NationStates Jolt Archive

M'kay... seems to me the following things have been covered
1) Why Europeans hate Americans
2) Why Americans hate Europeans
3) Why Americans hate Americans (read: reps hate dems and vice versa)

... What needs answering is why Europeans hate other sleazy Euros...
I could make a poll, but I better spare the French... so, why do you hate your fellow EU citizen, my fellow EUropean?

OR! Better yet! Argue why EU is stillborn idea!

(And I do fully understand Americans can't hold themselves jumping in on this, so I won't even bother asking them to stay quiet.)

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p

You better be briton! ;)

yup yup yuropeeins suck yall. One of dem comes over here from one of dem furin countriez tryin to do da dirty wit my sister. N I was like IF ANYONES GONNA BE HAVIN SEX WIT MY SISTER ITS GONNA BE ME!! GO AMURICA!!

Wait, are you pretending to be a red-neck, or a member of the british royal family now???

I believe my last post was a satire of the majority of the american intellect. If I was pretending to be british, I would misspell every word inorder to portray that they cannot speak correctly because of how much there teeth have decayed.

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p
Oh, they just conquered the whole of Europe once or twice, nothing big... :rolleyes:

(read: Look in a history book for Charlemagne and Napoleon, for God's sake)

Also, the French are the reason you're not singing Allahu Akbar right now (they stopped the Arab invasion of Europe at Poitiers).

They won the 100 years war... stopped the Austrians in the 30 years war... won a whole bunch of colonial wars vs. Britain... helped a little nation called America to gain its independence... created modern democracy, etc.

I believe my last post was a satire of the majority of the american intellect. If I was pretending to be british, I would misspell every word inorder to portray that they cannot speak correctly because of how much there teeth have decayed.

their, not there, and claiming to know the majority of anyone's intellectual powers is quite a stretch, isn't it?

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p


Hey don't lough with France :mp5: they invented the reverse gear on tanks ;) (wich helped the uS later on in all their wars) :p

BTW I don't agree with your views since France saved your ass and created the US (I mean witouth Lafayette, you still would be a second class collony :p )

Hmm id consider Charlemange more germanic then french his capital after all was Aachen...

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p
ww1,ww2,american of indenpence(they helped anyway), french revalution (how can they not), 100-year war(after lossing for the frist 115 of 116). ohh and boneapart how ever u spell his name.

Oh, they just conquered the whole of Europe once or twice, nothing big... :rolleyes:

(read: Look in a history book for Charlemagne and Napoleon, for God's sake)

Also, the French are the reason you're not singing Allahu Akbar right now (they stopped the Arab invasion of Europe at Poitiers).

They won the 100 years war... stopped the Austrians in the 30 years war... won a whole bunch of colonial wars vs. Britain... helped a little nation called America to gain its independence... created modern democracy, etc.

What, Charlemagne the frank, {German my friend, France was not even a country yet, come on now} I do believe that they lost the Napoleonic wars, ever hear of a little battle called Waterloo? And Poitiers wouldn't have been a victory if a FRANK, agian, german, I know the country is named after them, but they were german, hadn't of stuck a spear into Abderrahman, then the army fleed, without a ruler, they still could have won, and would have certainly invaded again, victoriously, if it wasn't for that?

Slow start...O K... I better kick start this one...
I'm from a country formerly ruled by wankers such as Swedes and Russkies. Nowadays, I don't mind it so much...it's embarrassing, but our history. I'll just skip the history part, cos reading about a nation which was the only one fighting off the soviet empire alone is embarrassing to readers and writer alike.

Euhm... what I dislike in Europe today is the way the former super powers want to run it - - Either you are fully init, or out, Britain. No need to bring any more of your political dinosaurs in, France. You are strangely quiet Germany... get over the guilt trip.

As for the others - - We know Italy, it's hard with a PM worse than GWB. Poland, you already have the most ridiculous head of 'state', the Pope... give it up, you'll never get religion in the constitution.

shite... I can't think anything bad to say about any member state really.... But I have great trust in you people of NS town and villages... go for it.

And w/ the 100 years war, they just took back what they lost before, breaking even, if you can call it that, they were alot weaker than before it when all was said and done, isn't really winning, now is it?
Which colonial war, the War of Jenkin's Ear? :headbang:

What, Charlemagne the frank, {German my friend, France was not even a country yet, come on now}


the franks were nethier german or french (both french and german historian recently argeed). cuz the french did exist yet and he coquered the germans (how were at that time a tribial culture).

Okay, the US didn't really get much help from Layfette, or however you spell his god forsaken name, and they really didn't do much but one little blockade, and they didn't even send us aid, without their help it would maybe have taken a little longer, the brits would just keep running agian and agian to new parts of the colonies, but for the most part of the war, they could really only occupy the spots where their armies were, and then we'de either bombard them out or chase them out... England was going to lose, it was just a matter of time... Of course w/ out the English and Americans the French would all be Germans now, wouldn't they?

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p

Aside my joke on France, I think that you are a coward. An intelectual coward and one in real too. What I think about your blind (Nazi raising flags and singing of the hymne in schools, swearing on the bible in court instead of having a separation between church and state like in modern countries where they sweare on th econstitution or law):



About the patriotism of the US extremists (extreme right, or called fascisme in the rest of the world for people on the Pinochet-Rumsfeld - Pearl ideas):

Bla, bla, bla Jezus,wich democratic nation dares to make "patriot acts/laws", you guys really need some freedom back in this country dominated by fear (wich is good for the Reps and other fascists).

"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first"

Ambrose Bierce, DEVIL'S DICTIONARY

not at all, if you have friends in public school then you see how people act. Then again I did live in Washington.

And now for something completely american... TAKE A JOKE BITCH!! get a life ya little pussy

Okay, the US didn't really get much help from Layfette, or however you spell his god forsaken name, and they really didn't do much but one little blockade, and they didn't even send us aid, without their help it would maybe have taken a little longer, the brits would just keep running agian and agian to new parts of the colonies, but for the most part of the war, they could really only occupy the spots where their armies were, and then we'de either bombard them out or chase them out... England was going to lose, it was just a matter of time... Of course w/ out the English and Americans the French would all be Germans now, wouldn't they?

Evidence A off your the historical Creutzfeld Jacob gap in your brain. Back to school junior. Try to read a book about the French (strange that one of your best allies is now seen as an enemy by sompe US fascists) help to create the US....


i refer to my post about patriotisme and scoundrels, you fit well :rolleyes:

And w/ the 100 years war, they just took back what they lost before, breaking even, if you can call it that, they were alot weaker than before it when all was said and done, isn't really winning, now is it?

a succesful defence is considered a vuctory if it was there goal in the war in the frist place.

Nationalism may be used wrongly in some instances, true, but saying that it is always bad goes to far, and not ALL americans like the patriot act, or the administration, lowest approval ratings in the history of US presidents can testify to this, most of us agree that SECURITY should be given up for FREEDOM, not the other way around, and many, including myself, would gladly fight to ensure FREEDOM, not give it up for the SECURITY promised by our president, but the fact that we still support his is testiment to our unity and strength, we know that things can and will change, we just wait patiently for our chance, see what happens in November, even if Bush still wins, the face of congress, the real power in the US is due for a change...

Yipee-ki-yay Mother Fucker!!

get a life ya little pussy

*Won't react at underage children* Think you are the litlle sissy here.

a succesful defence is considered a vuctory if it was there goal in the war in the frist place.

o yes and not long after the war (within 100 years, i think). they almost coquer britian.

Nationalism may be used wrongly in some instances, true, but saying that it is always bad goes to far, and not ALL americans like the patriot act, or the administration, lowest approval ratings in the history of US presidents can testify to this, most of us agree that SECURITY should be given up for FREEDOM, not the other way around, and many, including myself, would gladly fight to ensure FREEDOM, not give it up for the SECURITY promised by our president,


That is what I wan't to hear from critical US citizens, bravo :fluffle:
And that is why I brought the citation about Patriotisme in.
Going to post a joke now on the joke topic.

Nationalism may be used wrongly in some instances, true, but saying that it is always bad goes to far,
the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other ( dictionary.com) inother word patriotism gone to far.

If you didn't think that the country you were in was the best one, wouldn't you

a. go to the one that was or
b. make it that way

Just curious

And w/ the 100 years war, they just took back what they lost before, breaking even, if you can call it that, they were alot weaker than before it when all was said and done, isn't really winning, now is it?

France after the 100 years war was bigger than France before the 100 years war. Which means the French conquered land from England they had never owned before, such as Aquitaine. Also after the war under the leadership of the Valois especially King Francois I France was rebuilt into the second strongest nation of Europe after Spain.

o yes and not long after the war (within 100 years, i think). they almost coquer britian.
No they didn't

And Kentington... its again, not agian (which by the way you do alot)...then the army fled not fleed. It is we'd not we'de because it is an abbreviation of we and would. Testament NOT testiment. I could go on. Also I only got two to three hours of sleep last night whats your excuse??

typing to fast, different misspelling than using the wrong word...

the franks were nethier german or french (both french and german historian recently argeed). cuz the french did exist yet and he coquered the germans (how were at that time a tribial culture).
The franks however where a germanic tribe (among others). And they conquered huge part of central Europe. Charlemagne for example finally won against the saxons, who were forced to join his Franc Empire.
He also saved the pope from another tribe (which was christian but not catholic) in Italy. In 800 the pope crowned him to the position of Roma King. Since then there was this tradition: the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806).
In 843 the Empire was divided into three parts: The western part later became France, the eastern Germany.
The central part remained disputed for a long time.
The crown of the Holy Roman Empire went to the East Frank empire.
Although: due to rise of local kings the emperor more and more lost importance. Especially the reformation and the end of religious unity lead to a loss of power. After the thirty-year war (1618-48) the emperor had virtually only power of the area he was king of (1519-1806 it was the Habsburg dynasty which were the kings of Austria). The main power in Europe became France. In 1806 the austrian king (who already had declared himself to be austrian emperor) was forced to lay down the crown after an ultimatum by Napoleon, ending a more than thousand year tradition.

And Kentington... its again, not agian (which by the way you do alot)...then the army fled not fleed. It is we'd not we'de because it is an abbreviation of we and would. Testament NOT testiment. I could go on. Also I only got two to three hours of sleep last night whats your excuse??
And you wrote "alot" which is not correct. It should be "a lot." But I say to hell with grammar and spelling. As long as your point gets across then you're fine.

Yah I have no problem with it either, except he decided he had nothing better than to bitch that I wrote there instead of their.

can i just interject here, and go back to the original question as to why europeans hate each other. in my opinion it's probably because all the countries have been carved out over a couple of thousand years of warfare. when your history consists mainly of each part trying to screw over the other, well it builds a certain distrust into the national character.

do others see this in the same light as i do? ot shall we get back to arguing about france? :P

No they didn't
yes they did, they attacked with a navy many times the size of britians. although the british fleet managed to fight them off. It was one of there greatist naval victorys. (i know for a fact, say o show on it on the history channel (a canadian cable channel for those who don't get it). it happen in the early eras of gunpowder.

The History Channel isn't just canadian, we americans get it to, which battle are you talking about, the SPANISH ARMADA seems to be what you are talking about...

Yah I have no problem with it either, except he decided he had nothing better than to bitch that I wrote there instead of their.
Ah I see. I missed his first post.

can i just interject here, and go back to the original question as to why europeans hate each other. in my opinion it's probably because all the countries have been carved out over a couple of thousand years of warfare. when your history consists mainly of each part trying to screw over the other, well it builds a certain distrust into the national character.

do others see this in the same light as i do? ot shall we get back to arguing about france? :P

Ah! Such insight!... this is what I was after, but unfortunately posted this thread at a time most of the europe is asleep... :(

ww1,ww2,american of indenpence(they helped anyway), french revalution (how can they not),

In fact France did not WIN, WW1. American and the UK did. France created a wall the germans could not break, but the germans did that to the French. It wasn't until the Americans came into France and Brits went into Belgium did the war end.

WW2, France lost. Belgium lost worst. The French underground helped to the allied victory, but really the French did nothing. France gave up, Vichy France was a toy, and the french took Paris with no Germans in it.

The Revoultionary War, France helped with naval power at the end. They didn't win it, but they helped.

The French Revoultion is counted as a loss for France since the ruling government at the time lost the country.

The History Channel isn't just canadian, we americans get it to, which battle are you talking about, the SPANISH ARMADA seems to be what you are talking about...

oh yeah we Americans just *get* the History Channel, the History Channel is Made in the USA.

And Kentington... its again, not agian (which by the way you do alot)...then the army fled not fleed. It is we'd not we'de because it is an abbreviation of we and would. Testament NOT testiment. I could go on. Also I only got two to three hours of sleep last night whats your excuse??


Wil je wel eens in een andere taal als het Engels bezig zien.
Je veux bien te voir parler dans une autre langue.

I don't know Kentington, but you have a completely wrong attitude. Most spoken languages in the world are Chines and Spanish and you wan't to correct a perhaps non English speaker (like myself, born in Flanders). While it is knowed that you are seen as a intellectual when you speak more then 1 language in your third world country (the US).

Come on be serious, I speak Dutch (mothertongue, French=as good, German and English) and I woulmd never try to get my wright by attacking one on his language skills. (this again is fascist and shows that you can not win your debate on a other way, or do yopu wich to continue in another language, that would be fine for me :p )

Wil je wel eens in een andere taal als het Engels bezig zien.
Je veux bien te voir parler dans une autre langue.

I don't know Kentington, but you have a completely wrong attitude. Most spoken languages in the world are Chines and Spanish and you wan't to correct a perhaps non English speaker (like myself, born in Flanders). While it is knowed that you are seen as a intellectual when you speak more then 1 language in your third world country (the US).

Come on be serious, I speak Dutch (mothertongue, French=as good, German and English) and I woulmd never try to get my wright by attacking one on his language skills. (this again is fascist and shows that you can not win your debate on a other way, or do yopu wich to continue in another language, that would be fine for me :p )
I think Freakin Sweet would agree with you though... he was just making a point to Kentington as it was Kentington who on the first page of the thread insisted on correcting people on the most trivial spelling matters.

I don't know Kentington, but you have a completely wrong attitude. Most spoken languages in the world are Chines and Spanish and you wan't to correct a perhaps non English speaker (like myself, born in Flanders).

Not that this is particularly relevant here, but I found it interesting anyhow - the country with the largest population of English speakers is India.

yup yup yuropeeins suck yall. One of dem comes over here from one of dem furin countriez tryin to do da dirty wit my sister. N I was like IF ANYONES GONNA BE HAVIN SEX WIT MY SISTER ITS GONNA BE ME!! GO AMURICA!!

I believe my last post was a satire of the majority of the american intellect. If I was pretending to be british, I would misspell every word inorder to portray that they cannot speak correctly because of how much there teeth have decayed.

This is why I pointed out that he misspelt the words, not to pick on him, read the whole conversation, not part

The franks however where a germanic tribe (among others). And they conquered huge part of central Europe.
as I said in the one of my early posts frech AND GERMAN historians argee that he was NOT of French or german lineage, he was of a people how hailed for what is now northen France.
He also saved the pope from another tribe (which was christian but not catholic) in Italy.

the only 2 christian sects at the time were the roman chathlic and the Orthodox, which was the church byzantine empire. They didn't try to rebliuld the roman emprire until after the fall of the fracish empire.

In fact France did not WIN, WW1. American and the UK did. France created a wall the germans could not break, but the germans did that to the French. It wasn't until the Americans came into France and Brits went into Belgium did the war end.

.

Oh boy your comments on Belgium and France are showing that you don't know shit about WWI.(bTW about WWII Frances economy was hit harder then the Belgian one that had Antwerp in full use in 44 aso by the mines that wher enot destructed). The Brits are the major allie of France in WWI, not those poor equiped and few US troops. (I think they are still respectfull put you can not say that the US production really helped like it did in WWII, neither the troops) :rolleyes:

Back to history class, and please on a good OESO level (so not the US, wich is always an underachiever in knowledge about history :p ) (but a good propagandist :p )

I don't think by win he meant that they had as large a role as Britian or France, but rather at the end of WWI, the US had gained the most...

Hmm id consider Charlemange more germanic then french his capital after all was Aachen...

And Napoleon wasnt even French he was Corscacan (spelling).

Not that this is particularly relevant here, but I found it interesting anyhow - the country with the largest population of English speakers is India.

Thank's did not know that.

Is it, really? Perhaps the Chinese will be next, not as native speakers of course.

In fact France did not WIN, WW1. American and the UK did. France created a wall the germans could not break, but the germans did that to the French. It wasn't until the Americans came into France and Brits went into Belgium did the war end.
And the Americans and UK would not have won if the French manpower wasn't there holding back the German lines... during the stalemate American forces may have been the straw that broke the German camel's back but all three allies shared in the victory and considering that France had the most casualties it would be appropriate to say France had the greatest contribution.

WW2, France lost. Belgium lost worst. The French underground helped to the allied victory, but really the French did nothing. France gave up, Vichy France was a toy, and the french took Paris with no Germans in it.

True... the fall of Paris 1940 looks to be the most embarrassing moment in French history.
The Revoultionary War, France helped with naval power at the end. They didn't win it, but they helped.
The French supplied the US throughout the war with arms and money without which the Americans could not have beaten Britain's well equipped army. Without the French navy at Yorktown Cornwallis could have escaped defeat... indeed France was a decisive factor in the war and it was as much a French victory as it was American since France achieved its objectives and caused Britain, its enemy, to lose its colonies.
The French Revoultion is counted as a loss for France since the ruling government at the time lost the country.
The French Republic is just as French as the Kingdom of France... the king might have fell but France the nation still existed and not only that it did pretty well for itself... it conquered enemies and expanded its borders under both the Revoultionary forces, and Napoleon.

In France, the heavy losses in manpower at the front decimated an entire generation of Frenchmen and is thought to have created a leadership vacuum when that generation came of age. France had fallen behind Germany and England in population during the 19th century. They were, therefore, less able to sustain wartime losses.

France also suffered untold property damage since most of the war on the western front was fought on French soil.

The United States, removed by an ocean from the center of the war and joining late in the war, did not suffer the catastrophic losses of the major belligerents. U.S. losses in life were great, more than 100,000, but this was small in comparison to the millions lost by the other major powers.

Furthermore, the United States was a great continental power, with great population and resources. The war stimulated the U.S. economy, increased employment and wages, and brought great profit to industry. The United States emerged from the war as clearly the greatest power in the world as well as the creditor nation of the world.
>took this off the internet-

I don't think by win he meant that they had as large a role as Britian or France, but rather at the end of WWI, the US had gained the most...

It is true that the biggest allie offensive had a substantial help in France from the US exp. force.But it would have took place withouth them too and would, indeed cost some more french/UK lives then.The German empires production could not follow that of the commonwealth and the French anymore in 1918 and above all, they where short in people while both others had resources of the collonie (Marocons, Algeriens, Indian, even Chinese on the front, in masses). But in the air, the battle was fought between Germans, and the Brittish-French powers. Just wan't to say that we can never compare the role of the uS with the one they had in WWII .

Thank's did not know that.

Is it, really? Perhaps the Chinese will be next, not as native speakers of course.

Some reports claim so, others say it is just in second place after the US, buit at current rate of increase will surpass it by about 2010. Either way it struck me as unexpected.

What I do not like about other European countries, lets see:
- UK, France and Germany: They think they rule the EU on their own and don't need to consult the other 22 countries
- Every country in the EU: because they take their own interests more seriously than the good of the entire population, and because they seem to take the interests of multinationals more seriously than their own population or (smaller) local businesses

[less serious]
Belgium and Luxembourg, because they never should have declared independence from The Netherlands ;)

And Napoleon wasnt even French he was Corscacan (spelling).
Even without Napoleon France would have been extremely powerful, militarily... before Napoleon came to power the Revolutionary armies conquered the Netherlands, among other land gains.

This is why I pointed out that he misspelt the words, not to pick on him, read the whole conversation, not part
Yeah I really need to start reading the entirety of threads!

[less serious]
Belgium and Luxembourg, because they never should have declared independence from The Netherlands ;)

Wich make you a Dutch of course :p
Would be nice to see how the Dutch would speak French then with the people in Brussels and Wallonia (the accent when they try to speak French is always good for a lough :p )

In fact France did not WIN, WW1. American and the UK did. France created a wall the germans could not break, but the germans did that to the French. It wasn't until the Americans came into France and Brits went into Belgium did the war end.
france did win in ww1, they helped as much as the brits did but in was there terrtory the got blown to h@ll and back. And in both the world wars on the euro front Canada did more than the US did.(although in the Japanese front it was the US and the brits how did the loins share of work.)


WW2, France lost. Belgium lost worst. The French underground helped to the allied victory, but really the French did nothing. France gave up, Vichy France was a toy, and the french took Paris with no Germans in it.
the germans never accutly defeated the wall they went around it. plus they did win because the german froces officaly surrendered to them at the same time as the rest of the allied forces. Also the french forces did captured a big chuck of german in the push towards berlin. In war the guy who surrered frist lose the french never surrendered. they kepted fighting until the other allies could help out more.(they were also one of the big 3).

The Revoultionary War, France helped with naval power at the end. They didn't win it, but they helped.
thats what I said but in fewwer words (plus that naval help cut off the brits only way to espace forcing britian to surrered the 13 colonies to save the lives of the garrsion troops.

The French Revoultion is counted as a loss for France since the ruling government at the time lost the country. yes but the people won.

Wich make you a Dutch of course :p
Would be nice to see how the Dutch would speak French then with the people in Brussels and Wallonia (the accent when they try to speak French is always good for a lough :p )
Well, my French is seriously lacking (I dropped it after two years), but I'd like to think my accent is acceptable. But indeed, a lot of Dutch suck at their pronunciation (I remember speeches in English by Dutch politicians with a pronunciation that was laughable at best).

Countries in Europe that I really like: Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra. Why? Because everybody else forgets about them.

The franks however where a germanic tribe (among others). And they conquered huge part of central Europe. Charlemagne for example finally won against the saxons, who were forced to join his Franc Empire.
He also saved the pope from another tribe (which was christian but not catholic) in Italy.
The Longobards where Catholic.

Aha, I see that the brave 22 july plotter Fieldmarshall is here too.
At your orders, Marshall von Witzleben.


Colonel Groscurth (16th Panzer)

Well, my French is seriously lacking (I dropped it after two years), but I'd like to think my accent is acceptable. But indeed, a lot of Dutch suck at their pronunciation (I remember speeches in English by Dutch politicians with a pronunciation that was laughable at best).


Hey, I like you guys! But I was correct in my estimation that you wher Dutch ;) I had a Dutch girlfriend from the warm city of Utrecht during 2 years (you know the "Wittevrouwensingel" where she lived?)

And in fact, if the Flemish part of Belgium would form a nation with the Netherlands, it would create a nation of 21.5 million Dutch speakers in the EU and could be a more important factor then now. I follow you there :fluffle:

BunnyDucks, next thread like this I find from you is getting locked. Ok? They start out as flamebait but luckily there are enough mature users on this forum as to not rise to it. I'm nipping the next one in the bud.

BunnyDucks, next thread like this I find from you is getting locked. Ok? They start out as flamebait but luckily there are enough mature users on this forum as to not rise to it. I'm nipping the next one in the bud.
Why did you lock the other one? :confused: :confused: :confused:
I just wrote 10 lines and could not post my Google search about my defence of France aso.

SMW (yeah I am back, lost the 1500 post nation because I forgot the vacation mode while on expedition in the Caucasus, "Silly MW" is not it? ;)

The French supplied the US throughout the war with arms and money without which the Americans could not have beaten Britain's well equipped army. Without the French navy at Yorktown Cornwallis could have escaped defeat... indeed France was a decisive factor in the war and it was as much a French victory as it was American since France achieved its objectives and caused Britain, its enemy, to lose its colonies.

.

Hat of for you Sir, the best thing I read here. :fluffle: Could not tell it better (but I can in my own language)

Answering to the first question:
Hate is such a awful word. Bit I somewhat dislike:
- The UK, Brits, English or whatever you want to call them ... these people should be thankful that they could advance from being the "sick man of europe" in the 70s to "the strongest economy in Europe" today with the help of billions of euros (or whatever was used before), while having extra-rules made just for them, paying almost nothing to the EU up to today, and spoiling the first try for a european constitution decades before the one try now-a-days. And now many of them want to part from europe out of childish fears for their countries independence ... like their economy woud be anymore than a big pile of unemployed people without the EU
- Poland = One day joining the EU, next day (virtually) going to Irac with Bush and openly critizising the many EU-nations that did not agree ... what was that thing again Bush is blaming Kerry to do all the times - flipflaps or something?!?!?
- Germany = its ok that other countries are mad at us germans, a natural thing after having been conquered by us so many times and now us being the strongest in the EU for decades on. But demonizing anything German in Germany itself, and if its just a flag ("Oh look, he's got a german flag, he must be Right-Wing or Nazi or something!") just drives me crazy sometimes - and i really don't go for the right-wing or conservative parties here, just want to be German in Germany
- Netherland: someone there now wears my NY Cap from my visit in 2001, and if i get him i gonna kick his dutch ass until my boots appear behind his eye-balls *angry*

BunnyDucks, next thread like this I find from you is getting locked. Ok? They start out as flamebait but luckily there are enough mature users on this forum as to not rise to it. I'm nipping the next one in the bud.

You are serious, aren't you?

My intention was to gather all the flames away from threads with a bit more substance. As I'm new, I didn't realize it's impossible. I was frustrated reading threads about Kerry's fitreps ending to EU's incompetence via UN's inaptness. You do what you think you have to.

'Drawing flames' isn't acceptable. I'm a forum moderator and part of my duty is to ensure flaming doesn't happen at all, and punish those involved when it does.
If you're concerned about flaming in other threads, report it via the Moderation forum.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Bunny-

Just buy Myrth in Own A Mod For A Day, I bid, and I hope that I win

So, um.. isn't it interesting how after Roosevelt for the DEMS and Nixon for the GOP, the parties changed so much, and do you forsee a change in the future on the same scale

Bunny-

Just buy Myrth in Own A Mod For A Day, I bid, and I hope that I win
:p :p :p

Why hello Basil, Myrth is by now mine all mine.. . . . . . . . .
next step

THE WORLD

Hmm *looks at world map* - North America, Europe...

...goodness! There are more than just these two continnets in the world!

Do Oceania, Asia, South America and Africa get a say too? There are several billion of us, you know! ;)

We could just hold a true democratic election for one world leader, if China and India vote in a bloc, their candidate is sure to win!

Well, Euros aren't cowards, and Americans aren't cowards; it's people who think bad things about other people who are cowards...

As I recall, the French won WWII, they got taken over temporarily but kept fighting anyways, then eventually the Brits and Americans came over and finished the job, but that isn't saying the French just gave up, it's similar to what happened in the war of 1812, USA kept fighting after they'd had their capitol burned. I wouldn't really call it a loss if you lose for a while then win... The French also aided in the American revolution. Their main problem is positioning, they have too much border, and are in the middle of Europe, you can't have a big European war without going through France.

stopped the Austrians in the 30 years war...

If funding those who actually fought against Habsburg made them the stoppers of the Austrians and prolly also aunited germany that was catholic. I'd say it was rather thanks to Sweden as France hardly fought much in that war.

Edit: wrote Australians first, hehe.

stoppers of the Austrailians and prolly

I don't remember any Australians fighting in the Thirty Year's War, maybe some Austrians ;)

I don't hate other people, but I hate socialist PC-propaganda.

I don't remember any Australians fighting in the Thirty Year's War, maybe some Austrians ;)

True. Didn't think. Wasn't even aware that I misswrote that. ;)

Oh, they just conquered the whole of Europe once or twice, nothing big... :rolleyes:

(read: Look in a history book for Charlemagne and Napoleon, for God's sake)

Also, the French are the reason you're not singing Allahu Akbar right now (they stopped the Arab invasion of Europe at Poitiers).

They won the 100 years war... stopped the Austrians in the 30 years war... won a whole bunch of colonial wars vs. Britain... helped a little nation called America to gain its independence... created modern democracy, etc.

They never conquered the whole of europe.
the bit about poitier is true. love charlemagne. The hundred year war, well if you say so. considering it was all set in france and all they did was keep their territory, mmm.
Lost a hell of alot more colonial wars against britain.
HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious

I'm from a country formerly ruled by wankers such as Swedes and Russkies.

Oh dear, that classifies me as a wanker now! :D
I'm sorry Finland!! At least we're happy neighbours now.

I would say, all in all, that I'm in favour of the EU, and I aslo voted Ja to the euro, but sadly the majority did not here.

BUT, I do think that the EU needs serious reform, as at the moment it does come accross as having a bit of a democratic defecit in how it is run.

the franks were nethier german or french (both french and german historian recently argeed). cuz the french did exist yet and he coquered the germans (how were at that time a tribial culture).

Charlemagne was a frank. The franks were a germanic tribe along with the goths, vandals ostrogoths, saxons, angles, vikings, etc.

a succesful defence is considered a vuctory if it was there goal in the war in the frist place.

But is was not a successful defence. The english grown had inherited that territory. The french stole it. theft. Typical. tut tut

They never conquered the whole of europe.

The Netherlands and Belgium were annexed, Spain and Portugal made puppets, parts of Italy either annexed or made puppets. Austria and Prussia both made effectively puppets, and an independent Poland, also a puppet. While Russia was at the least, subservient to Napoleon until 1812. I would consider that Europe, Switzerland as well, was accomodating to France, so they conquered all of Europe except Great Britain.

the bit about poitier is true. love charlemagne. The hundred year war, well if you say so. considering it was all set in france and all they did was keep their territory, mmm.
Lost a hell of alot more colonial wars against britain.
HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious

WHAT!? Poitier!? The Battle of Poitier was between the French and English, it was the second of the three crushing victories the Englsh won against the French in the Hundred Year's War (The other two were Crecy and Agincourt, respectively). The French used much the same tactics as at Crecy and were defeated by the Black Prince, and King John of France was taken captive.

The Battle you are referring to is Tours, when the French were led by Charles Martel, and it was long before Poitier.

o yes and not long after the war (within 100 years, i think). they almost coquer britian.

after they nearly conquered britain. errr......what text book was that?

But is was not a successful defence. The english grown had inherited that territory. The french stole it. theft. Typical. tut tut

Err.... then technically anyone who traces his kingdom from William the Conqueror should be a theif, since the throne was promised to him, but given to someone else, he stole that land.

HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious

As for this, the French Revolution created startling new ideas in Europe (no need for monarchs), which before this time had not been seen (except in those rabble rousing colonies, but they were colonies after all). Napoleon's campaigns all throughout Europe brought the French ideals of the Revolution to this areas, and after his defeat the people who ran the victor countries labored hard to "turn back the clock" as it were.

Unfortunately for them, it was impossible to do so, and the Revolutions of 1848 can be traced back to the French Rev, as well as countless other revolutions (1830). They created modern democracy in Europe, spread it's ideals, and ensured it did not get "turned back" (1848 started in Paris).

The Netherlands and Belgium were annexed, Spain and Portugal made puppets, parts of Italy either annexed or made puppets. Austria and Prussia both made effectively puppets, and an independent Poland, also a puppet. While Russia was at the least, subservient to Napoleon until 1812. I would consider that Europe, Switzerland as well, was accomodating to France, so they conquered all of Europe except Great Britain.



WHAT!? Poitier!? The Battle of Poitier was between the French and English, it was the second of the three crushing victories the Englsh won against the French in the Hundred Year's War (The other two were Crecy and Agincourt, respectively). The French used much the same tactics as at Crecy and were defeated by the Black Prince, and King John of France was taken captive.

The Battle you are referring to is Tours, when the French were led by Charles Martel, and it was long before Poitier.

I know!!! I just the names mixed up. refering to the franks stopping the moors from taking over europe

Err.... then technically anyone who traces his kingdom from William the Conqueror should be a theif, since the throne was promised to him, but given to someone else, he stole that land.

No. William the congueror plus relatives invaded england a took it. Good for him, respect for the normans! But their territories in france were inherited legitimately. Hell in theory at the time, the english crown was subservient to the french one. So they took the land from their subjects. theft

I don't remember any Australians fighting in the Thirty Year's War, maybe some Austrians ;)

http://www.sagen.at/texte/gegenwart/IMAGES/kangaroos.jpg

No. William the congueror plus relatives invaded england a took it. Good for him, respect for the normans! But their territories in france were inherited legitimately. Hell in theory at the time, the english crown was subservient to the french one. So they took the land from their subjects. theft

...the French invaded Aquitane and Normandy and took it from the English, how is this different than the Normans invading and conquering England? The English claim to the Throne of France was through a female, and the French dug up a veyr old law that stipulated inheritance could not descend down through females, so what the English did (try to take more of France), was also theft by your definition, since the French King Charles had more claim to it (by this law).

As for this, the French Revolution created startling new ideas in Europe (no need for monarchs), which before this time had not been seen (except in those rabble rousing colonies, but they were colonies after all). Napoleon's campaigns all throughout Europe brought the French ideals of the Revolution to this areas, and after his defeat the people who ran the victor countries labored hard to "turn back the clock" as it were.

Unfortunately for them, it was impossible to do so, and the Revolutions of 1848 can be traced back to the French Rev, as well as countless other revolutions (1830). They created modern democracy in Europe, spread it's ideals, and ensured it did not get "turned back" (1848 started in Paris).

Ever here of Oliver Cromwell. Bit before that stuff in france.
Ah yes napoleaon. Or as we all know him President Napoleon not emperor....

Modern democracy stems more from Britain than from France. Although our system is slightly eccentric, it has been a gradual process that has continued for 800 years.

Ah yes napoleaon. Or as we all know him President Napoleon not emperor....

I said the French ideals for democracy were spread, not system of government, Napoleon always led the people to believe he was leading them as a democracy, and his soldiers fought for the tricolour and ideals of the Revolution.

Modern democracy stems more from Britain than from France. Although our system is slightly eccentric, it has been a gradual process that has continued for 800 years.

Britain has always considered itself seperate from Continental Political developements until at least the Great War, and the Continent has as well. Britains developement of democracy is not mirrored anywhere in Europe, and it's impact on the European evolution to Democracy is minimal until WW1-2.

> HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious


Thats easy: French Revolution! It was first to abolish feudalism(kings, queens, monarchy) in Europe and first in establishing a modern democracy.

The principles of the french revolution are example for every democracy of today, including the US-american democracy
- everyone should be treated equally
- everyone is alowed to vote
- and so on

Now: the french revolution was at 1789 ... american revolution was at 1776, including a constitution. So the US actually have the oldest existing (that rules out the ancient greek) democratic constitution of the world --- thats admitted, but that was still a democracy for a few rich people - in france they created a lasting democracy for all the people, being an example for many other revolutions and democracies following after.

okok, you see you can argue about who is the oldest: But believe me (or study the books) - the french revolution is the most influentual democratic revolution so far.

I don't know, but i imagine that back in those days, nobody cared about a few british colony-people "there over the ocean", which could be why every following democratic movement referred to that very modern principles of the french.

Read 'em, you would be impresed just how modern they were

...the French invaded Aquitane and Normandy and took it from the English, how is this different than the Normans invading and conquering England? The English claim to the Throne of France was through a female, and the French dug up a veyr old law that stipulated inheritance could not descend down through females, so what the English did (try to take more of France), was also theft by your definition, since the French King Charles had more claim to it (by this law).

Fair enough. But the english could claim direct decendence while the french only had a cousin ready for the throne. that's why they brought back the frankish law.

I said the French ideals for democracy were spread, not system of government, Napoleon always led the people to believe he was leading them as a democracy, and his soldiers fought for the tricolour and ideals of the Revolution.



Britain has always considered itself seperate from Continental Political developements until at least the Great War, and the Continent has as well. Britains developement of democracy is not mirrored anywhere in Europe, and it's impact on the European evolution to Democracy is minimal until WW1-2.

Magna Carta, jury's system and all the rest.... Representation by the people.....

> HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious


Thats easy: French Revolution! It was first to abolish feudalism(kings, queens, monarchy) in Europe and first in establishing a modern democracy.

The principles of the french revolution are example for every democracy of today, including the US-american democracy
- everyone should be treated equally
- everyone is alowed to vote
- and so on

Not really in the case of the Constituent Assembly. Only 'Active' Citizens could vote (those who payed a certain amount in taxation), 'passive' Citizens could not.

Thats easy: French Revolution! It was first to abolish feudalism(kings, queens, monarchy) in Europe and first in establishing a modern democracy.

The principles of the french revolution are example for every democracy of today, including the US-american democracy
- everyone should be treated equally
- everyone is alowed to vote
- and so on

Now: the french revolution was at 1789 ... american revolution was at 1776, including a constitution. So the US actually have the oldest existing (that rules out the ancient greek) democratic constitution of the world --- thats admitted, but that was still a democracy for a few rich people - in france they created a lasting democracy for all the people, being an example for many other revolutions and democracies following after.

Actually, here Daroth's earlier point about Britain's democarcy could be interjected. Britain has by far, the oldest unbroken democracy (ish) government in the modern world, stretching back to the Glorious Revolution, which pre-dates the American Revolution by almost a century, so Britain actually has the longest constitution for democracy (if you go even farther back, you can cite the Magna Carta). Though it's democracy has evolved in a way completely seperate from any other.

okok, you see you can argue about who is the oldest: But believe me (or study the books) - the french revolution is the most influentual democratic revolution so far.

I agree here.

I don't know, but i imagine that back in those days, nobody cared about a few british colony-people "there over the ocean", which could be why every following democratic movement referred to that very modern principles of the french.

Read 'em, you would be impresed just how modern they were

Well, to be fair, the French were heavily influenced by the American struggle, the absolutely adored Franklin, and their soldiers (in a similar manner that they imparted the French ideals on Europe a generation later) brought back the American ideas of government.

> HOW THE HELL DID THEY CREATE MODERN DEMOCRACY???? actually curious


Thats easy: French Revolution! It was first to abolish feudalism(kings, queens, monarchy) in Europe and first in establishing a modern democracy.

The principles of the french revolution are example for every democracy of today, including the US-american democracy
- everyone should be treated equally
- everyone is alowed to vote
- and so on

Now: the french revolution was at 1789 ... american revolution was at 1776, including a constitution. So the US actually have the oldest existing (that rules out the ancient greek) democratic constitution of the world --- thats admitted, but that was still a democracy for a few rich people - in france they created a lasting democracy for all the people, being an example for many other revolutions and democracies following after.

okok, you see you can argue about who is the oldest: But believe me (or study the books) - the french revolution is the most influentual democratic revolution so far.

I don't know, but i imagine that back in those days, nobody cared about a few british colony-people "there over the ocean", which could be why every following democratic movement referred to that very modern principles of the french.

Read 'em, you would be impresed just how modern they were

they might have had the ideals, but i'm not familiar about any of them being enacted. And in terms of revolution, I don't think anyone can argue the point, it was influencial.

Magna Carta, jury's system and all the rest.... Representation by the people.....

Ideas that can be linked with the French Rev (via the American one), but it's still not Modern Democracy, especially in Europe.

Well, to be fair, the French were heavily influenced by the American struggle, the absolutely adored Franklin, and their soldiers (in a similar manner that they imparted the French ideals on Europe a generation later) brought back the American ideas of government.
Also French support of the 13 colonies arguably hastented the revolution (huge debts, bankruptcy, the evidence that a King was not need etc)

Hey don't lough with France they invented the reverse gear on tanks(wich helped the uS later on in all their wars)

He's right.

How many gears do French tanks have?
6. 1 forward and 5 reverse

Why is there the one forward?
If the enemy attacks from behind

Well then, why are there rearview mirrors on the tanks?
You should always keep an eye on the enemy

Also French support of the 13 colonies arguably hastented the revolution (huge debts, bankruptcy, the evidence that a King was not need etc)

Well, since we were arguing over the origins of ideas I didn't think it necessary to include that, since it was a situational reality.

Ideas that can be linked with the French Rev (via the American one), but it's still not Modern Democracy, especially in Europe.

My point is that england, or better say the UK, has contributed the most toward democracy. The french revolution did pave the way for later revolutions.

He's right.

How many gears do French tanks have?
6. 1 forward and 5 reverse

Have you ever seen a Char B1-bis, the tank is absolutely massive, the reason it has more gears for reverse then for forward is becuase that is how the thing turns, it's main cannon is in a fixed position so it has to be able to turn to face an enemy tank or position.

Why is there the one forward?
If the enemy attacks from behind

So the tank can move forward?

Well then, why are there rearview mirrors on the tanks?
You should always keep an eye on the enemy

I'm sure many a German Tiger would've loved to have a rearview mirror.

> Britains developement of democracy is not mirrored anywhere in Europe, > and it's impact on the European evolution to Democracy is minimal until WW1-2.

Amen! Especially if you note that the british still have no constitution, a fact that rendered the nobles (house of lords) the most powerful political fraction in this country up until the end of the 19th century. Only then the House of Commons started the have the Prime Minister, who is the most important guy in Britain (you know Blair?!), come from there ranks instead from the House of Lords.
The Brits have always been a politicaly isolated bunch

My point is that england, or better say the UK, has contributed the most toward democracy. The french revolution did pave the way for later revolutions.

It gave it a base with which to work with, which was further based upon the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy. The French and American Revolutions realized the ideas of democracy, in a rather explosive way. Britain has by itself, developed democracy in a way that stands apart from the rest of the world, but it did not spread democracy, it had ideas borrowed from it though, so it contributed yes.

What, Charlemagne the frank, {German my friend, France was not even a country yet, come on now} I do believe that they lost the Napoleonic wars, ever hear of a little battle called Waterloo? And Poitiers wouldn't have been a victory if a FRANK, agian, german, I know the country is named after them, but they were german, hadn't of stuck a spear into Abderrahman, then the army fleed, without a ruler, they still could have won, and would have certainly invaded again, victoriously, if it wasn't for that?

yeh i know this was a long time ago but im reading through your messages and all you guys saying that france hasn't won any wars ect. ww1 and 2 hello? i know it was a joint effort but still. and for all you europeans if it wasn't for my french grandfather you could very easily all be speaking in german right now and he risked his life and died of cancer soon after the war coz he was so fucking beaten up by the fucking nazis who tortured him to try to get info off him which he never gave and left my mother and my aunts and uncle fatherless and france and europe independant countries and he did all that just so twats like you who kow nothing can say that france hasn't won any wars and that they are all weak and everything. shut up
you can look him up if your interested, Andre Lassagne (although alot of it muight be in french)

> Britains developement of democracy is not mirrored anywhere in Europe, > and it's impact on the European evolution to Democracy is minimal until WW1-2.

Amen! Especially if you note that the british still have no constitution,

We do, but it is "Unwritten" (or more accurately put "Uncodified").

The main point of this thread is that everyones arguing who won what wars and whether the wars were actually won. That's one of the problems with the EU nowadays. Too much empty nationalism. I'm not claiming that patriotism is bad, but if people can't handle a joke about their country (see the answer to my previous post), then we're not doing too well. The other problem tied to nationalism is vested national interests. For instance, half the budget of the EU (a tidy sum of money) goes to farmers. The money that goes to them isn't even tied to how much they produce in many instances. Subsidising all those farmers is just plain stupid. Of course we do need farmers but there's quite a few too many in Europe.

> We do, but it is "Unwritten" (or more accurately put "Uncodified").

Yes, I know that word-game of the british, and here is mine (ok, the US-wordgame, as i'am not a us-guy):

The US-american constitution is the oldest existing democratic constitution on the planet.

- france >>> later
- brits >>> nothing written
- athens >>> not existning anymore
- romans >>> democracy?

Still, as I have written beofre, the french was the most influentual

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p

the war for american independance, for one. Nah, just kidding, british apathy probably had more to do with it than french combat, just to be fair.

> We do, but it is "Unwritten" (or more accurately put "Uncodified").

Yes, I know that word-game of the british, and here is mine (ok, the US-wordgame, as i'am not a us-guy):

The US-american constitution is the oldest existing democratic constitution on the planet.

- france >>> later
- brits >>> nothing written
- athens >>> not existning anymore
- romans >>> democracy?

Still, as I have written beofre, the french was the most influentual

oh come on america is a joke, you are too young to have any proper history and your government is completely f*cked i mean look at bush! all you do is spend your time ruining other countries (cuba for instanbce) and going to war with them, polluting the world, and the majority of other countrys hate you, your just too rich for them to do anything about it.

> Britains developement of democracy is not mirrored anywhere in Europe, > and it's impact on the European evolution to Democracy is minimal until WW1-2.

Amen! Especially if you note that the british still have no constitution, a fact that rendered the nobles (house of lords) the most powerful political fraction in this country up until the end of the 19th century. Only then the House of Commons started the have the Prime Minister, who is the most important guy in Britain (you know Blair?!), come from there ranks instead from the House of Lords.
The Brits have always been a politicaly isolated bunch

So? univeral suffrave has existed for only a hundred years!
In all countries until the 20th century, the landed gentry have controlled the government

oh come on america is a joke, you are too young to have any proper history and your government is completely f*cked i mean look at bush! all you do is spend your time ruining other countries (cuba for instanbce) and going to war with them, polluting the world, and the majority of other countrys hate you, your just too rich for them to do anything about it.

they've managed to fit genocide and several imperialistic wars of agression into their brief history though.

It gave it a base with which to work with, which was further based upon the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy. The French and American Revolutions realized the ideas of democracy, in a rather explosive way. Britain has by itself, developed democracy in a way that stands apart from the rest of the world, but it did not spread democracy, it had ideas borrowed from it though, so it contributed yes.

What about the colonies? Where did the US get the idea from?
Of course modern democracy is based on the US model more than french, in the sense of transition and such..

The main point of this thread is that everyones arguing who won what wars and whether the wars were actually won. That's one of the problems with the EU nowadays. Too much empty nationalism. I'm not claiming that patriotism is bad, but if people can't handle a joke about their country (see the answer to my previous post), then we're not doing too well. The other problem tied to nationalism is vested national interests. For instance, half the budget of the EU (a tidy sum of money) goes to farmers. The money that goes to them isn't even tied to how much they produce in many instances. Subsidising all those farmers is just plain stupid. Of course we do need farmers but there's quite a few too many in Europe.

and where are most of the farmers.....

they've managed to fit genocide and several imperialistic wars of agression into their brief history though.

i'm npot saying they have no history but comparing yourselves to the ancient romans and greeks is pushing it a little, don't you think?

oh come on america is a joke, you are too young to have any proper history and your government is completely f*cked i mean look at bush! all you do is spend your time ruining other countries (cuba for instanbce) and going to war with them, polluting the world, and the majority of other countrys hate you, your just too rich for them to do anything about it.

---> Now who is spreading hatred here, eh? And it is still the oldest existing democratic constitution of the planet earth ... and no, i am not american, and yes i view Bush's politics (foreign) as a load of horse-shit
But take a chill-pill, the US, as any other country too, has its beautiful sides: the people, the possibilities, the flexibility (no idiotic policy lasted long in the US, i don't know other people being so able to change for the right, or admit they've been wrong). Ok, they have complete idiots - so has Germany (especially), and france (defenitely) or the brits (most defenitely)

What about the colonies? Where did the US get the idea from?
Of course modern democracy is based on the US model more than french, in the sense of transition and such..

The American Revolution said "we're not listening to the King", and the Colonial rebels were colonies after all, they weren't the citizens of the Mother Country. The French Revolution said "Down with the Monarchy", and this was arguably the most powerful Continental power of it's day. The ideas brought about or transferred via the French Revolution came right to the doorstep of every European through Napoleon's campaigns, ergo, the French spread it further, they just happened to have a combination of being far too imperialistic, and being feared by Europe for their volatile ideas (Britain was the ally the Monarchists in France called on, as Britain feared the Revolution just as the autocratic government of the rest of Europe did).

i'm npot saying they have no history but comparing yourselves to the ancient romans and greeks is pushing it a little, don't you think?

Have you ever noticed US government buildings are designed to resemble Roman buildings, or that the leaders of the American Revolution believed they were creating a new Republic in the spirit of ancient Rome and Athens. No one is comparing them to the Greeks and Romans, simply linking them to.

The British are in the EU to make their politicians look like they care about foreign politics and to screw over the French.
The French are there to protect their farmers and look down their noses at everyone else.
The Germans are there to make up for their shoddy behaviour during the first and second world wars.
Spain are there to screw Portugal over (and vice-versa)
Italy are there because they want Roman Catholicism to be made compulsory.
Russia and all the Eastern European countries are there because they need the money after getting screwed over in both World Wars and the Cold War.
The Scandinivian countries are there because they need new jokes over how shoddy every other country in Europe is looking apart from them.

M'kay... seems to me the following things have been covered
1) Why Europeans hate Americans
2) Why Americans hate Europeans
3) Why Americans hate Americans (read: reps hate dems and vice versa)

... What needs answering is why Europeans hate other sleazy Euros...
I could make a poll, but I better spare the French... so, why do you hate your fellow EU citizen, my fellow EUropean?

OR! Better yet! Argue why EU is stillborn idea!

(And I do fully understand Americans can't hold themselves jumping in on this, so I won't even bother asking them to stay quiet.)

First of to Bunnyducks. Thanks for the title. Shows how open you are. There are no sleazy europeans. We are proud of our history and of all our great acheivements and all that we are trying to achieve now.
We have a history spanning millenia, most of which has involved war. What are we trying to do now?? unite and put aside our differences. NO WHERE ELSE IS THIS HAPPENING ON SUCH A SCALE or to the same level of ambition. Most of the great achievements of the world came from sleazy europe and still are. So hold your tongue please

The US in relation, has done nothing!

Oh, they just conquered the whole of Europe once or twice, nothing big... :rolleyes:

(read: Look in a history book for Charlemagne and Napoleon, for God's sake)

Also, the French are the reason you're not singing Allahu Akbar right now (they stopped the Arab invasion of Europe at Poitiers).

They won the 100 years war... stopped the Austrians in the 30 years war... won a whole bunch of colonial wars vs. Britain... helped a little nation called America to gain its independence... created modern democracy, etc.

So true.

The Americans History Classes are fraught with propoganda.

May I just also point out Bunnyducks is not representative of all British. The Immigrant British are cool and want to sign up for the constitution with our French and German brothers - don't think that what this guy says is representative of everyone living there, because us Greeks love The French.

Italy are there because they want Roman Catholicism to be made compulsory.
Russia and all the Eastern European countries are there because they need the money after getting screwed over in both World Wars and the Cold War.

Two points. Poland is there for the same reason as Italy. Russia isn't in the EU.

The British are in the EU to make their politicians look like they care about foreign politics and to screw over the French.
The French are there to protect their farmers and look down their noses at everyone else.
The Germans are there to make up for their shoddy behaviour during the first and second world wars.
Spain are there to screw Portugal over (and vice-versa)
Italy are there because they want Roman Catholicism to be made compulsory.
Russia and all the Eastern European countries are there because they need the money after getting screwed over in both World Wars and the Cold War.
The Scandinivian countries are there because they need new jokes over how shoddy every other country in Europe is looking apart from them.

russia and most estern european countries are not part of the EU.
Not all the scandinavian countries are members either

@sleepless

*rofl* I am European, and *shocks* i tned to agree with your joke ;)

First of to Bunnyducks. Thanks for the title. Shows how open you are. There are no sleazy europeans. We are proud of our history and of all our great acheivements and all that we are trying to achieve now.
We have a history spanning millenia, most of which has involved war. What are we trying to do now?? unite and put aside our differences. NO WHERE ELSE IS THIS HAPPENING ON SUCH A SCALE or to the same level of ambition.

Considering how long Europe has been fighting for, it is quite the achievement.

Most of the great achievements of the world came from sleazy europe and still are. So hold your tongue please

Arguable, but you are right to thrash Bunnyducks for this.

The US in relation, has done nothing!

And you yell at him for discrediting a people, it can be argued Europe's ability to live in peace is thanks to the US.

So true.

The Americans History Classes are fraught with propoganda.

Really? I never thought I taught Propoganda, and I am very scrutinizing over what I choose to include in my teachings.

The American Revolution said "we're not listening to the King", and the Colonial rebels were colonies after all, they weren't the citizens of the Mother Country. The French Revolution said "Down with the Monarchy", and this was arguably the most powerful Continental power of it's day. The ideas brought about or transferred via the French Revolution came right to the doorstep of every European through Napoleon's campaigns, ergo, the French spread it further, they just happened to have a combination of being far too imperialistic, and being feared by Europe for their volatile ideas (Britain was the ally the Monarchists in France called on, as Britain feared the Revolution just as the autocratic government of the rest of Europe did).

fair enough your points are valid. one thing though, saying down with the monarchy does not mean Let's have democracy!

fair enough your points are valid. one thing though, saying down with the monarchy does not mean Let's have democracy!

Well... you got me on that point.

not propoganda as such, more like taking liberties, just like hollywood does in thier portrayals of history

not propoganda as such, more like taking liberties, just like hollywood does in thier portrayals of history

I'll give you that, but given the material you have to shape, you have to spice it up a bit, which holds true in any country I can assure you. Except for the local High School's book for US History Revolution-Reconstruction, that thing is fraught with accidental overlooks, I despise that textbook.

? to anyone who knows, which wars has France won by the way? :p

The American War of Independence?

Off the top of my head...100yrs war, 30 years War, Most of those 18th centuary wars which blur in one (one above,) French Revolutionary Wars (up to the Peace of Aimens,) countless colonial conflicts, the Italian Wars with Austria, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2 (Team effort, subsituted for much of the conflict but did at least turn up on time) Their proxy war with Lybia in the late 70s over Chad and they did an excellent job of helpling the genociders escape from Rwanda

Arguable, but you are right to thrash Bunnyducks for this..

No part of the world has contributed as much as europe. That i know off. if some area has done more, please inform


And you yell at him for discrediting a people, it can be argued Europe's ability to live in peace is thanks to the US.

How so?

i'm npot saying they have no history but comparing yourselves to the ancient romans and greeks is pushing it a little, don't you think?

of course it is...I was hoping it would be obvious that genocide and wars of agression were BAD things

How so?

The US has shifted the balance of power to themselves, thus relieving most of Europe from envy of the most powerful power on the Continent, which since Rome has been the cuase of most major wars. The US has also long since abandoned it's isolationism, so any European country that thinks about attacking another is bound to face the US, which they know they will lose against (only a completely united Europe would stand a chance against the US). And not all of Europe is moving towards the peaceful and cooperative place you described, the Balkans are still ripe with trouble, but no countries there are really allies with the US the way Western Europe is.

of course it is...I was hoping it would be obvious that genocide and wars of agression were BAD things

Considering that every nation that exists today has that same history, pointing out that one nation does is somewhat of a moot point.

No part of the world has contributed as much as europe. That i know off. if some area has done more, please inform

Africa was the birthplace of Humanity, and the Middle East was the birthplace of civilization and the first major empires. Most early medical advances can be attributed to the Islamic Empire of the Middle Ages, gunpowder and many other advances can also be attributed to Asia, not Europe. I think the world is far too Euro-centric (even Americans see it this way, since they are transplanted Europeans), becuase they started making the major breakthroughs that led to them conquering most of the known world, thereby making their accomplishments seem much more important than any others.

I'm not saying Europe is some pittance place that deserves no credit, just that it isn't the world's cradle or something, other areas of the world have contributed as much to civilization as they have.

Really? I never thought I taught Propoganda, and I am very scrutinizing over what I choose to include in my teachings.

Really? Judging by some of your preivous comments its no wonder Americans get the idea that they 'won World War 2!!!!!' (when 80% of The German War Machine was lost on the Eastern Front). Oh wait, your going to say they won because you gave them 500 Sherman Tanks.... Right?

*Sniggers*

Really? Judging by some of your preivous comments its no wonder Americans get the idea that they 'won World War 2!!!!!' (when 80% of The German War Machine was lost on the Eastern Front). Oh wait, your going to say they won because you gave them 500 Sherman Tanks.... Right?

*Sniggers*

Do you really want to get into this argument, becuase I have had to post it at least three times on these forums over the last month, though usually it is against people who say the US won WWII. And next time you quote the Lend Lease, try to get that part of it right, 2,100 75mm Shermans were sent and 2,000 76mm Shermans were sent, for a total of 4,000, or 500 more than what the Germans attacked with in Barborossa.

I'm not saying Europe is some pittance place that deserves no credit, just that it isn't the world's cradle or something, other areas of the world have contributed as much to civilization as they have.

Greece was the birthplace of civilization. When we were studying philosophy you were swinging from trees.

Really? I never thought I taught Propoganda, and I am very scrutinizing over what I choose to include in my teachings.

If you're a teacher, how come you spelt Shield wrong?

Greece was the birthplace of civilization. When we were studying philosophy you were swinging from trees.

Ah, so Assyria, the Persian Empire, Babylon, all these mean nothing compared to All Mighty Greece, my mistake.

The American War of Independence?

Off the top of my head...100yrs war, 30 years War, Most of those 18th centuary wars which blur in one (one above,) French Revolutionary Wars (up to the Peace of Aimens,) countless colonial conflicts, the Italian Wars with Austria, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2 (Team effort, subsituted for much of the conflict but did at least turn up on time) Their proxy war with Lybia in the late 70s over Chad and they did an excellent job of helpling the genociders escape from Rwanda

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The Crimean war? That's news to me....WWI, WWII? Good grief. And if you count the revolutionary battles, sure but the war?...and they got licked in North America.
Not to say anything bad about the French, their soldiers are renowned for bravery, it's the bumbling and cowardice at the top that has cost them so many 19, and 20 century wars.

If you're a teacher, how come you spelt Shield wrong?

It's intentional. A long time ago (in a forum far far away), I wanted this name, but I couldn't get it, so I typed it in as Sword and Sheild, instead of Sword and Shield, and it has become my trademark (if you will) name for all the forums I am in ever since.

WHAT!? Poitier!? The Battle of Poitier was between the French and English, it was the second of the three crushing victories the Englsh won against the French in the Hundred Year's War (The other two were Crecy and Agincourt, respectively). The French used much the same tactics as at Crecy and were defeated by the Black Prince, and King John of France was taken captive.

The Battle you are referring to is Tours, when the French were led by Charles Martel, and it was long before Poitier.

The battle in which Charles Martel defeated Abd-er-rahman in 732, is often reffered to by "The Battle of Poitiers" but Battle of Tours is also used but less frequently than the Battle of Poitiers

I believe my last post was a satire of the majority of the american intellect. If I was pretending to be british, I would misspell every word inorder to portray that they cannot speak correctly because of how much there teeth have decayed.

It is of course important to note, if you were an american, you would have misspelled every word because you are too stupid to spell them correctly, but that is understandable as you are, afterall a nation of rejected religious extremeists from about 10 other countries by decent.

Ah, so Assyria, the Persian Empire, Babylon, all these mean nothing compared to All Mighty Greece, my mistake.

Yep, because the Persians were so democratic weren't they? And they were such great philosophers and historians.

They only cared about War, and they were so fucking stupid they fell for our trap at Salamis.

Africa was the birthplace of Humanity, and the Middle East was the birthplace of civilization and the first major empires. Most early medical advances can be attributed to the Islamic Empire of the Middle Ages, gunpowder and many other advances can also be attributed to Asia, not Europe. I think the world is far too Euro-centric (even Americans see it this way, since they are transplanted Europeans), becuase they started making the major breakthroughs that led to them conquering most of the known world, thereby making their accomplishments seem much more important than any others.

I'm not saying Europe is some pittance place that deserves no credit, just that it isn't the world's cradle or something, other areas of the world have contributed as much to civilization as they have.

Africa was the birth place of humanity. fair enough.
Empire wise. Nope disagree. Civilization first appears along that entire stretch from china to egypt.
About medical, they in fact contributed only a bit, but they preserve alot of greek knowledge and such very well.
Gunpoweder and such did come from china. But they used it only for fireworks as i understand it.

Of course other parts of the world contributed a lot to the world, no argument I just believe that europe contributed as much

Yep, because the Persians were so democratic weren't they? And they were such great philosophers and historians.

They only cared about War, and they were so fucking stupid they fell for our trap at Salamis.

Since when was Democracy the deciding factor in what a civilization did. Wow, Greece had far more advanced philosophy than the early Empires of the Fertile Crescent (of course, the Persian Empire was not one of these), might it have something to do with them coming later on in history?

Since when was Democracy the deciding factor in what a civilization did. Wow, Greece had far more advanced philosophy than the early Empires of the Fertile Crescent (of course, the Persian Empire was not one of these), might it have something to do with them coming later on in history?

Democracy proved how civilized the Greeks were, and how ahead of thier time they were. The founding fathers of America were going to write the Constitution in Greek, but they decided not to at the last minute.

Democracy proved how civilized the Greeks were, and how ahead of thier time they were. The founding fathers of America were going to write the Constitution in Greek, but they decided not to at the last minute.

I'm not so sure about that Constitution thing, but since I have no evidence to the contrary, I'll have to concede that point to you. The Democracy argument does not work for the Greeks against the Mesopotamian Empires, since even the Mycenean Empire came about after them, so sparing a worldwide stagnation or disaster, the Greeks have to be more civilized than them.

I hate the French because they refuse to adjust to the world getting smaller (read: if they don't want to, they won't learn English if you tortured them).

But all inside european hate is not really hate, it's more rivalry. (Almost) Every nation in europe had it's big moments and then the others were jealous and never really got over it. The Europe (AND the world) is such a bunch of kids...

I thought Iceland was the oldest democracy around? That was what we were taught in school, at least.

I thought Iceland was the oldest democracy around? That was what we were taught in school, at least.

It is, however it was not a continious democracy from 930 (when it started). Great Britain's democracy (which can be traced to 1215) has been going on unbroken for longer then Iceland's. And it also does not hold oldest constitution still used by government, since it is governed by the Constitution of 1944.

Icelands claim to oldest democracy is that it is the oldest country that can claim democratic heritage. Not all of Greece was Democratic (Primarily Athens, hell, not even all of the Athenian Alliance was democratic), so only part of modern-day Greece was Democratic. Italy, I'm not entirely sure how they beat Italy. And the various republics that sprang up in Europe from the Fall of Rome to the French Rev, are non-existant today.

Yep, because the Persians were so democratic weren't they? And they were such great philosophers and historians.

They only cared about War, and they were so fucking stupid they fell for our trap at Salamis.

Yeah! I mean what the F·^% did they do? Developed the wheel? So what who needs it! Irrigation? Big whoop! Writing? yawn. The first written laws? centralised government? so its their fault! Trade? THIEFS!!!

Yep, because the Persians were so democratic weren't they? And they were such great philosophers and historians.

They only cared about War, and they were so fucking stupid they fell for our trap at Salamis.

Yeah they fell for the trap of Alexander of Greece!!!! no wait.... was macedonian was'nt he??? well at least he was elected and did not inherite power from his father! err.....

created modern democracy, etc.

The UK created modern democracy. Why do people think it's the Americans?

It is, however it was not a continious democracy from 930 (when it started). Great Britain's democracy (which can be traced to 1215) has been going on unbroken for longer then Iceland's. And it also does not hold oldest constitution still used by government, since it is governed by the Constitution of 1944.

British democracy doesn't date from Magna Carta. Apart from the fact that Magna Carta is English, not British, the Charter itself has far more to do with the early 13th-century nobility's personal dislike of King John than it has to do with democracy. At the absolute most, Magna Carta can be seen as symbolic of a vague notion that Kings should really, like, consult some people, man, before, like, doing stuff. Future English monarchs merrily ignored Magna Carta and nobody cared.

The first European country, possibly the first nation on the planet, to declare truly universal adult suffrage was France, during the Revolution. The fact that it didn't last does not mean that this move was not inspirational to other peoples around the world. The French Revolution was influenced by, amonst other things, the British Civil War of the 17th century and the American Revolution -- but France was the first nation to produce anything that could be described as a true, modern democracy.

Britain, by some measures, still isn't a modern democracy. We have no written constitution, there are still people who inherit positions of major political influence, bishops get to sit in the House of Lords, and the whole lot can -- theoretically -- be dissolved by Mrs Windsor, who has to give her assent before anything happens anyway.

Well, time to clear some things up :)

1. Europeans do not hate europeans. There is some sort of "rivalry" but it's still far from "hate". I grew up in Greece, I live in Sweden, my girlfriend is half Swedish half finnish, i've met A LOT of ppl from other european countries and i've never seen any trace of "hate" between us. Not even a slight dislike motivated by nationality.

2. Europe is not the source of ALL civilization. Every single nation had some sort of culture. However europe is the source of MOST civilization, or at least what one today regards as civilization. If you visit a school in china japan, you'll see how important european civilization is considered. And of course there was civilization in ancient persia, the fact that they lost both wars against ancient greece, doesn't say much about their civilization.

3. You don't need to have Democracy to have culture. Well democracy helps, buy hey, ever heard of ancient egypt? They had tons of culture but were ruled a cruel religius monarchy.

4. The First democracy in the world was the Athenian one. However, after Rome conquered the whole mediteranean, athenian democracy was abolished. Therefore you can not say it's the oldest one.

5. Neither british or icelandic democracy are the oldest ones, hey they have a MONARCH, even today!!. The monarchs maybe don't have real political power, but they are Head of state and they have a strong symbolic role, so one can not call these countries a democracy. Democracy is a form of goverment where the people directly or indirectly ellect their goverment, including the head of state. Thus democracy and a monarch are mutually exclusive. Hey even iceland calls itself a "constitutional monarchy"!!

British democracy doesn't date from Magna Carta. Apart from the fact that Magna Carta is English, not British, the Charter itself has far more to do with the early 13th-century nobility's personal dislike of King John than it has to do with democracy. At the absolute most, Magna Carta can be seen as symbolic of a vague notion that Kings should really, like, consult some people, man, before, like, doing stuff. Future English monarchs merrily ignored Magna Carta and nobody cared.

The first European country, possibly the first nation on the planet, to declare truly universal adult suffrage was France, during the Revolution. The fact that it didn't last does not mean that this move was not inspirational to other peoples around the world. The French Revolution was influenced by, amonst other things, the British Civil War of the 17th century and the American Revolution -- but France was the first nation to produce anything that could be described as a true, modern democracy.

Britain, by some measures, still isn't a modern democracy. We have no written constitution, there are still people who inherit positions of major political influence, bishops get to sit in the House of Lords, and the whole lot can -- theoretically -- be dissolved by Mrs Windsor, who has to give her assent before anything happens anyway.

So by your arguments there is no modern democracy. As all politicians inherite their power. Either through family or through the institutions (universities, etc)

And the magna carta was the first real step towards democracy as it also allowed for the idea that the king was not chosen by god and could thus be wrong

Also I do respect what france tried to do in the revolution. But as soon as they got rid of the king, the 2 leading partiesm the jacobins and the girondines (think that correct?) started to kill each other one way or the other.
Not very democratic, although must of been an interesting election.

Well, time to clear some things up :)


5. Neither british or icelandic democracy are the oldest ones, hey they have a MONARCH, even today!!. The monarchs maybe don't have real political power, but they are Head of state and they have a strong symbolic role, so one can not call these countries a democracy. Democracy is a form of goverment where the people directly or indirectly ellect their goverment, including the head of state. Thus democracy and a monarch are mutually exclusive. Hey even iceland calls itself a "constitutional monarchy"!!

Agree pretty much with 1-4 of your points.

Iceland, however is a republic. It has a President for head of state.

Agree pretty much with 1-4 of your points.

Iceland, however is a republic. It has a President for head of state.

AND BRITAIN IS A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

we have a non-elected head of state who has NO POLITICAL POWER and thus we are not a democracy?!

You sir, are a tool.

who u talking about? hope not me!

So by your arguments there is no modern democracy. As all politicians inherite their power. Either through family or through the institutions (universities, etc)

No, that's quite wrong. Modern politicians -- with the exception of some remaining hereditary peers in the UK House of Lords, although they won't be able now (since the late 1990s) to pass this on to their children -- do not inherit their power. Whilst there are political "dynasties" such as the Kennedys or the Bushes or the Benns or the Churchills, these people still have to be elected. And you can't inherit anything through a university.

And the magna carta was the first real step towards democracy as it also allowed for the idea that the king was not chosen by god and could thus be wrong

No, it didn't. If you'd even glanced at the Magna Carta you would have seen that the very first line of the preamble reads:

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings.

(my emphasis)

What do you think "by the grace of God" means?

Magna Carta meant that King John had been forced to allow the barons some advisory control over his reign. Other monarchs never regarded themselves as bound by it (and John himself considered it null and void because he'd been forced to sign it against his will). When future Kings did reissue the Charter to try to allay baronial unrest, as happened in the reign of Henry III, for example, it was only done so with numerous strategic omissions. Not that the barons noticed, or indeed particularly cared.

A real example of the notion that Kings can be legitimately disposed of by their people does exist in British medieval history, though: the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) states

But from these countless evils [attacks by the English] we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

(my emphasis again)

The Scots had already done this once before -- declaring John Balliol "incompetent" to rule and running the country via a committee of Guardians for several years, before giving up on Balliol altogether and crowning Bruce.

Magna Carta has become, through a process of historical mythologisation, to be seen as a symbol of nascent democracy. However, like the Declaration of Arbroath, it is merely a document of its time and has no real link with modern democracy, the sovereignty of parliament, or any other feature of modern society.

Democracy is a nebulous term. It is arguable that Britain is not fully democratic. Tony Blair has a huge majority, based on the votes of 24% of the electorate. The entire upper house is unelected, and includes bishops drawn only from one denomination of one religion. We have no written constitution, and no guarantee of rights in law that can't be revoked at will by the government of the day. The Queen's powers, however theoretical, still remain: ask the Australians how imaginary "her" powers are. Here's a clue: 11 November 1975.

Right, digressing a little, I'm sick of the general American view regarding us Brits' teeth.

That's just pure racial stereotyping, equivalent to us thinking that every American wears a ten-gallon hat and eats steak every day.

My teeth are fine, my friends' teeth are fine, my familys' teeth are fine. Drop it already...

I for one like Europe. I have lived, loved and learned the language in Italy, and I am preparing to do the same in Spain shortly. (Maybe not the loving part, but we'll see how my luck holds out.)

And to the yahoo who said the EU is a stillborn idea, I have one sentence: if it was so crap how come there are a load of countries trying to get in? Well, that's because membership of the EU grants many benefits to trade, economy and human rights. It was created ofter WW2 to ensure that nothing similar could ever happen again within Europe, and it works. (The Bosnia-Herzegovina war in the 90's is exempt as it's not a member of the EU and it was a civil war in any case...)

Anyway, why doesn't everybody try to learn another language? I'm English and the fact that almost no-one bothers to learn a foreign language of any kind is embarrassing to me! You'd be amazed at how much you learn about not only the language, but the culture, in the usage, etymology and semantics of the language, which can give you a deeper insight into a country much more tangiable than any history book or documentary. It's not as hard as you think.

Also, I get pissed off at the general assumption in the UK that we're the best country in Europe in every way. That couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, Spain has a higher standard of living, Holland has a much lower crime rate and better social services, the Mediterranean countries have a better diet and better overall health, I could go on... England, by comparison, has crap weather, stupid and sickly inhabitants, most of its cities look like a collection of drab concrete Lego™ blocks. I have tasted the exotic fruit of Europe, and I have got bored of the potato of England!

However: we have better TV (arguably the best in the world, well, we did invent it), we have a historical collection of genii (plural of genius) unmatched in world history, we invented:
* the railways
* the telegraph
* the newspaper
* the radar
* the microwave
* the television
* the computer
* the radio (Guglielmo 'William' Marconi was half English)
* the refrigerator
* industry (yep, the very concept of 'industry' was invented near modern Telford in the Severn Valley, where the first iron bridge in the world still stands)
* magnetic tape
* GMT & standardised railway time (underappreciated this, without it no-one could ever be sure of the time, the next town could be an hour or so ahead or behind sometimes)

Oh, and George Washington was a Geordie! (He came from [wait for it] Washington, between Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and Sunderland).

We can spell.
(Quick reminder to everyone to was too stupid to pay attention in school:
* there - indicative adverbial, eg; "the ball is over there"
* there're - contraction of 'there are', plural of 'there is' (there's)
* their - possessive pronoun, "my ball, your ball, their ball"
* they're - contraction of 'they are', third person personal pronoun + third person plural conjugation of the verb 'to be'. "He's tall, they're short".)

The next person who write's something inane like: "I went their yesterday, and their all c*nts", will have this section reposted in response to their yearning need for education. Sure, the words all sound the same (although not necessarily so in some accents), but we don't mix up 'red' and 'read', do we? No.

There's my tuppenceworth. Enjoy.

You seem well versed on this topic.
Apoligise. well written. If you have by link could you please forward.

Right, digressing a little, I'm sick of the general American view regarding us Brits' teeth.

That's just pure racial stereotyping, equivalent to us thinking that every American wears a ten-gallon hat and eats steak every day.

My teeth are fine, my friends' teeth are fine, my familys' teeth are fine. Drop it already...

I for one like Europe. I have lived, loved and learned the language in Italy, and I am preparing to do the same in Spain shortly. (Maybe not the loving part, but we'll see how my luck holds out.)

And to the yahoo who said the EU is a stillborn idea, I have one sentence: if it was so crap how come there are a load of countries trying to get in? Well, that's because membership of the EU grants many benefits to trade, economy and human rights. It was created ofter WW2 to ensure that nothing similar could ever happen again within Europe, and it works. (The Bosnia-Herzegovina war in the 90's is exempt as it's not a member of the EU and it was a civil war in any case...)

Anyway, why doesn't everybody try to learn another language? I'm English and the fact that almost no-one bothers to learn a foreign language of any kind is embarrassing to me! You'd be amazed at how much you learn about not only the language, but the culture, in the usage, etymology and semantics of the language, which can give you a deeper insight into a country much more tangiable than any history book or documentary. It's not as hard as you think.

Also, I get pissed off at the general assumption in the UK that we're the best country in Europe in every way. That couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, Spain has a higher standard of living, Holland has a much lower crime rate and better social services, the Mediterranean countries have a better diet and better overall health, I could go on... England, by comparison, has crap weather, stupid and sickly inhabitants, most of its cities look like a collection of drab concrete Lego™ blocks. I have tasted the exotic fruit of Europe, and I have got bored of the potato of England!

However: we have better TV (arguably the best in the world, well, we did invent it), we have a historical collection of genii (plural of genius) unmatched in world history, we invented:
* the railways
* the telegraph
* the newspaper
* the radar
* the microwave
* the television
* the computer
* the radio (Guglielmo 'William' Marconi was half English)
* the refrigerator
* industry (yep, the very concept of 'industry' was invented near modern Telford in the Severn Valley, where the first iron bridge in the world still stands)
* magnetic tape
* GMT & standardised railway time (underappreciated this, without it no-one could ever be sure of the time, the next town could be an hour or so ahead or behind sometimes)

Oh, and George Washington was a Geordie! (He came from [wait for it] Washington, between Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and Sunderland).

We can spell.
(Quick reminder to everyone to was too stupid to pay attention in school:
* there - indicative adverbial, eg; "the ball is over there"
* there're - contraction of 'there are', plural of 'there is' (there's)
* their - possessive pronoun, "my ball, your ball, their ball"
* they're - contraction of 'they are', third person personal pronoun + third person plural conjugation of the verb 'to be'. "He's tall, they're short".)

The next person who write's something inane like: "I went their yesterday, and their all c*nts", will have this section reposted in response to their yearning need for education. Sure, the words all sound the same (although not necessarily so in some accents), but we don't mix up 'red' and 'read', do we? No.

There's my tuppenceworth. Enjoy.

My hero.

The document containing the barons' demands of the king is an attempt to codify the rights and obligations of feudal society, and in doing so to define the limits of royal power. Much of it has little relevance to other social structures. But some provisions, probably of relatively little interest to the king or his barons, are such basic statements of the rule of law that they have given Magna Carta its status as a founding document of civil liberty.

Chief among them are two clauses, originally numbered 39 and 40, which state that no free man may be imprisoned or punished without prior judgement by the law of the land; and that justice will not be denied, delayed or sold.

The document containing the barons' demands of the king is an attempt to codify the rights and obligations of feudal society, and in doing so to define the limits of royal power. Much of it has little relevance to other social structures. But some provisions, probably of relatively little interest to the king or his barons, are such basic statements of the rule of law that they have given Magna Carta its status as a founding document of civil liberty.

Chief among them are two clauses, originally numbered 39 and 40, which state that no free man may be imprisoned or punished without prior judgement by the law of the land; and that justice will not be denied, delayed or sold.

This is fair enough, I suppose, although these two clauses were little more than vague notions of what might be a good idea. More importantly, the term "free man" excluded most of the population of England at the time. It also has to be remembered that these clauses were merrily ignored by future kings and nobles, who continued to imprison and punish people without prior judgement, and deny, delay and sell justice left, right and centre as it suited them. But I agree that it is evidence of a first vague groping in English law towards the idea of jurisprudence and a rule of law as an institution over individuals (even individual monarchs). However, similar notions had been on the go elsewhere in Europe too, via the development of canon law from the rediscovery of Justinian's Pandects in 1151, and it's possible that these ideas influenced the drafting of the Magna Carta.

There are various translations of Magna Carta online: this one (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html) is as good as any. Same for the Declaration of Arbroath (http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html).

This site (http://whitlamdismissal.com/) has lots of information on the Whitlam Dismissal (11 November 1975), when the British Governor-General of Australia, exercising power in his role as the Queen's representative, dismissed the elected Prime Minister of Australia and appointed his opposite number as interim PM pending a new election. I don't for a moment think the Queen was actively behind this, but "her" powers do exist and can still be used to trample over democracy. A more recent example is Tony Blair's claim to be able to send Britain to war without consulting parliament via the power of the sovereign.

Well, time to clear some things up

1. Europeans do not hate europeans. There is some sort of "rivalry" but it's still far from "hate". I grew up in Greece, I live in Sweden, my girlfriend is half Swedish half finnish, i've met A LOT of ppl from other european countries and i've never seen any trace of "hate" between us. Not even a slight dislike motivated by nationality.
Well, either you are blind or you are very lucky because that is not the reality. It may be much less than in the past but there is - at least -dislike of nationalities. Greece and Turkey would be one example - though Turkey isn´t really an european country since it is situated 95% in Asia.
Russia is still seen as a thread in Eastern Europe and Germany as well.
The burden of the history of the 20 th century (partly even of earlier centuries) is still on the relationships between the countries. You also seem to forget that the Iraq dispute reopened many of those.
The French told Poland to shut up, Britain blamed French intrasigence for the problems and, and, and. And in the aftermath other issues broke out, like disputes about a "centre of expulsion" between Germany and Poland.


2. Europe is not the source of ALL civilization. Every single nation had some sort of culture.
That is true. However we sometimes seem to forget that we are not the source of civilisation. We especially forget that towards the US. They have also a culture, although Europeans traditionally deny that the US - who after all are historically our younger cousins -have a culture as well.
3. You don't need to have Democracy to have culture. Well democracy helps, buy hey, ever heard of ancient egypt? They had tons of culture but were ruled a cruel religius monarchy.
That is absolutely true. Actually most cultures have their begining at a time democracy didn´t even exist as a concept, nor as form of government as a matter of fact.

4. The First democracy in the world was the Athenian one. However, after Rome conquered the whole mediteranean, athenian democracy was abolished. Therefore you can not say it's the oldest one.
And the Roman Republic ended. Ceasar and his succesors, especially Augustus, established an imperialistic monarchy with a one-man rule.
And the glorious Athenian democracy only allowed ten procent of the population the right to vote.
Aside of the fact that it was singular in Greece. Most greece states were monarchies.

5. Neither british or icelandic democracy are the oldest ones, hey they have a MONARCH, even today!!. The monarchs maybe don't have real political power, but they are Head of state and they have a strong symbolic role, so one can not call these countries a democracy. Democracy is a form of goverment where the people directly or indirectly ellect their goverment, including the head of state. Thus democracy and a monarch are mutually exclusive. Hey even iceland calls itself a "constitutional monarchy"!!

Since when does Iceland have a monarchy? They are a republic since their independence from Denmark in 1944. Anyway: It is true that they were the first to be in America and not the Spanish, heehe. Anyway.

Well seeing the already impressive list of English inventions, here's a German one, claiming some of the "English" inventions for Germany :)

The car (Daimler-Maybach)
Book Printing (Gutenberg)
The typewriter (Ottmar Megenthaler)
Electro-Magnetism (Heinrich Rudolf Hertz)
TV (Karl Ferdinand Braun)
Telephone (Johann Philipp Reis)
Newspaper (Timotheus Ritzsch, 1650, Leipzig)
Computer (Konrad Zuse)
The plane (Otto Lilienthal)

Cola
Jeans
Nuclear Fission
Jet Propulsion
First Large Rocket
First VTOL aircraft
Pushbutton
Detergent
Headache tablets (Aspirin)
+ many many many more :)

Right, digressing a little, I'm sick of the general American view regarding us Brits' teeth.


C'mon now, it's fun. We make fun of people in ten-gallon hats too. And don't get me started on people from Maryland.


However: we have better TV (arguably the best in the world, well, we did invent it), we have a historical collection of genii (plural of genius) unmatched in world history, we invented:
* the railways
* the telegraph
* the newspaper
* the radar
* the microwave
* the television
* the computer
* the radio (Guglielmo 'William' Marconi was half English)
* the refrigerator
* industry (yep, the very concept of 'industry' was invented near modern Telford in the Severn Valley, where the first iron bridge in the world still stands)
* magnetic tape
* GMT & standardised railway time (underappreciated this, without it no-one could ever be sure of the time, the next town could be an hour or so ahead or behind sometimes)

There's my tuppenceworth. Enjoy.

Television:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story085.htm

Computer:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story072.htm

Microwave:
Well, it's like saying you invented UV light.
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story068.htm

Refrigerator:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story057.htm


How about people who say your instead of you're? That drives me crazy.

Computer:
http://www.zib.de/zuse/English_Version/index.html

the German inventor Konrad Zuse had 3 of his "Zuse"s built before 1945.

In fact France did not WIN, WW1. American and the UK did. France created a wall the germans could not break, but the germans did that to the French. It wasn't until the Americans came into France and Brits went into Belgium did the war end.

So you call successfuly defending your homeland by making an unbreakable wall a defeat? Come on man, the French fought on with the rest of the allies, that's why WW1 AND WW2 is called an allied victory. Each allied nation in both wars did a part to defeat the comon ennemy.

So you call successfuly defending your homeland by making an unbreakable wall a defeat? Come on man, the French fought on with the rest of the allies, that's why WW1 AND WW2 is called an allied victory. Each allied nation in both wars did a part to defeat the comon ennemy.
Which shows just how strong Germany was... it took 4 allied nations and 4 armies to halt the war. If not for the U$, Europe would probably be united under German hegemony today. Instead of this, we'll have a U$ hegemony over the world sooner or later. But it looks like the U$ will destroy themselves, so I am not overly worried.

Which shows just how strong Germany was... it took 4 allied nations and 4 armies to halt the war. If not for the U$, Europe would probably be united under German hegemony today. Instead of this, we'll have a U$ hegemony over the world sooner or later. But it looks like the U$ will destroy themselves, so I am not overly worried.

I'm with you there but the US didn't win alone, the French didn't win alone, the British didn't win alone, the Italians didn't win alone..... they all fouht successfuly together. Each of them, in the end, won.