Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Unless you say that republicans are better than Obama, we agree.
We agree.
However it sounds very good for the people, who want peace. He's a politician, he says what his audience is receptive for.
That's unfair. You cannot call Paul a populist. He's been saying the same thing over and over again for over thirty years.
We agree.
However it sounds very good for the people, who want peace. He's a politician, he says what his audience is receptive for.
That's unfair. You cannot call Paul a populist. He's been saying the same thing over and over again for over thirty years.
Ok, he's not a populist.
But 30 years ago America was still after the shock of the Vietnam war, so non-interventionism was still popular. On the other hand, Sovietunion has installed communist regimes in several 3rd world countries, and their tactical nukes outnumbered the American arsenal.
20 years ago it was popular to say that the Gulf war was for oil and Somalia was a failure. But non-interventionism would probably made things worse in the civil war in Former Yugoslavia, and was a catastrophy, when the genocide happened in Rwanda.
And I'm not saying that America was the good guy. For example their role in the 1st Gulf War was more then interesting. And there are countless even more interesting examples.
The world is a huge mess, and a large part of this mess is caused by America. After all this, it's quite an oversimplification to say, that America just shouldn't intervene. They can't non-intervene, they already did that. Noone can undo it.
Examples:
- Supporting the Mubarak regime with loads of money: intervention. Revoke this support and condemning Mubarak: also an intervention.
- Keeping soldiers in Afghanistan: intervention. Suddenly calling them home: intervention.
So I still think, that the last time America had the chance of non-intervention was before Pearl Harbour.
But 30 years ago America was still after the shock of the Vietnam war, so non-interventionism was still popular. On the other hand, Sovietunion has installed communist regimes in several 3rd world countries, and their tactical nukes outnumbered the American arsenal.
20 years ago it was popular to say that the Gulf war was for oil and Somalia was a failure. But non-interventionism would probably made things worse in the civil war in Former Yugoslavia, and was a catastrophy, when the genocide happened in Rwanda.
And I'm not saying that America was the good guy. For example their role in the 1st Gulf War was more then interesting. And there are countless even more interesting examples.
The world is a huge mess, and a large part of this mess is caused by America. After all this, it's quite an oversimplification to say, that America just shouldn't intervene. They can't non-intervene, they already did that. Noone can undo it.
Examples:
- Supporting the Mubarak regime with loads of money: intervention. Revoke this support and condemning Mubarak: also an intervention.
- Keeping soldiers in Afghanistan: intervention. Suddenly calling them home: intervention.
So I still think, that the last time America had the chance of non-intervention was before Pearl Harbour.
- Keeping soldiers in Afghanistan: intervention. Suddenly calling them home: intervention.
That's like baldness is a hair color. It's a decision that affects the Afghans, but retreating from Afghanistan is not the intervention itself.
- Supporting the Mubarak regime with loads of money: intervention. Revoke this support and condemning Mubarak: also an intervention.
You should read some more on what Paul says. He doesn't want to financially support other (repressive and non-repressive) regimes. He wants to stop financing Israel. He wants to retreat all soldiers from all foreign bases.
That's like baldness is a hair color. It's a decision that affects the Afghans, but retreating from Afghanistan is not the intervention itself.
- Supporting the Mubarak regime with loads of money: intervention. Revoke this support and condemning Mubarak: also an intervention.
You should read some more on what Paul says. He doesn't want to financially support other (repressive and non-repressive) regimes. He wants to stop financing Israel. He wants to retreat all soldiers from all foreign bases.
Still not impressed. So they should say: "My bad! Sorry! We wish you worldpeace!" and that's all the responsibility America should take? What happens after they retreat from everywhere?
When they invaded Afghanistan, Taliban influence became even stronger in North-West Pakistan. So now they should let Taliban get back Afghanistan and expand their influence in Pakistan?
What happens if the Pakistani government fails completely and extremists take over a nuclear power, which is historically hostile with a neighbouring nuclear power, India? Right now, they depend a lot on American help, they're also financially supported.
When they invaded Afghanistan, Taliban influence became even stronger in North-West Pakistan. So now they should let Taliban get back Afghanistan and expand their influence in Pakistan?
What happens if the Pakistani government fails completely and extremists take over a nuclear power, which is historically hostile with a neighbouring nuclear power, India? Right now, they depend a lot on American help, they're also financially supported.
Still not impressed. So they should say: "My bad! Sorry! We wish you worldpeace!" and that's all the responsibility America should take? What happens after they retreat from everywhere?
That's in the hands of the local forces.
When they invaded Afghanistan, Taliban influence became even stronger in North-West Pakistan. So now they should let Taliban get back Afghanistan and expand their influence in Pakistan?
No, they should get out of bot Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their presence in the Middle-East and Afghanisten/Pakistan is not in the interests of the American people. In contrary, their interventionism is creating a lot of anti-American sentiment.
And yes, the Taliban would probably get back into Afghanistan. America isn't forbidding any of the local forces (including Pakistan for instance) to fight the Taliban.
What happens if the Pakistani government fails completely and extremists take over a nuclear power, which is historically hostile with a neighbouring nuclear power, India? Right now, they depend a lot on American help, they're also financially supported.
And why should this be of any concern to the American government? Why should they be the police of the world? Why should the American tax payers have to pay for 'peace' in those regions?
That's in the hands of the local forces.
When they invaded Afghanistan, Taliban influence became even stronger in North-West Pakistan. So now they should let Taliban get back Afghanistan and expand their influence in Pakistan?
No, they should get out of bot Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their presence in the Middle-East and Afghanisten/Pakistan is not in the interests of the American people. In contrary, their interventionism is creating a lot of anti-American sentiment.
And yes, the Taliban would probably get back into Afghanistan. America isn't forbidding any of the local forces (including Pakistan for instance) to fight the Taliban.
What happens if the Pakistani government fails completely and extremists take over a nuclear power, which is historically hostile with a neighbouring nuclear power, India? Right now, they depend a lot on American help, they're also financially supported.
And why should this be of any concern to the American government? Why should they be the police of the world? Why should the American tax payers have to pay for 'peace' in those regions?
Well, in the interwar era (the world of American isolationism), it really didn't concern American tax payers. It was like that, because at that time, free trade was non-existent, foreign investments were minimal, so foreign tendencies had little effect on the American economy. At that time America didn't cause any trouble anywhere, and didn't had to solve any problems in the "Rest of the World".
Nowadays the more parts of the world falls into chaos, the more markets and resources the USA lose, which mean slower economic growth / recession. The performance of the Chinese, Indian, European, Latin-American, etc economies, oil prices, and so on are all effecting the American economy. It's the world of interdependency.
For security reasons, anti-American sentiment and controlled chaos is still much better than anti-American sentiment and uncontrolled chaos. I don't believe that retreating from Afghanistan, and stopping to help Israel would stop hatred against America.
(edited)
Nowadays the more parts of the world falls into chaos, the more markets and resources the USA lose, which mean slower economic growth / recession. The performance of the Chinese, Indian, European, Latin-American, etc economies, oil prices, and so on are all effecting the American economy. It's the world of interdependency.
For security reasons, anti-American sentiment and controlled chaos is still much better than anti-American sentiment and uncontrolled chaos. I don't believe that retreating from Afghanistan, and stopping to help Israel would stop hatred against America.
(edited)
You can't win discussion with him:p He looks on everything with an politic vision you or me doenst share. This vision doenst work in real life if you ask me. But he that's just my opinion.
A referendum for each step? How long do you want it to take before decisions can be made?
the time democracy needs.
And yes, the Euro was a problem for me the moment it was proposed. Back then I used the example that I didn't want to pay for the problems in southern Italy,
Italy spend for EU more then what takes from EU.
The point is that you can't unify countries without unification of rules and citizens, and it takes a lot of time and work.
the other way is to force integration with undemocratic instruments (unelected EU government, unified monetary system, euro, one central bank that formally doesn't respond to anyone etc etc)
the time democracy needs.
And yes, the Euro was a problem for me the moment it was proposed. Back then I used the example that I didn't want to pay for the problems in southern Italy,
Italy spend for EU more then what takes from EU.
The point is that you can't unify countries without unification of rules and citizens, and it takes a lot of time and work.
the other way is to force integration with undemocratic instruments (unelected EU government, unified monetary system, euro, one central bank that formally doesn't respond to anyone etc etc)
Which democracy makes a referendum for every step it takes? Maybe the ones in ancient Greece? A referendum is usually just a tool in the hands of politicians to manipulate the masses. The most important matters (like joining the EU or not) are exceptions, but not every rule.
At present, the matters in the EU are decided by diplomacy and not democracy. Democratic instruments, like an elected EU government are not wanted right now by the member states, because it would mean, they have to give up sovereignty.
What you want assumes a much deeper European integration, than what exists now.
(edited)
At present, the matters in the EU are decided by diplomacy and not democracy. Democratic instruments, like an elected EU government are not wanted right now by the member states, because it would mean, they have to give up sovereignty.
What you want assumes a much deeper European integration, than what exists now.
(edited)
Which democracy makes a referendum for every step it takes? Maybe the ones in ancient Greece? A referendum is usually just a tool in the hands of politicians to manipulate the masses. The most important matters (like joining the EU or not) are exceptions, but not every rule.
you misunderstood.
I siad it is necessary to make a referendum for every step of integration.
let's make some examples.
integration of school programs and structure? referendum
fiscal integration (same taxes for every country)? referendum
integration of labour market's rules? referendum
integration of police and sicurity laws? referendum
That is not what you are used to see (govs that make negoziations without discussion at home and without telling anything to their citizens) and it will take a long time before convincing a dutch that he need to share its rules with an italian.
But this is democracy. Actual UE is a oligopolistic demagocic project.
you misunderstood.
I siad it is necessary to make a referendum for every step of integration.
let's make some examples.
integration of school programs and structure? referendum
fiscal integration (same taxes for every country)? referendum
integration of labour market's rules? referendum
integration of police and sicurity laws? referendum
That is not what you are used to see (govs that make negoziations without discussion at home and without telling anything to their citizens) and it will take a long time before convincing a dutch that he need to share its rules with an italian.
But this is democracy. Actual UE is a oligopolistic demagocic project.
No, I didn't, that's what I meant. Think about it, as these would happen on a national level: would your government ask you about these? No, because you elected them, and gave them the right to represent you. Even in Brussels.
And it's ok, I think, because an average European citizen is probably not stupid, but has limited time. So he (or she) cannot be an expert in the fields of education, tax policies, labour rights and security at the same time, and cannot make a decision. Elected politicians do it via diplomatic negotiations, with the help of experts.
And it's ok, I think, because an average European citizen is probably not stupid, but has limited time. So he (or she) cannot be an expert in the fields of education, tax policies, labour rights and security at the same time, and cannot make a decision. Elected politicians do it via diplomatic negotiations, with the help of experts.
It's the world of interdependency.
Which by itself increases peace (either products cross the border or armies do).
For security reasons, anti-American sentiment and controlled chaos is still much better than anti-American sentiment and uncontrolled chaos. I don't believe that retreating from Afghanistan, and stopping to help Israel would stop hatred against America.
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. I think stopping with playing the policeman around the world and stop acting like you're the moral highness would benefit the image of the States.
Which by itself increases peace (either products cross the border or armies do).
For security reasons, anti-American sentiment and controlled chaos is still much better than anti-American sentiment and uncontrolled chaos. I don't believe that retreating from Afghanistan, and stopping to help Israel would stop hatred against America.
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. I think stopping with playing the policeman around the world and stop acting like you're the moral highness would benefit the image of the States.
As long as people are looking at what they put into the EU and what they get out, Europe is not ready for the commitment the EU wants to be.
No, I didn't, that's what I meant. Think about it, as these would happen on a national level: would your government ask you about these? No, because you elected them, and gave them the right to represent you. Even in Brussels.
this is not true.
When do you voted for fiscal compact? When for euro coin?
Anyway you can't vote a party for a "normal" political election (with a normal electolar campaign) and have those representant that take decision that none discussed before.
The most important point of my speech is not the referendums.
It's the need to build an union on a democratic way. With the times of this way.
this is not true.
When do you voted for fiscal compact? When for euro coin?
Anyway you can't vote a party for a "normal" political election (with a normal electolar campaign) and have those representant that take decision that none discussed before.
The most important point of my speech is not the referendums.
It's the need to build an union on a democratic way. With the times of this way.
As long as people are looking at what they put into the EU and what they get out, Europe is not ready for the commitment the EU wants to be.
I agree.
But believe me EU is what it wants to be.
A project of enslavement based on a coin..
I agree.
But believe me EU is what it wants to be.
A project of enslavement based on a coin..
integration of school programs and structure? referendum
I don't see why that should be necessary. In Flanders, we have one of the best school systems of Europe. I don't want to compromise that. Different systems increase competition, which increases the quality.
fiscal integration (same taxes for every country)? referendum
See above. Differences increase competition, and I can only hope it's a race to the bottom, although it doesn't seem like it is at the moment.
integration of labour market's rules? referendum
Not necessary. (Apart from free movement of labor.)
integration of police and sicurity laws? referendum
I'm pro because of economies of scale.
By the way, it is impossible to find a compromise that will be voted "yes" by every single member state. Impossible. At some point in the integration process, one must realize that the European level can also be a level of democracy, not only the nation state level.
I don't see why that should be necessary. In Flanders, we have one of the best school systems of Europe. I don't want to compromise that. Different systems increase competition, which increases the quality.
fiscal integration (same taxes for every country)? referendum
See above. Differences increase competition, and I can only hope it's a race to the bottom, although it doesn't seem like it is at the moment.
integration of labour market's rules? referendum
Not necessary. (Apart from free movement of labor.)
integration of police and sicurity laws? referendum
I'm pro because of economies of scale.
By the way, it is impossible to find a compromise that will be voted "yes" by every single member state. Impossible. At some point in the integration process, one must realize that the European level can also be a level of democracy, not only the nation state level.