wrote:On November 14 2017 02:11 sharkie wrote:On November 14 2017 02:09 farvacola wrote:
Suggesting that the West fix the problems in the places generating refugees without an accompanying commitment to long-term, non-parastic aid is shortterm thinking as well. well I have never seen anyone suggest longterm planning in any way? It's always just the discussion about pro/contra refugees. We seem to live in a black and white world. It's either or, no more middle grounds. Maybe you should try to read more broadly. The subject of development aid and its intentions as well as shortcomings has quite some decades on its belt. Even more specifically you can just google "syrian war peaceful solution" or "addressing european refugee problem roots". A little teaser of what, rather broadly speaking, might await you there:
The right wing is cruel to reject the humanity of those whose lives depend on our succour. Yet the pro-refugee politicians will not win the day if they fail to address the deeper causes of the crisis. Accepting the refugees today has to be accompanied by a rapid end to the Syrian war; an end to the US-led wars of regime change; more cooperation in the UN security council; and long-term investments in sustainable development. The flood of refugees will abate to a manageable level only when people everywhere, including in poor and unstable regions, see a safe future for themselves and their children in their home countries.
The Guardian in 2015, almost exactly 2 years agoThe notion that nobody provides ideas or concepts how to prodive pathways to improvement of the forced migration of people is as ridiculous as your earlier blanket statement about charitable organisations overpaying their employees. Don't confuse egoistic "leaders" with hard working personell and above all if you use anecdotal experience, don't conflate it with a general state of affairs. Trust me my statement about charitable organisations is not a blank statement. I used to work for one in a middle position. Obviously the lowest positions who do all the hard work (most of the time even for free) deserve all the praise. But it's disgusting what happens with all the money such an organisation gets. It really is. E.g. Caritas offices in Vienna have expensive handmade furniture. I don't want to dispute your experience. In contrast, in Berlin the executive of an organisation helping among others homeless kids had a Maserati as a company car. You'll find those stories everywhere and I'll agree with you that this is not something to be proud of. I also happen to know one of the executive board members of a big German charitable organisation that works both domestically as well as internationally. It's just an awesome person, has worked in that organisation for probably more than a decade, humble and hard working, basically the opposite of your former boss' characterisation. And simple, functional furniture as far as I could tell from my limited view into their premises from out on the street. All in all we have contrasting experience. Yours as backed by facts as mine. Still they're opposite. What does that tell us? Not much to be honest; apart from you having witnessed something I, from afar, would be labelling as abuse of funds and freeloading on a good image; and me knowing a good person working in a possibly similar position without the negative traits you described. (and there's Maserati guy of course) What does that tell us of the other charitable organisations? Hardly anything. And that's my point with your anectdotal evidence. If you put a whole sector in a bad light, backed up solely by personal experience with one branch of a rather big Charity, sorry if I'm not accepting that as a valid argument. Even though similar occurences happen to pass my way, I do not feel inclined to believe that as a core issue of the sector without some further evidence.
It is also relevant that sometimes when dealing with people, wasteful spending may net you more money from people who think that you are a "classy" organisation, or that it means that you are very successful, so surely you will use their money reasonably well.
I think a lot less people would donate to an organisation that is housed out of some derelict warehouse at the edge of town and basically equipped like a student club with beer boxes for furniture than to an organisation that has a nice office in a nice quarter of town, with classy furniture etc...
This is something relevant to keep in mind when looking at charities when some expenses seem wasteful. Of course it does not always apply, and sometimes the money is just wasted or lands in some guys pockets, but surely not always.
|
@Spanish people
How come Iglesias has such a bad image?
|
So all politicians became more popular since August except Iglesias. Might it be due to his stance on Catalonian independence?
|
Great news from Brussels ! 23 countries agreed to spend even more on military.
So make sure you pay all of your taxes and know that your hard earned money will be smartly spent... For german, french and american weapons.
|
2774 Posts
This pact is a whole lot more than that, it's about paving the way for the integration of military defense and forces within EU and a shift from the US arms industry. It's an important step towards an unified EU military of sorts, whatever that actually may be.
Not to mention military spending has been questionably low in a few EU states, especially in Germany. If you want to rely less on the US you'll have to spend more.
€5 billion, which is honestly nothing by the way, for a "European Defense Fund" on top of increased national spending (which is a bit unclear to me). People have been asking for this for quite some time.
|
Military spending(and budgeting as a whole) is a domestic matter, EU has no power over it. Now they are trying to put their hands even there. What, if we don't want to spend more than 2% on defense ?
And let's be clear here, we are not talking about money for new domestic military factories(or subsidizing old ones). We are talking straight up "Buy our planes,ships, guns and other equipment". And we can't buy these from China or Russia, because theirs are not "compatible" with our "allies". So we have no choice there, too...
On top of that we are giving up even more sovereignty with this "integrated military". How much can you bend the stick, before it snaps ?
In general, if the EU wants to survive the next decade, it should return to it's core - economic union with common market. If they try to push for more, it's doomed.
|
On November 14 2017 08:04 warding wrote:
So all politicians became more popular since August except Iglesias. Might it be due to his stance on Catalonian independence?
Yep, pretty obvious that big jump down on popularity when the against independence parties are gaining popularity, but it's not the only thing. Iglesias has been bleeding followers since the last primaries for a variety of reasons, i don't have much time now to comment to be honest, but it is pretty much being a minority fringe group whom is not getting stuff done even being a the 3rd political force, the handling of some internal issues and for me, that people who voted for him are way more critical with politicians than people who vote for Mariano Rajoy, Macron II or Sanchez for whom party loyalty goes first.
The media also goes lengths to show a poor image any podemos politician or linked to podemos. I had been for years now listening to people literally calling them names on the public radio for starters.
|
On November 14 2017 18:16 Pr0wler wrote:
Military spending(and budgeting as a whole) is a domestic matter, EU has no power over it. Now they are trying to put their hands even there. What, if we don't want to spend more than 2% on defense ?
And let's be clear here, we are not talking about money for new domestic military factories(or subsidizing old ones). We are talking straight up "Buy our planes,ships, guns and other equipment". And we can't buy these from China or Russia, because theirs are not "compatible" with our "allies". So we have no choice there, too...
On top of that we are giving up even more sovereignty with this "integrated military". How much can you bend the stick, before it snaps ?
In general, if the EU wants to survive the next decade, it should return to it's core - economic union with common market. If they try to push for more, it's doomed.
Military integration is a piggy bank of unfathomable dimensions just waiting to be drawn upon.
|
It's not so much so we are less reliant on the US, and more a neccessary tool to guarantee the EU suvirval. This doesn't go back to Trump whining about NATO allies not spending their fair share, but back to the brexit aftermath.
|
2774 Posts
On November 14 2017 18:16 Pr0wler wrote:
Military spending(and budgeting as a whole) is a domestic matter, EU has no power over it. Now they are trying to put their hands even there. What, if we don't want to spend more than 2% on defense ?
And let's be clear here, we are not talking about money for new domestic military factories(or subsidizing old ones). We are talking straight up "Buy our planes,ships, guns and other equipment". And we can't buy these from China or Russia, because theirs are not "compatible" with our "allies". So we have no choice there, too...
On top of that we are giving up even more sovereignty with this "integrated military". How much can you bend the stick, before it snaps ?
In general, if the EU wants to survive the next decade, it should return to it's core - economic union with common market. If they try to push for more, it's doomed.
Umm.. It's a deal. Countries that opt in themselves agree to higher spending targets or simply spending more.
Also of course the US arms industry, and the US itself will continue to play an important role in the European region. It's a small step but I'd argue it's an important one. Nevertheless they're an important partner, and ally, but it's quite apparent there shouldn't be such a reliance on them geopolitically.
|
Yeah it's not an example of the EU creeping in uninvited. Member states agreed to make it possible when they signed the Lisbon treaty.
Nothing stops your country from leaving the agreement (some countries like Portugal didn't even join) or making its own weapons, either on its own or in cooperation with other countries.
|
Also nobody stops Bulgaria from developing their own jet fighters or other weaponry. In fact, if they are good, you could be assured, that EU states would buy them.
But since it isn't even feasible for Germany to develop its own jets and our Leopard tanks are also only worth it, because we export them like crazy to absolutely everybody, greater European cooperation is actually enabling that stuff can be manufactured and used here in Europe. And then the production can also be spread here.
And even though the Eurofighter kinda demonstrated some issues with this kind of spreading out of development and production, it was still a step in the right direction, and the recent agreement went further that way. And most of those issues actually stemmed from overpoliticization of the entire progress.
|
Nobody is forcing us to do anything... and yet nobody is asking us when they are doing things. Interesting how that goes. The ministers just went there and signed the document and we learned about that from the news post factum. Same as the Lisbon treaty and pretty much every document regarding the EU.
Obviously that is a problem with spineless politicians that will do everything to please their overlords in Brussels, but also is a problem with EU wanting more and more power when clearly the people don't want that.
|
I don't think Warsaw, Budapest or Berlin feel any pressure to please Brussels now. They all see (though each views the danger differently) what's happening on the East (including the Middle East), which is why they agreed to spend more on military, one of the very few areas where barely any Europeans believe that "more EU" is a bad idea.
Not even sure if it's correct to call this agreement "more EU". My definition of it says it means delegating competences to the union, not just agreeing to do stuff together within it.
|
And it isn't even a traditional EU agreement, where every EU nation is "forced to please Brussels".
It was voluntary to join this agreement, and several EU nations opted out.
|
On November 14 2017 20:37 Pr0wler wrote:
Nobody is forcing us to do anything... and yet nobody is asking us when they are doing things. Interesting how that goes. The ministers just went there and signed the document and we learned about that from the news post factum. Same as the Lisbon treaty and pretty much every document regarding the EU.
Obviously that is a problem with spineless politicians that will do everything to please their overlords in Brussels, but also is a problem with EU wanting more and more power when clearly the people don't want that.
The only thing that's clear is that you don't want that.
That nobody is asking you in particular doesn't equate Bulgaria being against this step. I'd appreciate if you'd take the time of linking two or three articles that, if necessary, can be translated by Google to provide the non native speakers insight into the state of Bulgaria's mind.
I had trouble finding appropriate sources on this recent event.
|
While I personally don't like increased spending for our military I'm all up for a coordinated attempt at it rather than every nation doing it's own thing.
There's so much money to save if we work together on research instead of having 3 different designs for fighter aircraft, tanks or whatever else because that's how it used to be (and had to be due to germany, UK and France fighting each other for most of our history).
And I also don't think that's something you get by cutting off spending and straight up replacing it. You probably have to show that it works for some time while also doing your own stuff in case this whole thing doesn't work out after all. I'm pretty fine with that myself, especially if this isn't something where everyone HAS TO opt in or else it doesn't work. As seen with (I think?) Denmark opting out and it being no big deal either.
So all in all a step into the right direction for me even if the shortterm implications are something I'm not too fond of. I really can't see all too much bad things about this if it's voluntary for each and every country to decide on their own wether or not they're part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
