USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

WOW
this is why this thread is so ridiculous - you still dont know what is happening, but you are continuing to shit all over america. the elections were in november of 2006, rachel, and the democrats got a lot of power. here is a BBC report for you (not to make you read anything american, god forbit): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6230735.stm
and if you expect the change to happen in a day... HA! its been what - 10 days

You know which elections I'm talking about.

[freddie]

I totally agree this blatant hatred of America has become a trend during the last decade. I guess people will always find someone to hate and with a lack of Soviet Union type evil empire they have to find a good replacement. Goodness knows this administration is making it easy to hate them, but sometimes people lose all sense of perspective. Up to a point where they'd almost favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over supposed American imperialism (which in my opinion is no more than economic imperialism).

It's not like the EU is perfect either. Infact at the moment is seems a rather fragile entity with the consitition being lost for the near future and constant bickering of influencial members for supremacy. I'm sure just about every regime out there would be prepared to sell their soul to the devil if their national interests were at stake We've seen that many times during this brief history of the EU and we'll see it many times more now that the new poorly developed eastern countries are joining. I still don't understand why countries like Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Dennmark, Lichenstein or Norway don't allow free passage of foreign EU labour, eventhough it's one of the four basic liberties under which the EU was founded. Does the Union make any sense when every country is still looking after it's own political gain first and only after that for the good of all?

Okay this is slightly off-topic but I just wanted to point out how goverments will always be selfish as far as their national interests are concerned and I think I've mentioned this before in the thread. US is just a convenient trendy scape goat in these day and age because it's the most exposed of them all. Given their status as the only superpower of our time I think they could have actually do much, much worse then they did till now. I doubt it very much we'd be living in a better society today if things turned out differently and The Soviet Union was the world's sole superpower. On your daily commute to The People's Tractor & Ploughing Equipment Factory #9 you'd be longing for some of those capitalist pleasures which you all take for granted now.

[coolasfcuk]

god, freds, i love you

its basically what i was thinking, more or less, i just didnt even feel like trying to explain it so well ... fingers too tired to type, but it is certainly nice to read

dont worry, it wont change much, but intelligence is always...always pleasant!

p.s. of course people will always find someone to hate, the one with the most power .... people most complaining have never really lived under the 'great' soviet union regime ...like you and me have had the pleasure to (even briefly)
france doesnt allow slovene to work there either?

oh and rachel, bush cannot run for president again, so dont worry, you're SAFE! LoL

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

I still don't understand why countries like Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Dennmark, Lichenstein or Norway don't allow free passage of foreign EU labour, eventhough it's one of the four basic liberties under which the EU was founded.

It's part of EU regulations, EU member states are allowed to set a transitional period of 3, 5 or 7 years before granting the right to work to the citizens of a new EU member state. That transitional period only affects the right to work, the citizens of a new EU member state can freely travel and live wherever they want from day 1, the limitation applies solely on work. EU member states must decide once and for all on the duration of that transitional period the day before (at the latest) the accession of a new EU member state (meaning that if they choose 3 years, it can not be extended to 5 or 7 later).
Any new EU member state knows and accepts that specific regulation when it signs the accession treaty, in the worst case scenario its citizens will be able to work freely anywhere in the EU after 7 years anyway since this is the longest transitional period possible.
It is to be noted that some of the recent EU member states which joined in 2004 have applied that transitional period to the 2 newest EU member states.

As for Liechtenstein and Norway, they are not EU member states, only EU associates within the EEA agreement, they probably have to respect that same regulation (7 years max) but i'm not sure (they may be allowed to a longer max transitional period).

Originally Posted by freddie

Does the Union make any sense when every country is still looking after it's own political gain first and only after that for the good of all?

The EU is still a loose confederation, it will need to become a full federation to subdue national rivalry.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

I totally agree this blatant hatred of America has become a trend during the last decade. I guess people will always find someone to hate and with a lack of Soviet Union type evil empire they have to find a good replacement. Goodness knows this administration is making it easy to hate them, but sometimes people lose all sense of perspective. Up to a point where they'd almost favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over supposed American imperialism (which in my opinion is no more than economic imperialism).

No way I'd favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over America. America is the sole superpower in history built and functioning on the foundations of democracy. None other superpower has been modelled in such a way, be it the Soviet union, the past British empire, Rome or even Greece - where the notion of democracy first sprung from.
They've managed to retain their solidarity over the years - something that the EU is lacking at the moment.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Dr Dark

They've managed to retain their solidarity over the years - something that the EU is lacking at the moment.

All I can say to this, and I really do mean no disrepsect... I'm more than slightly intoxicated at the moment... but have you read our constitution lately or ever? Of course we've managed to retain our solidarity over the years, that's why we're the "United States of America" not the American Union of a bunch of tiny ass countries. If Europe had gotten over their giant family fued in the late 1700's you'd be just as powerful if not more so than America because you wouldn't have had to rebulid your economies, ect after two world wars. We started out united, with one currency, blah, blah, blah and for years that made us stronger than any European country on it's own, although I'm really starting to question how wise it was to add Texas to the union

Sorry that just really struck me as stateing the obvious.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by haku

It's part of EU regulations, EU member states are allowed to set a transitional period of 3, 5 or 7 years before granting the right to work to the citizens of a new EU member state. That transitional period only affects the right to work, the citizens of a new EU member state can freely travel and live wherever they want from day 1, the limitation applies solely on work. EU member states must decide once and for all on the duration of that transitional period the day before (at the latest) the accession of a new EU member state (meaning that if they choose 3 years, it can not be extended to 5 or 7 later).
Any new EU member state knows and accepts that specific regulation when it signs the accession treaty, in the worst case scenario its citizens will be able to work freely anywhere in the EU after 7 years anyway since this is the longest transitional period possible.
It is to be noted that some of the recent EU member states which joined in 2004 have applied that transitional period to the 2 newest EU member states.

As for Liechtenstein and Norway, they are not EU member states, only EU associates within the EEA agreement, they probably have to respect that same regulation (7 years max) but i'm not sure (they may be allowed to a longer max transitional period).

I'm well aware of allowed time-spans in the transitional period, but that's not the point. The point is... national states will always protect their interests no matter what. French farmers, british construction workers and german steel industry will always have it's powerful lobbies which will pressure their respective goverments into favouring their agendas.

I don't think it will ever become a true federation the way things are going. There are just too many interests that need to be mashed together in order for this to work.It would mean taking sacrifices for the good of the continental union of seperate nationalist states. I don't see it happening frankly. If not anything else the prominent countries themselves are a huge roadblock towards that goal.

Originally Posted by Dr.Dark

No way I'd favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over America. America is the sole superpower in history built and functioning on the foundations of democracy. None other superpower has been modelled in such a way, be it the Soviet union, the past British empire, Rome or even Greece - where the notion of democracy first sprung from.
They've managed to retain their solidarity over the years - something that the EU is lacking at the moment.

The EU is structured as a role-model of democracy. Do you honestly think it'd be any different today if Europe was the only superpower around? EU is stuck together from a wide variety of old-school colonial superpowers (Spain, Portugal, England, France to name a few) which showed throughout history that when opportunity knocks they'll damn well answer it. The only reason why we're not taking care of our own continental interests as diligently is because we can't achieve any sort of consent over anything within the Union.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

All I can say to this, and I really do mean no disrepsect... I'm more than slightly intoxicated at the moment... but have you read our constitution lately or ever? Of course we've managed to retain our solidarity over the years, that's why we're the "United States of America" not the American Union of a bunch of tiny ass countries. If Europe had gotten over their giant family fued in the late 1700's you'd be just as powerful if not more so than America because you wouldn't have had to rebulid your economies, ect after two world wars. We started out united, with one currency, blah, blah, blah and for years that made us stronger than any European country on it's own, although I'm really starting to question how wise it was to add Texas to the union

Sorry that just really struck me as stateing the obvious.

I've nothing but praise for you in that regard. While America was built on solid ground and the notion of the collective good prevailing over the individual, Europe was tormented for centuries by catastrophic wars, incited by petty self-interests and family feuds - as you very well put it.
The EU is the first serious venture to build something around the notion of America, and perhaps avoid a lot of the mistakes that the Americans have done in the way they're projecting themselves. But the way they're rushing it forward casts a shadow over the eventual success of this venture.
The other thing is that America has always managed to strike a balance between the more conservative section - the backbone of America if you like, the frontier America- with the more liberal section - the people responsible for projecting America around the world. Neither side is favoured over the other. That creates a balance of government. balance in government is one of the fundamentals of democracy. It ensures that everybody is eventually happy.
That's why I'm positive that America will find its way again, after this rocking period.


I'm still totally against the fashion that America conducts its foreign policy. But I understand that your mentality and our mentality is somewhat different. Yeah we might stand for all the right things but that didn't help us much in the long run.

[Talyubittu]

What many people have to remember is that the American people are not the American government. There are famalies I go to school with who don't vacation in Europe anymore becasue of the extreme disrespect they recieve from European's becuase they are Americans.

[coolasfcuk]

Soiux falls, SD isnt exactly .... well you know, what all america is about anyways, but it is a great midwest representative

[Talyubittu]

People living there are still Americans, whats your point?

[haku]

The US is planning to deploy new missiles in eastern EU, Russia warns that this deployment will be considered as a threat to its national security… It's like the good old days of the cold war are back.

Seriously though, this is another step toward the next intercontinental conflict. Officially those missiles would only be used in case of an attack against US soil (so why put them in Europe?) but of course that makes no sense.
No, those missiles are not meant to defend US soil (and certainly not European soil, lol), the goal of those new missiles is to attack Iran (or retaliate if it attacks Israel first), and since those missiles will be fired from Europe, Iran will retaliate with its own missiles on Europe (Iran has no missiles capable of reaching US soil anyway).
A perfect plan for the US, it's Europe that gets a few million dead while Americans are safe and sound on the other side of the Atlantic pushing flashy buttons in their hi-tech war game command center.

[QueenOfLesbania]

Originally Posted by haku

The US is planning to deploy new missiles in eastern EU

hmm, why not finish bombing one place before setting up bombs somewhere else? even if they're only there for show it's still a threat i'm surprised any government is allowing. it can only make me wonder how much the us is paying them for the use of their territory

[Talyubittu]

Originally Posted by haku

The US is planning to deploy new missiles in eastern EU, Russia warns that this deployment will be considered as a threat to its national security… It's like the good old days of the cold war are back.

Seriously though, this is another step toward the next intercontinental conflict. Officially those missiles would only be used in case of an attack against US soil (so why put them in Europe?) but of course that makes no sense.
No, those missiles are not meant to defend US soil (and certainly not European soil, lol), the goal of those new missiles is to attack Iran (or retaliate if it attacks Israel first), and since those missiles will be fired from Europe, Iran will retaliate with its own missiles on Europe (Iran has no missiles capable of reaching US soil anyway).
A perfect plan for the US, it's Europe that gets a few million dead while Americans are safe and sound on the other side of the Atlantic pushing flashy buttons in their hi-tech war game command center.

You don't understand why?



Say Russia launches an attack on America. It'd be much easier to wipe out Russian bases using a missle already in Europe than it would be to deploy people and missles in the USA. It could also be a counter attack missile. In case of a deadly weapon being launched this weapon could follow the initial one and destory it before it reaches it's target.


And I can't help but notice a touch of snootiness in your comment. While America is safe Europe's being blown up? Whomever is making these decisions is doing their job. Protecting America and American people. If Europe dosen't realize whats going on, then they need to do somthing about it. It's not America's fault that they're trying to protect their country. And not to be rude but it's a little sad that your reaction came out that way. America does and has done TONS of things for Europe. People living in Europe would be under the control of dictators and live in EXTREME harshness had the USA not interfered on many many many occasions. So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else. I'm sure that if weapons were launched against another European country our's wouldn't stay where they are in Europe.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else.

Sorry but in the past 50 years the US has done nearly everything in its own interest without any consideration to anybody else. Not that's there is anything distinctly evil about it or about anything. I can't come up with any superpower country past, present, near or not so near future that (has ever, is ever, or) will ever be truly altruistic in its foreign policy.
That being said, the United States is only responsible for its security and isn't obligated to anyone else's. If countries are stupid enough to offer up their own land for American missile deployment at the risk of becoming a target, that is their problem.

PS: The only way somebody will ever convincingly undermine the American prestige is to undermine the domestic policy which, if you ask me, is very self-indicting. All this talk of foreign policy is going nowhere.

[haku]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

It'd be much easier to wipe out Russian bases using a missle already in Europe than it would be to deploy people and missles in the USA.

Yeah, i think we all understand how easier it is for the US to put other countries at risk. It's easy to talk about wiping out Russia (or Iran for that matter) when you're in the American mid-west, far away from the potential conflict zone.
Deploying interceptor missiles near the Russian border (even though Russia is not the primary target) is an unecessary military escalation and a blatant provocation, the relations between nuclear powers is ruled by the 'balance of terror', 'you can destroy me, i can destroy you, so we do nothing', it has worked well for over 50 years.
Interceptor missiles jeopardize that balance, the nuclear power that has them can strike at will without any fear of retaliation. And of course the nuclear powers that do not have interceptor missiles become extremely nervous since they know they can be attacked without being able to strike back, their strategic arsenal is rendered useless.
In an unstable environment, this could corner a threatened military into the only viable option they have left… A preemptive strike to destroy the interceptor missiles before they are deployed.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

If Europe dosen't realize whats going on, then they need to do somthing about it.

Europeans realize what's going on, the difference is that we have to live with our neighbors, Arabs to the south and Russians to the east, and most people here don't think wiping them out is a reasonable option. We are also the ones in range for retaliation from whatever foolishness the US is preparing to commit in the middle-east, while indeed the US homeland will remain untouched, protected by oceans, distance, and interceptor missiles.


And i won't elaborate on the usual American view that Europe is just a bunch of vassals of the American empire that should just do whatever they're told. (I won't deny that we are effectively in a state of vassalage, but the whole point should be of breaking free from that dependency, not ending up even more tied up.)


Edit: Interesting poll on how people in the world view the US role as positive or negative.

[Rachel]

"Protecting America and American people"...blahblahblah...you guys are like a broken record Anyone would think you were your own species by the way you disregard any life that isn't American Oh we know by now you don't give a shit.

[QueenOfLesbania]

Originally Posted by Rachel

"Protecting America and American people"...blahblahblah...you guys are like a broken record

couldn't agree more. i just hope that next time there's an election the us will have learnt their lesson.

[Khartoun2004]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

Protecting America and American people. It's not America's fault that they're trying to protect their country.

Dude.... How old are you?? Those arguments are weak and complete bullshit, not to mention it brings to mind the Monkey in the Whitehouse. No one has directly attacked mainland America since September 11, 2001... How much violence and death is enough retribution?? Iraq and Suddam have never attacked us on US soil... So what gave us the right to invade, bomb and destroy their country and people? I don't buy the we're "only trying to protect Americans" propaganda. And I'm sorry, but way far away in some tiny ass city in South Dakota doesn't put you at high risk for terrorist attacks anyway. When you live in a large metropolis on the East or West coast then maybe your arguments might be slightly more valid.

And not to be rude but it's a little sad that your reaction came out that way. America does and has done TONS of things for Europe. People living in Europe would be under the control of dictators and live in EXTREME harshness had the USA not interfered on many many many occasions. So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else. I'm sure that if weapons were launched against another European country our's wouldn't stay where they are in Europe.

Again... How old are you? This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons our relations with European countries suck at the moment. Ok Yes, we helped bail England and France out of two world wars, however the second one at least was preventable and we didn't really enter into the war with an effective second from until 1944... some help we are the Russians would have beaten Hitler on their own at that point.

Secondly, If you'll recall back to around 1780.... when the Red Coats were kicking our asses in the Revolutionary War, who was it that came and bailed our asses out? FRANCE!!! So why don't you show some fucking respect to the countries that made the United States of America possible in the first place. And I don't see how the administration is doing anything to "Save our asses"? North Korea has nuclear weapons and is quite volitle... which was preventable if Bush had concentrated on Diplomacy there instead of Bombing Iraq. I could go on and on, but I'm bored now.

[Amy_Lee_Rocks]

Why cant we all just live in peace and harmony, holding hands and singing kumbaya. < lol everyone just looked at me weird when i said that in class..

America, um well I like it, its not my home country but its ok, not bad. I disagree with what Bush is currently doing. Im living happily so i guess its all good. Sometimes i wonder what will be of the U.S in 50 years from now. For some reason i think its not gonna be a country anymore..