NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dgreetings.com/newimages/bastilleday/b4.gif

Clicky: OK, I admit it is a bit silly but.... (http://www.cstone.net/~bry-back/holidayfun/bastilleday.html)

Just wishing a good day to fellow republicans who congratulate the French for getting rid of their monarchy. And wish something similar could be done in their own country (if it hasn't already been done).

Happy Bastille Day, frenchies :D

If only Britain had followed... That said, ours is only a lovely decoration :D.

La bump.



(La or le? Is a bump male or female? :confused: )

WHat is Bastille Day? Are you celebrating a...prison? :confused:

Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

WHat is Bastille Day? Are you celebrating a...prison? :confused:

Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

Great excuse for a drink, Bastille Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day)

It also marks France's last great military victory while being led by Frenchmen... ;)

What's wrong being lead by a Corsican? :eek:

What's wrong being lead by a Corsican? :eek:

Nothing. Nor being led by a Frenchwoman. I'm just pointing out it's the last victory they've had being led by FrenchMEN. :D

(Of course, they were fighting themselves, so the French HAD to win...)

:D yay! *celebrates the greatest Democracy on Earth*

Thank you, Anarchic Conceptions and everyone else. :)

Bonne Fête Nationale à tous les Français!

*Begins loudly playing Rush's 'Bastille Day'.*

I'm not joking either... I love playing that song! ^.^

Nothing. Nor being led by a Frenchwoman. I'm just pointing out it's the last victory they've had being led by FrenchMEN. :D

(Of course, they were fighting themselves, so the French HAD to win...)
Does Riff qualify as a victory? I think it does... and Petain and Lyautey were Frenchmen, weren't they? :)

And happy Bastille Day, France!

Thank you, Anarchic Conceptions and everyone else. :)

Bonne Fête Nationale à tous les Français!

No problem :)

Nothing. Nor being led by a Frenchwoman. I'm just pointing out it's the last victory they've had being led by FrenchMEN. :D

(Of course, they were fighting themselves, so the French HAD to win...)


What about the battles that were led by Frenchmen, but others took the credit?

Have a great holiday, France!!! Greetings from your friendly German neighbor :D

Vive la France! :p

Vive la Révolution!

(from one of the few Americans who don't think y'all are hiding Osama)

Monarchy is the best form of government. The downfall of one is not something to celebrate.

Monarchy is the best form of government. The downfall of one is not something to celebrate.

Bastille Day, Bastille Day, Bastille DAY, HOOOOOOOO!
*runs over Cherry Ridge with a truck full of baguettes*

I'm not french, but I love your bread and revolution!

Monarchy is the best form of government. The downfall of one is not something to celebrate.

Tough.


Vive la Révolution!

Chriacs Warnings on Bastille Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4681297.stm

Pics from Bastille day 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4682509.stm

Vive le France!
I will be celebrating with my relatives this evening at the Family Restauraunt, have a nice Bastille day everyone.

If it wasn't for the stupidity of the last French king (he insisted that in order for him to be King of France they would have to use the old flag) France would still be a monarchy today.

If it wasn't for the stupidity of the last French king (he insisted that in order for him to be King of France they would have to use the old flag) France would still be a monarchy today.
Comte de Chambord was a pretender, not a king. The flag change was his only condition for accepting the crown of France in 1870s. A man of principle, I'd say.. but not a statesman.

WHat is Bastille Day? Are you celebrating a...prison? :confused:

Perhaps a history lesson is in order.

Bastille Day is the celebration of the storming of the Bastille, the event that started the French revolution.

Also to all you Americans making fun of the French, pony up and say thank you, you owe your independance from the British to them (do not deny it 90% of your gun powder used in YOUR revolution was FRENCH)

Does Riff qualify as a victory? I think it does... and Petain and Lyautey were Frenchmen, weren't they? :)

And happy Bastille Day, France!

I'm not familiar with Riff... can you help me out?

Once Petain took control of the Army (literally, all of 1917) the French won no battles. He just keep it together for the Americans to arrive and boster the front line.

Where did Lyautey win? All I remember him doing is bringing down Briand's government...

What about the battles that were led by Frenchmen, but others took the credit?

Dunno... can you name some? ;)

I'm not familiar with Riff... can you help me out?

Once Petain took control of the Army (literally, all of 1917) the French won no battles. He just keep it together for the Americans to arrive and boster the front line.

Where did Lyautey win? All I remember him doing is bringing down Briand's government...
Well, Petain did win some battles in 1918, but let's drop WWI -- the French were certainly among the victors then, but the discussion of their, British, and American shares in the common victory will lead us somewhere... or nowhere.

As for the Riff Republic - http://www.imperial-collection.net/rif_republic.html

That's heavily biased in favour of Abd el-Krim. Basically, the Spaniards fought the Riffi (sp?) for twelve years, then asked the French for help. The French Army came... and the war was over in a year.

Well, Petain did win some battles in 1918, but let's drop WWI -- the French were certainly among the victors then, but the discussion of their, British, and American shares in the common victory will lead us somewhere... or nowhere.

As for the Riff Republic - http://www.imperial-collection.net/rif_republic.html

That's heavily biased in favour of Abd el-Krim. Basically, the Spaniards fought the Riffi (sp?) for twelve years, then asked the French for help. The French Army came... and the war was over in a year.

Agreed.

Hmm. I'd never heard of this before. I guess I'll have to concede that one! :)

Bastille Day
Words and music by geddy lee, alex lifeson, and neil peart

There’s no bread, let them eat cake
There’s no end to what they’ll take
Flaunt the fruits of noble birth
Wash the salt into the earth

But they’re marching to bastille day la guillotine will claim
Her bloody prize free the dungeons of the innocent the king
Will kneel, and let his kingdom rise

Bloodstained velvet, dirty lace
Naked fear on every face
See them bow their heads to die
As we would bow as they rode by

And we’re marching to bastille day la guillotine will claim
Her bloody prize sing, o choirs of cacophony the king has
Kneeled, to let his kingdom rise

Lessons taught but never learned
All around us anger burns
Guide the future by the past
Long ago the mould was cast

For they marched up to bastille day la guillotine -- claimed
Her bloody prize hear the echoes of the centuries power isn’t
All that money buys

Monarchy is the best form of government. The downfall of one is not something to celebrate.Monarchy is dictatorship.

“Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite”

Viva La Revolucion !
Vive La Republique !
Muerte a la Tirania !

Monarchy is dictatorship.

“Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite”

Viva La Revolucion !
Vive La Republique !
Muerte a la Tirania !

Monarchies are not Dictatorships. A Monarch rules becuause it is their God given right, while Dictators rule by force of arms. Both are autocratic however.

It also marks France's last great military victory while being led by Frenchmen... ;)
Why do people never stop talking about France's military prowess? Is that all there is to a nation?

Monarchies are not Dictatorships. A Monarch rules becuause it is their God given right, while Dictators rule by force of arms. Both are autocratic however.the King of france was chosen by God? :confused:

Happy Bastille Day... Have a Drink for me!

Bastille Day is the celebration of the storming of the Bastille, the event that started the French revolution.

Also to all you Americans making fun of the French, pony up and say thank you, you owe your independance from the British to them (do not deny it 90% of your gun powder used in YOUR revolution was FRENCH)






Whoa whoa whoa...

the only reason the french wanted the americans to win independence was to spite the english, again, and to attempt to win america from the americans when they failed to set up a sucessful govornment

A Monarch rules becuause it is their God given right, while Dictators rule by force of arms. .

Because Monarchs have never ruled through force of arms?

Also, they believe it is their god given right. No one has been able to reach God for an opinion on this though.

the King of france was chosen by God? :confused:

Aren't all Kings?

Whoa whoa whoa...

the only reason the french wanted the americans to win independence was to spite the english, again, and to attempt to win america from the americans when they failed to set up a sucessful govornment

Did Britain briefly devolve to fight the American War of independence?

But the fact remains. France help the US win and form a republic (it can also be argue that the reverse is true too).

Why do people never stop talking about France's military prowess? Is that all there is to a nation?
Well, it's certainly the easiest thing to pick on, like English cooking or Italian organization. ;)

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon. The British invented Radar and Viagra. The Russians built the Aswan Dam with the Egyptians. The Poles gave us the most beloved Pope in centuries (meaning no offence to John 23rd).

(And no, the didn't invent the Bikini, they just marketed it. ;) )

Joyeux anniversaire, La France. Congrets with David Moncoutie in the Tour on this day btw.

Going to the party at the city of Grenoble now(1,5 h drive from Briançon :( ), will be nice in a city with a population of 30% as a student. Hope the firework will be huge!

the King of france was chosen by God? :confused:

I was just stating the difference between what is classified as a monarchy and what is classified as a dictatorship, those who rule becuase they SAY it is the divine right are classified as monarchies and those who rule just because they have the most power are dictatorships. It is all just symantics.

Bastille Day
Words and music by geddy lee, alex lifeson, and neil peart

There’s no bread, let them eat cake
There’s no end to what they’ll take
Flaunt the fruits of noble birth
Wash the salt into the earth

But they’re marching to bastille day la guillotine will claim
Her bloody prize free the dungeons of the innocent the king
Will kneel, and let his kingdom rise

Bloodstained velvet, dirty lace
Naked fear on every face
See them bow their heads to die
As we would bow as they rode by

And we’re marching to bastille day la guillotine will claim
Her bloody prize sing, o choirs of cacophony the king has
Kneeled, to let his kingdom rise

Lessons taught but never learned
All around us anger burns
Guide the future by the past
Long ago the mould was cast

For they marched up to bastille day la guillotine -- claimed
Her bloody prize hear the echoes of the centuries power isn’t
All that money buys

Um, I did ^.^, except I didn't post the lyrics. I just said I begun playing it.

Whoa whoa whoa...

the only reason the french wanted the americans to win independence was to spite the english, again, and to attempt to win america from the americans when they failed to set up a sucessful govornment

I just pointed this out because it appears that a lot of the people who are bashing France are Americans, I just wanted to point out that they are only independant because of them, not stating Frances real (or imagined) reason for aiding them

Whoa whoa whoa...

the only reason the french wanted the americans to win independence was to spite the english, again, and to attempt to win america from the americans when they failed to set up a sucessful govornment
They already had Louisiana. The US would have made a nice buffer state. Though they did try in Mexico.

Besides, who cares about the reason? They were spreading freedom, democracy and helping the US people get rid of a dangerous dictator.

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon.


That is a pretty poor example really. Landing on the moon hasn't really done that much for the human race.

I just pointed this out because it appears that a lot of the people who are bashing France are Americans, I just wanted to point out that they are only independant because of them, not stating Frances real (or imagined) reason for aiding them

I actually like France, until the founding of the Fourth Republic. After that, they ceased to be nearly as cool as they used to be.

Well, it's certainly the easiest thing to pick on, like English cooking or Italian organization. ;)

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon. The British invented Radar and Viagra. The Russians built the Aswan Dam with the Egyptians. The Poles gave us the most beloved Pope in centuries (meaning no offence to John 23rd).

(And no, the didn't invent the Bikini, they just marketed it. ;) )

Since 1940, then?

François Jacob and Jacques Monod discovered the regulation mechanism for enzyme production. Roger Guillemin was the first to find out the structure of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (this knowledge is essential for treatment of myomas, IVF, etc.) -- that easily beats Viagra. Claude Levi-Strauss is a 'great' is anthropology.

That is a pretty poor example really. Landing on the moon hasn't really done that much for the human race.

Actually, it moved physical science along quite a bit, as well as improving navigation (not only with satellites, but with the laser reflector that was used to measure the earth-moon distance), not to mention the spin off technologies like teflon, CAT scan machines, and kidney dialysis.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

Joyeux Bastille Day!

Sorry I don't know enough French to say it fully in that language!

François Jacob and Jacques Monod discovered the regulation mechanism for enzyme production. Roger Guillemin was the first to find out the structure of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (this knowledge is essential for treatment of myomas, IVF, etc.) -- that easily beats Viagra. Claude Levi-Strauss is a 'great' is anthropology.
And Juliette Binoche. Don't forget Juliette Binoche.

congratulations

Allons enfants de la patrie! (hope i didn't butcher it)

Well, it's certainly the easiest thing to pick on, like English cooking or Italian organization. ;)

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon. The British invented Radar and Viagra. The Russians built the Aswan Dam with the Egyptians. The Poles gave us the most beloved Pope in centuries (meaning no offence to John 23rd).

(And no, the didn't invent the Bikini, they just marketed it. ;) )

The two main people behind the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community were French, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. The ECSC led the way for the European Economic Community, which is today the EU, probably one of the main reasons there has not been war in Western Europe since World War II. That seems like a big contribution to the human race if you ask me.

Since 1940, then?

Yep

François Jacob and Jacques Monod discovered the regulation mechanism for enzyme production.

Granted. But it's hardly the Eiffel Tower, L'Morte d' Arthur, the Suez Canal, or the Statue of Liberty, is it?

Roger Guillemin was the first to find out the structure of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (this knowledge is essential for treatment of myomas, IVF, etc.) -- that easily beats Viagra.

It would, but he became a US citizen in 1965 and moved first to Canada in 1949 and then on to the US in 1953. As he got the Nobel in 1977...

Claude Levi-Strauss is a 'great' is anthropology.

Also granted. Still, it seems a light sixty years for a country that gave the world so much since the fall of Rome.

...
Granted. But it's hardly the Eiffel Tower, L'Morte d' Arthur, the Suez Canal, or the Statue of Liberty, is it?
For molecular biology it is something along the lines of Romeo and Juliet. :)



It would, but he became a US citizen in 1965 and moved first to Canada in 1949 and then on to the US in 1953. As he got the Nobel in 1977...
The bloke's American then! Point conceded. Still, he was good.

Also granted. Still, it seems a light sixty years for a country that gave the world so much since the fall of Rome.
Well, that's what came into my head now... maybe there are more. I'm trying not to talk about literature and philosophy -- name Derrida, and all the hell will break loose. :rolleyes:

Death to the kings and queens all over the world

The two main people behind the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community were French, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman.

Which benefits mankind how?

The ECSC led the way for the European Economic Community, which is today the EU, probably one of the main reasons there has not been war in Western Europe since World War II.

I really, really hate it when people believe this. It's a farce.
NATO, the common DEFENSE organization that is to be credited for that. How on earth did the EU halt war between Britain and France between 1946-1972? Never mind vs. the Warsaw Pact countries??


That seems like a big contribution to the human race if you ask me.

It may become one, but it needs to be judged from when/if an EU constitution comes into being. Right now, you're just a big friendly club of nations that use the same money. Heck, FRANCE put it's border checks back in action this week, after the bombing in London!

Death to the kings and queens all over the world
Even Queen Latifah?

Even Queen Latifah?
Even her

PS Homosexuals are not queens

For molecular biology it is something along the lines of Romeo and Juliet. :)

Hey, I still grant you that. :)

The bloke's American then! Point conceded. Still, he was good.

Yes, but if it softens the blow, I hold Slovak ex-pat status.
Yep... he was good. But then so is Stephen Hawking. (Another one for the Brits!) :D

Well, that's what came into my head now... maybe there are more. I'm trying not to talk about literature and philosophy -- name Derrida, and all the hell will break loose. :rolleyes:

Good call.

If only Britain had followed... That said, ours is only a lovely decoration :D.

What? If only Britain had gone down the road of mass executions for political opponents, or for those who moaned about the price of bread? If only Britain had become a military dictatorship under a vain-glorious, reactionary Corsican who tried to impose his will on the rest of Europe?

For all the good ideas that were espoused in the revolutionary period and all the glorious things which were a result of it, the period itself was terrible and many of the bad things about it were only stopped due to the opposition of countries like Britain.

(Degree based largely on this area so don't mess! :p )

What? If only Britain had gone down the road of mass executions for political opponents, or for those who moaned about the price of bread? If only Britain had become a military dictatorship under a vain-glorious, reactionary Corsican who tried to impose his will on the rest of Europe?
Well, not Corsican of course. But maybe from the Isle of Man.

Well, it's certainly the easiest thing to pick on, like English cooking or Italian organization. ;)

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon. The British invented Radar and Viagra. The Russians built the Aswan Dam with the Egyptians. The Poles gave us the most beloved Pope in centuries (meaning no offence to John 23rd).

(And no, the didn't invent the Bikini, they just marketed it. ;) )

OK, French Cuisine, French Cinema, Christian Dior, Picasso, The 2000 Bordeaux, The Tour de France, The Modern Olympics, anyone who wants to tag on is welcome

Picasso was Spanish dude.

Picasso was Spanish dude.
fuck

answer revised to Pierre Bonard, though i think he died before the war ended not sure

oh the Taxi series of movies were really good (not that cheap nock off made in the states but the actual french one) but on a scientific note the RAMjet and SCRAMjet

Well, not Corsican of course. But maybe from the Isle of Man.

Or the Isle of Wight.

Well, it's certainly the easiest thing to pick on, like English cooking or Italian organization. ;)

Okay... name me ANYTHING France has done for the human race since the fall of the 3rd Republic.
The US went to the moon. The British invented Radar and Viagra. The Russians built the Aswan Dam with the Egyptians. The Poles gave us the most beloved Pope in centuries (meaning no offence to John 23rd).

(And no, the didn't invent the Bikini, they just marketed it. ;) )

Giving a pope who helped AIDS spread in Africa because of his opposition to condoms isn't what I call a great achievement.

But anyway most of the things you name really haven't done much for the human race, they are merely technical feats.
So if you want great technical feats, France (with the UK) built the Channel Tunnel and engineered the Concorde. Ariane is also one of the most secure rockets (though it isn't manned). The France was also the longest ocean liner in the world when built. France was the third country to master nuclear energy (and still the reference when it comes to nuclear power), and to build a large fast breeder reactor. And TGV is still one of the fastest trains in the world.
Well that's the random things I can think off at the moment, but they're all at least as important to me as making a pill to help erections or walking on a dead satellite (but I concede getting to the moon was something great).

As for human advances, they would be for example to have the highest life expectancy in the world, the discovery of HIV in 1986, the invention of the morning-after pill (and being the first country to legalise it and make it free)...

Now, tell me what Spain and Italy have done ? haha

OK, French Cuisine, French Cinema, Christian Dior, Picasso, The 2000 Bordeaux, The Tour de France, The Modern Olympics, anyone who wants to tag on is welcome

Amazing. Not a SINGLE thing on that list comes from after the Third Republic (1940)... and lots of them can't even compare to Radar, the Apollo Moon Landings, etc.

The French have been cooking for hundreds of years, and making movies since the 1870s at least. Christian Dior had his designs out in the 30s. Picaso was Spanish. The Tour de France is over 100 years old, the Modern Olympics is a bit older than that (1896).

2000 Bordeaux? As in wine? You put a bottle of wine on par with the Eiffel Tower or invention of x-rays?!? That's pretty weak... espeically when one considers that the bottle of wine benefits a man, not mankind. :D

The Hun says Hi!

And asks the various Americans why they hate France so much...what is it with you people and picking on the French?

You guys seriously celebrate Bastille Day? Are you forgetting a little thing called The Reign of Terror?

And asks the various Americans why they hate France so much...what is it with you people and picking on the French?

Many of us see the French as week because of the World Wars. We see them as ungrateful, because without us, they would be either be speaking German or Russian. Of course, they did help us in the Revolution, and I respect them for it. However, they have become more and more anti-American since the end of WW2, and if there is one thing an American can’t stand, it’s a foreign nation insulting them.

Sance']Giving a pope who helped AIDS spread in Africa because of his opposition to condoms isn't what I call a great achievement.

The Papal ban on birth control was set by Pope Paul VI.

Sance']But anyway most of the things you name really haven't done much for the human race, they are merely technical feats.

Dude, EVERYTHING that has benefitted mankind is a technical feat.
My point is that France has been in a slump since the fall of the 3rd Republic.

Sance']So if you want great technical feats, France (with the UK) built the Channel Tunnel and engineered the Concorde.

Both of which were done with the British. Try again.

Sance']Ariane is also one of the most secure rockets (though it isn't manned).

A "secure" rocket? Sorry, they're just a competitor against the other manufacturers around the world. There is nothing special about the Araine vs. the Delta or any other rocket.

Sance']The France was also the longest ocean liner in the world when built.

Which was, and when? And that benefits mankind how?

Sance']France was the third country to master nuclear energy (and still the reference when it comes to nuclear power), and to build a large fast breeder reactor.

Great. But still not pioneering. BTW, France was 4th.
US: 1945, USSR: 1949, UK: 1952, France: 1960.

Sance']And TGV is still one of the fastest trains in the world.
Well that's the random things I can think off at the moment, but they're all at least as important to me as making a pill to help erections or walking on a dead satellite (but I concede getting to the moon was something great).

ONE of the fastest. C'mon! How does that make France on par with the other four "great powers"?

Sance']As for human advances, they would be for example to have the highest life expectancy in the world, the discovery of HIV in 1986, the invention of the morning-after pill (and being the first country to legalise it and make it free)...

That's Japan.
The discovery of AIDS isn't a great advance for mankind, any more than the Black Death was.
Ru486 (Mifepristone) KILLS people (or, people-to-be), so I'm hard pressed to say that it's a great boon to mankind, any more than the machine gun or mustard gas.

Sance']Now, tell me what Spain and Italy have done ? haha

Good. Now that you've compared France to Spain & Italy, you confess that it's a second-tier country and is not really a world power. :D

You guys seriously celebrate Bastille Day? Are you forgetting a little thing called The Reign of Terror?



Many of us see the French as week because of the World Wars. We see them as ungrateful, because without us, they would be either be speaking German or Russian. Of course, they did help us in the Revolution, and I respect them for it. However, they have become more and more anti-American since the end of WW2, and if there is one thing an American can’t stand, it’s a foreign nation insulting them.
Many of you should then go and have a few lessons in Modern History...
WW2 can be argued (and that has been done), but in WW1 the French fought harder even than the Brits.
Neither Germany nor Russia had any plans on changing people's languages... ;)
Oh, and believe me, the French are no less proud than the Americans.

PS: The Reign of Terror wasn't actually that much worse than the Monarchy before that. It's just that now there were important people killed, not just simple peasants...

Many of you should then go and have a few lessons in Modern History...
WW2 can be argued (and that has been done), but in WW1 the French fought harder even than the Brits.
Neither Germany nor Russia had any plans on changing people's languages... ;)
Oh, and believe me, the French are no less proud than the Americans.

I am aware of this. I was posting why I though most Americans disliked the French. The taxi cab defense is one of the most inspiring moments in history.

PS: The Reign of Terror wasn't actually that much worse than the Monarchy before that. It's just that now there were important people killed, not just simple peasants...

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Whether you accept it or not, the monarchy was not malicious. Marry Antoinette never said “let them eat cake”. She probably wasn’t even aware of the average state of the peasants until those women (and many men dressed up as women) stormed Versailles. The King attempted to fix the problems by raising taxes, unfortunately he was bound by custom not to tax the nobility, and thus his reforms failed. Upon his death he said something along the lines of “if this is for the benefit of France, I gladly accept it.”

I would call violent mob violence that killed plenty of peasants and eventually even its own leaders, far worse that whatever the monarchy did. Between 10,000 and 40,000 lives were taken. :(

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Whether you accept it or not, the monarchy was not malicious.
Meh, I'll give you that one, if only because I'm tired and need to sleep soon. ;)
Although that is an interesting thing to say, seeing you're so much against government control and all... :p

Nonetheless, saying the French shouldn't celebrate Bastille Day is like telling the Americans not to celebrate Independence Day because of Slavery, or the genocides on the natives or so on.
The French overthrew absolutists, they founded many of the ideals that our civilisation is still based on then and they hold those original values very dear.
And so they should.

Meh, I'll give you that one, if only because I'm tired and need to sleep soon. ;)
Although that is an interesting thing to say, seeing you're so much against government control and all... :p

Meh, as well. My view of the French Revolution may be too heavily influenced by Dickens. Anyway, about the monarchy, unlike many of my pals on the Right, I don’t go around calling people I disagree with evil. The monarchy was simply continuing to do things the way they’ve been done for thousands of years in Latin civilizations, they were misinformed.

Which benefits mankind how?

I really, really hate it when people believe this. It's a farce.
NATO, the common DEFENSE organization that is to be credited for that. How on earth did the EU halt war between Britain and France between 1946-1972? Never mind vs. the Warsaw Pact countries??

France had not gone to war with UK for a long time before 1946 because of the Entente Cordiale and other agreements; NATO certainly was not around back then. Coal and steel still at the time were the fuel behind a war machine and the ECSC did not allow one nation to become militarily more powerful than its neighbours. I don’t believe that NATO had as great as an importance as some people place on it. The US was determined to not let Communism spread, if the Soviets had attacked Western Europe, the US would have gone to defend them, NATO or not. Not to mention that EU is still relevant today, NATO has lost any reason of being now that the USSR has collapsed.

It may become one, but it needs to be judged from when/if an EU constitution comes into being. Right now, you're just a big friendly club of nations that use the same money. Heck, FRANCE put it's border checks back in action this week, after the bombing in London!

I don’t see why there is a need of constitution. The UK does not have a formal constitution and functions pretty well. Most people would not consider the UK a less of a nation for the lack of a formal constitution. The EU has made this far on the system of treaties and don't see why it can’t continue that way. It would be nice to have a constitution to make it a little less messy, but it is not vital. I think that the ‘no’ won in France more because people are upset with Chirac and Raffarin rather than dislike of the EU from most of the debate I read and saw on the TV. If the new PM is successful in restoring confidence in the government, Chirac will be able to have a successful second referendum before the next presidential election.

If the EU is not more than a ‘big friendly club of nations that use the same money’, why are Sweden, the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Cyprus, and Malta considered members when they don't use the euro? The EU has many responsibilities that fall under the EU. It regulates commerce between the nations, sets common external tariffs, regulates use of common areas such as the waters between them, sets minimum work regulations, and protects the rights of the people of the member states with organisations such as the Courts amongst other things.

As for the activation of the safety cause of the Schengen agreement, France is not longer able to protect herself while known terrorists are free in other EU countries? France has not done anything illegal with this, and the Italians have followed suit as well. There have been other times in the past when the safety clause has been used under raised threat levels. I think it is misunderstanding to say that it is part of the supposed crisis within the EU. I think that this crisis is more in the imagination of all those that would like to see an end to the EU.

2000 Bordeaux? As in wine? You put a bottle of wine on par with the Eiffel Tower or invention of x-rays?!? That's pretty weak... espeically when one considers that the bottle of wine benefits a man, not mankind. :D
heh, yeah but an extrordinary bottle, one of the best in recorded history, it alone ended problems the French Wine industry was having with the Americain market, which had declared an unofficial embargo on French wines after the opposition to Iraq, the 2000 Bordeaux when released, was irresitable to Americain wine enthusiasts, and effectively ended the unofficial embargo. It may not be a contribution to mankind. But it was a gift to man for sure. A side question, have you ever tasted a 2000 Bordeaux? I didn't thinks so ;)

heh, yeah but an extrordinary bottle, one of the best in recorded history, it alone ended problems the French Wine industry was having with the Americain market, which had declared an unofficial embargo on French wines after the opposition to Iraq, the 2000 Bordeaux when released, was irresitable to Americain wine enthusiasts, and effectively ended the unofficial embargo. It may not be a contribution to mankind. But it was a gift to man for sure. A side question, have you ever tasted a 2000 Bordeaux? I didn't thinks so ;)

Nope, can't say I have. I make my own wine. Right now, I have 22 gallons of red currant going... all of it picked off the bushes in the back yard. :)

Nope, can't say I have. I make my own wine. Right now, I have 22 gallons of red currant going... all of it picked off the bushes in the back yard. :)

oh you lucky, if only i lived on land right for grape vines, but i don't. There are some nice local wines i am blessed with though, Virginian vineyards are underrated. We have some nice local varieties known little outside of northern Virginia.

France had not gone to war with UK for a long time before 1946 because of the Entente Cordiale and other agreements; NATO certainly was not around back then. Coal and steel still at the time were the fuel behind a war machine and the ECSC did not allow one nation to become militarily more powerful than its neighbours. I don’t believe that NATO had as great as an importance as some people place on it. The US was determined to not let Communism spread, if the Soviets had attacked Western Europe, the US would have gone to defend them, NATO or not. Not to mention that EU is still relevant today, NATO has lost any reason of being now that the USSR has collapsed.

The Treaty of Brussles was 1948, NATO proper was formed in 1949.

RE: The ECSC & more powerful: and today, Brazil makes more steel than France. And do you really think that Belgium and Holland were going to come to blows? C'MON! 1946-, it's NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. The EU, while an important FINANCIAL system, has not, and is not a peacekeeping organization. For proof, please see Jugoslavia.

The Entente Cordiale was signed well before WW1, I believe in around 1900. But that's not the point... it's still NOT the EU that maintained peace in Europe from 1946-. Substitute USSR for UK. My point was that the EU is not a peacekeeper, not that NATO kept the UK & France from coming to blows.

RE: NATO importance: NATO envoked the common defense clause for the first time on 11 September 2001. IMHO, it's more relevant than you may realize.

I don’t see why there is a need of constitution. The UK does not have a formal constitution and functions pretty well.

They're also a homogenous nation. You want to tell me that you want to run a nation the size of the US with twice the population and over 20 languages without a Constitution?
Notably, the UK has recently given more automony to Scotland & Wales. I'd say that proves that a Constitution might've HELPED.

Most people would not consider the UK a less of a nation for the lack of a formal constitution. The EU has made this far on the system of treaties and don't see why it can’t continue that way.

Because it's the next step. Right now, the EU is exactly where the US was under the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788).

It would be nice to have a constitution to make it a little less messy, but it is not vital. I think that the ‘no’ won in France more because people are upset with Chirac and Raffarin rather than dislike of the EU from most of the debate I read and saw on the TV. If the new PM is successful in restoring confidence in the government, Chirac will be able to have a successful second referendum before the next presidential election.

Time will tell.

If the EU is not more than a ‘big friendly club of nations that use the same money’, why are Sweden, the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Cyprus, and Malta considered members when they don't use the euro?

Most of those ARE adopting the Euro.
The only ones I see that aren't are UK, Denmark and Sweden... and if I recall, Sweden & Denmark must convert eventually.

The dates to complete the third stage of the EMU vary:
1 January 2007 for Estonia, Slovenia and Lithuania (since they are already part of ERM II);
2007 for Cyprus;
2008 for Latvia, Malta and Slovakia;
2009 for the Czech Republic and Poland;
and finally 2010 for Hungary.

The EU has many responsibilities that fall under the EU. It regulates commerce between the nations, sets common external tariffs, regulates use of common areas such as the waters between them, sets minimum work regulations, and protects the rights of the people of the member states with organisations such as the Courts amongst other things.

Right. Now imagine if it actually was a viable government, and that Paris, Berlin, Madrid et all became state capitals to a Federal European one. The USE would have a LOT more clout than the current EU.

As for the activation of the safety cause of the Schengen agreement, France is not longer able to protect herself while known terrorists are free in other EU countries? France has not done anything illegal with this, and the Italians have followed suit as well. There have been other times in the past when the safety clause has been used under raised threat levels. I think it is misunderstanding to say that it is part of the supposed crisis within the EU. I think that this crisis is more in the imagination of all those that would like to see an end to the EU.

My point here was that a USE would be sealing it's borders, not just France's.

oh you lucky, if only i lived on land right for grape vines, but i don't. There are some nice local wines i am blessed with though, Virginian vineyards are underrated. We have some nice local varieties known little outside of northern Virginia.

It's not grape... and you can probably grow it. I also have raspberries and blackberries... they grow on the sides of the yard (I only have 1/3rd of an acre). You can find them in most mailorder or better garden shops.
I buy yeast & stabilizer wholesale online. Everything else (big glass jars, ladles, bottles) is recycled, except for the breathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcurrant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackberry

PS- I used to live in Herndon. :)

Unfortunately my land is incapable of growing anything but some grass patches here and there, too little sunlight, and too little rain. I know what red currants are =) , i just wish i had land right for grape vines.

You used to live in herndon? small world, ever been to james river? They have some exquisite desert wines.

The Treaty of Brussles was 1948, NATO proper was formed in 1949.

RE: The ECSC & more powerful: and today, Brazil makes more steel than France. And do you really think that Belgium and Holland were going to come to blows? C'MON! 1946-, it's NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. The EU, while an important FINANCIAL system, has not, and is not a peacekeeping organization. For proof, please see Jugoslavia.

The Entente Cordiale was signed well before WW1, I believe in around 1900. But that's not the point... it's still NOT the EU that maintained peace in Europe from 1946-. Substitute USSR for UK. My point was that the EU is not a peacekeeper, not that NATO kept the UK & France from coming to blows.

RE: NATO importance: NATO envoked the common defense clause for the first time on 11 September 2001. IMHO, it's more relevant than you may realize.

I don't think the danger was after WWII was fighting between the UK and France from the showing of the recent past at the time. It was between France and Germany after the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WWII. I don’t think that US would have interfered if France and West Germany starting fighting again like if Soviets attacked either one. There was certainly a great amount of hostility in France towards Germany after WWII. You are being silly to suggest the Netherlands and Belgium would have gone to war.

The EU has been increasing its ability for external peacekeeping with developing the rapid reaction force. It is currently EU forces in Bosnia, who took over the peacekeeping role in 2004. I think many in Europe see NATO as way that US can control Europe, and this has been one of the main reasons behind a stronger push to develop an EU defence. The problem is the US complains when Europe tries to develop its own defence outside of NATO, and the UK is too considered about its relationship with the US not with Europe. I think that a major impediment for an EU defence is that the UK will always choose the US over Europe.

They're also a homogenous nation. You want to tell me that you want to run a nation the size of the US with twice the population and over 20 languages without a Constitution?
Notably, the UK has recently given more automony to Scotland & Wales. I'd say that proves that a Constitution might've HELPED.

Because it's the next step. Right now, the EU is exactly where the US was under the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788).

Time will tell.

Most of those ARE adopting the Euro.
The only ones I see that aren't are UK, Denmark and Sweden... and if I recall, Sweden & Denmark must convert eventually.

Right. Now imagine if it actually was a viable government, and that Paris, Berlin, Madrid et all became state capitals to a Federal European one. The USE would have a LOT more clout than the current EU.

My point here was that a USE would be sealing it's borders, not just France's.

I would not call the UK a homogenous nation. From where I have been in the US, there is much greater difference between the four nations than the different American states. I don’t know that a constitution in the UK would have been better off with a constitution in regards to Welsh or Scottish autonomy because the English at the time that acquired Wales and Scotland did not see the Welsh or the Scots as their equals and not just in the more benign national stereotypes as today. It was the struggles of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists that finally brought autonomy and language rights. Language rights were also helped by the EU in minority rights legislation. Numbers of Welsh speakers is finally growing after having many years of it being actively discouraged by the government, and I think that the EU has had a big role in the growth of the language.

I am not a federalist, and I do not want the EU to be a nation. It does not mean that I think that Europe is unimportant. I do think that it would be a big mistake for the EU to become a nation. I would like to see deeper integration between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe a couple of others, but I would not even want the sovereignty of the nations within a core Europe to dissolve. I don’t think a United States of Europe is in the best interest of Europe. I don’t think that is the goal of most in the Europe; even Joschka Fischer, who was a big advocate of federalism in Europe, has now rejected the idea. I don’t think that you could have a giant Switzerland in all of Europe nor have a more homogenised state. I want France to stay France, the UK to stay the UK, Slovenia to be Slovenia, etc. With all the major cultural differences and ideals, it would extremely difficult, from everything like linguistic diversity, to the differences between the social democratic Scandinavian nations to the liberal nations, from the republican nations to the multiculturalist nations, the concept of nationality by birth or by blood, etc. It would be a mistake to destroy the culture of each state so that mislead we should copy the US model and I think that the diversity between the nations is one of the biggest assets that the EU has. I don’t think that being a single nation rather than individual nations would give the EU more clout. Being better coordinated externally would be helpful, but that has been happening as part of the natural process of the treaties and agreements between individual member states.

You also have to remember the EU is in a very different context than the US began in. With the EU, you are dealing with nations many 100s or 1000s years old; the US states were much younger. You can’t destroy difference that developed over that time that you can in with organisations that were only in existence for less that 200 years that had a common language. It is not logical to compare Europe to the US.

Just wishing a good day to fellow republicans who congratulate the French for getting rid of their monarchy. And wish something similar could be done in their own country (if it hasn't already been done).

I hope you mean in the context of government, not political parties. :)

I hope you mean in the context of government, not political parties. :)

:p

Of course.

I don't think the danger was after WWII was fighting between the UK and France from the showing of the recent past at the time. It was between France and Germany after the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WWII.

:headbang: That's NOT the point. The point I've BEEN making is that it was NATO, not the EU, that has kept the peace in Europe in the post WW2 era.

I don’t think that US would have interfered if France and West Germany starting fighting again like if Soviets attacked either one. There was certainly a great amount of hostility in France towards Germany after WWII. You are being silly to suggest the Netherlands and Belgium would have gone to war.

Immaterial, since they were all in NATO... it would never have happened, since the need to keep a single front against the USSR.

The EU has been increasing its ability for external peacekeeping with developing the rapid reaction force.

Yeah, right.
The EU failed to keep Jugoslavia from becoming a total mess in the 90s, and right now has less rapid deployment than the state of Illinois.

It is currently EU forces in Bosnia, who took over the peacekeeping role in 2004.

You mean caretaking. Milošević was arrested in 2001, and Jugoslavia no longer exists.

I think many in Europe see NATO as way that US can control Europe, and this has been one of the main reasons behind a stronger push to develop an EU defence.

And, until Europe is proactive and actually DOES something, it will remain to be seen as thus. Face facts: other than the UK, what NATO member has intervened ANYWHERE in the world to do anything?
Except for the Rainbow Warrior incident, France has barely intervened in Ivory Coast, and left Haiti to the US to deal with three times in the last three decades.

The problem is the US complains when Europe tries to develop its own defence outside of NATO, and the UK is too considered about its relationship with the US not with Europe. I think that a major impediment for an EU defence is that the UK will always choose the US over Europe.

That's because culturally, linguistically, and in terms of trade, the UK has much, much more in common with the US than with Germany, Italy, Spain, France et al.
And why do you mention outside of NATO? Why not INCREASE what Europe actually brings to the NATO table and make it more of an organization among equals? :rolleyes:

I would not call the UK a homogenous nation. From where I have been in the US, there is much greater difference between the four nations than the different American states.

You've obviously never been to New York, California, Louisiana and North Dakota. Or even the US at all?

I don’t know that a constitution in the UK would have been better off with a constitution in regards to Welsh or Scottish autonomy because the English at the time that acquired Wales and Scotland did not see the Welsh or the Scots as their equals and not just in the more benign national stereotypes as today.

Right. Because there was no Constitution. Had all citizens of the UK been named equal (as in the US), it'd be the same. Kind of like how the Civil War decided the 3/5ths Compromise.

It was the struggles of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists that finally brought autonomy and language rights. Language rights were also helped by the EU in minority rights legislation.

We in the US avoid the issue entirely by not having a national language. Need to take your drivers exam in Lithuanian? No problem.

Numbers of Welsh speakers is finally growing after having many years of it being actively discouraged by the government, and I think that the EU has had a big role in the growth of the language.

We've had folks speaking Creole for a few hundred years now without any special legislation in about the same sized land area.

I am not a federalist, and I do not want the EU to be a nation. It does not mean that I think that Europe is unimportant. I do think that it would be a big mistake for the EU to become a nation.

It would take a generation or three for there to become a European Nation after there became a USE. Like how there really wasn't an American culture/nation until about 1812.

I would like to see deeper integration between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe a couple of others, but I would not even want the sovereignty of the nations within a core Europe to dissolve.

As a Slovak ex-pat, I sniff at your racism, sir, and bid you good day.

I don’t think a United States of Europe is in the best interest of Europe.

Or rather, of your own country. Look at this map of the US: http://www.ricehope.com/history/Map1776.jpg
Now imagine if Virginia never came around to joining the US. (It was the 12th of the 13 to join). Basically, the US would never have survived.

I don’t think that is the goal of most in the Europe; even Joschka Fischer, who was a big advocate of federalism in Europe, has now rejected the idea. I don’t think that you could have a giant Switzerland in all of Europe nor have a more homogenised state.

Homoginization has been going on in Europe for centuries. The Metric system, the Euro and driving on the right are only the most obvious ones of the last two hundred years. The UK is free of some of that, as it's not really a part of "the Continent".

I want France to stay France, the UK to stay the UK, Slovenia to be Slovenia, etc. With all the major cultural differences and ideals, it would extremely difficult, from everything like linguistic diversity, to the differences between the social democratic Scandinavian nations to the liberal nations, from the republican nations to the multiculturalist nations, the concept of nationality by birth or by blood, etc.

Congratulations. You've just doomed Europe to never catch up with the US. Without going federalist, all of the small states will continue to duplicate effort, waste money, and lack a cohesive foreign policy.

It would be a mistake to destroy the culture of each state so that mislead we should copy the US model and I think that the diversity between the nations is one of the biggest assets that the EU has.

I propose you break up France so that the EU can gain even more diversity with countries for the Breton, Alsatian, Corsican, Catalan, Basque, Flemish and others peoples that live in France.
Gee, all of a sudden, diversity isn't such a big asset, eh?

I don’t think that being a single nation rather than individual nations would give the EU more clout. Being better coordinated externally would be helpful, but that has been happening as part of the natural process of the treaties and agreements between individual member states.

As above. Without going federalist, all of the small states will continue to duplicate effort, waste money, and lack a cohesive foreign policy.

You also have to remember the EU is in a very different context than the US began in. With the EU, you are dealing with nations many 100s or 1000s years old; the US states were much younger. You can’t destroy difference that developed over that time that you can in with organisations that were only in existence for less that 200 years that had a common language. It is not logical to compare Europe to the US.

It's pretty much the same, actually. The proto-US fought a war with a mighty Empire, then forged a new country in order to compete with the rest of the world.
Europe fought two wars in a row, then had three generations of "cold war". It's now looking to forge a new identity in order to compete with the rest of the world.

Who says destroy? If a USE came into being, would Italians cease to be Italians any more than New Yorkers are New Yorkers?

It is eminently logical. At the time of the US Revolution, Massachusettes and Georgia had very little in common, too. Georgia was founded as a haven for criminals to get a second chance. Massachusettes was almost a religious state; and was founded on religion. Meanwhile, Maryland was founded for Catholics, while Pennsylvania was strong with Quakers. And let's not forget the Dutch and Swedish effects in (the future) New York and New Jersey.

And, let's face it, English is the current dominent language of the world. French, German, and Spanish are also very common. So adopt the four as official tongues, or bring up Esperanto or Latin or something as a language for politics and allow everyone to use whatever they want for everything else.
Here in the US, I often speak Slovak, Polish, or Spanish as well as English, depending of the situation. If I go into a Polish deli or bar, or a Mexican restauant, or my Slovak Chuch, for example.

Death to the kings and queens all over the world
That is one of the most disgusting and revolting things I've ever heard! If you had any idea of history - if you had ever read the story of Marie-Antoinette's last agonising few months, the horrific horrendous child abuse that the republican jailers inflicted upon her son Louis-Charles (who died because of it aged 10), the assassiantion of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in 1898 simply because she was a royal (her assassin said, "I wanted to kill a royal, it didn't matter which one," or the heartbreaking murder of Nicholas II's children in 1918 by the Communists, then I would hope that you could never say anything like that.

PS: The Reign of Terror wasn't actually that much worse than the Monarchy before that. It's just that now there were important people killed, not just simple peasants...
Actually, no they weren't. The monarchy in France was an angel of mercy compared to the First Republic. It is true that many were put to death by the French monarchy, but they were always put to death because they had broken a law. We may think that the death penalty is barbaric or that the laws of France under the monarchy were arcane, but that's irrelevant. France's monarchy was no better or worse than any of the other royal empires around Europe, or the American republic I might add (which still has the death penalty.) The difference between the old system in France and the new republican system was that whilst the monarchy only killed or imprisoned those who had actually broken a law, the Revolution butchered, massacred and executed people for what they thought and believed. Women were put to death because they had written to a pro-monarchy relative living abroad. It wasn't liberty, it was carnage in the name of platitudes. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was no more realised under the Revolution than it had been before or since. And, as many world-class historians have pointed out, the living standards of the French peasants actually didn't improve one bit because of the Revolution. So, no, I can't say "Happy Bastille Day." The era that day ushered in had no happy or redeeming features.

"Our revolution is different from any other which history tells us of, and above all none has ever been so feebly opposed."
- Baron de Breteuil (1789), last Prime Minister of the French Monarchy

That is one of the most disgusting and revolting things I've ever heard! If you had any idea of history - if you had ever read the story of Marie-Antoinette's last agonising few months, the horrific horrendous child abuse that the republican jailers inflicted upon her son Louis-Charles (who died because of it aged 10), the assassiantion of Empress Elisabeth of Austria in 1898 simply because she was a royal (her assassin said, "I wanted to kill a royal, it didn't matter which one," or the heartbreaking murder of Nicholas II's children in 1918 by the Communists, then I would hope that you could never say anything like that.

Because those monarchies were all sweetness and light, right?

ANd just because anti-monarchists have acted atrociously, does not make the monarchist side right, or free from sin.

(Nor vice-versa)

Actually, no they weren't. The monarchy in France was an angel of mercy compared to the First Republic. It is true that many were put to death by the French monarchy, but they were always put to death because they had broken a law.

So? Were the laws fair? Saying that like the monarchy was justified is meaningless, and erroneously assumes the law is always right.

I'm not saying that the 1st Republic was a particuarly nice to live in. The picture showing Robespierre exucuting Sanson by guillotine in front of a monument with "Here lies the whole of France" engraved on it, while a bit hysterical, certainly is quite close to the truth.

But bad things happen in revolutions, which does not make the atrocities any better, but to compare the Ancien Regime strictly only with the revolution is hardly fair.

We may think that the death penalty is barbaric

Interestingly the guillotine was first introduced as a more humane form of execution that previous forms. Whilst still barbaric, I would much prefer to be executed by guillotine than to executed by being tied to two posts whilst all my bones were sytematically broken.

or that the laws of France under the monarchy were arcane, but that's irrelevant. France's monarchy was no better or worse than any of the other royal empires around Europe,

That is irrelevent.

or the American republic I might add (which still has the death penalty.)

That is irrelevent too.

The difference between the old system in France and the new republican system was that whilst the monarchy only killed or imprisoned those who had actually broken a law,

Are you forgetting about the lettres de cachet?

And saying the monarchy were better because they only killed people who broke the law is ridiculous. Wearing black trousers could be against the law, but according by the parameters you have set, the state would be justified in executing them.

(Extreme example I know, a more sensible one probably would have been the case of the Marquis de Sade)

the Revolution butchered, massacred and executed people for what they thought and believed.

Are you claiming the same never happened in the Ancien Regime?

Women were put to death because they had written to a pro-monarchy relative living abroad.

Never a fact that I have come across before, but am willing to believe it if you can source it.

It wasn't liberty, it was carnage in the name of platitudes. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was no more realised under the Revolution than it had been before or since.

Giving all men the vote and the right to sit in the Assembly/Convention wasn't any closer to realising égalité then under the monarchy?

Getting rid of the hated lettres de cachet wasn't any closer to liberté?

Also, you seem to be making the mistake as if one day there was monarchy and the next the storming of the bastille the terror and the rise of Napoleon. The revolution went through several stages. It was entirely possible that the monarchy could have been kept if he didn't act so stupidly and selfishly.

And, as many world-class historians have pointed out, the living standards of the French peasants actually didn't improve one bit because of the Revolution.

And, as many world-class historians have pointed out, the living standards of the French peasants actually did improve one bit because of the Revolution.

I can use the "many historians agree (without naming any)" card too :)

So, no, I can't say "Happy Bastille Day." The era that day ushered in had no happy or redeeming features.

Not if you are a monarchist certainly.

But for republicans, people who appreciate romantic poets and other artists (such as Beethoven, Byron and Shelley), people who dream of a better world and think it is possible on the other hand...

Also, the day that the Bastille was stormed ushered in nothing. It [the Bastille] was a symbol, a symbol of the tyrannical power of the king and his draconian policies (it was after all, the place where those who were imprisoned under the lettres de cachets were kept).

"Our revolution is different from any other which history tells us of, and above all none has ever been so feebly opposed."
- Baron de Breteuil (1789), last Prime Minister of the French Monarchy

Which means?

A witty saying proves nothing

:headbang: That's NOT the point. The point I've BEEN making is that it was NATO, not the EU, that has kept the peace in Europe in the post WW2 era.

Immaterial, since they were all in NATO... it would never have happened, since the need to keep a single front against the USSR.

Yeah, right.
The EU failed to keep Jugoslavia from becoming a total mess in the 90s, and right now has less rapid deployment than the state of Illinois.

It takes time for these things to develop especially with some EU members that are not so willing to cooperate on common defence.

You mean caretaking. Milošević was arrested in 2001, and Jugoslavia no longer exists.

And, until Europe is proactive and actually DOES something, it will remain to be seen as thus. Face facts: other than the UK, what NATO member has intervened ANYWHERE in the world to do anything?
Except for the Rainbow Warrior incident, France has barely intervened in Ivory Coast, and left Haiti to the US to deal with three times in the last three decades.

I am aware that Jugoslavia no longer exists, but troops are still needed and the EU forces have been able to take over for that in Bosnia. France went into Haiti with the US this last time. The ousted president was even complaining that it was the French being neo-colonial. France is in the Ivory Coast as a part of a UN mandate and is not allowed do much other try to keep the sides apart. It doesn't help the Ivorian government has been accusing the French for neo-colonialism for this UN mandate.

That's because culturally, linguistically, and in terms of trade, the UK has much, much more in common with the US than with Germany, Italy, Spain, France et al.
And why do you mention outside of NATO? Why not INCREASE what Europe actually brings to the NATO table and make it more of an organization among equals? :rolleyes:

The UK trades far more with Europe than the US. I would not really consider the UK culturally much closer to the US. You get about as much American culture on French TV and radion as you do British TV and radio. Even though the Brits are more economically liberal than most Europeans, they are certainly more social democratic than most Americans.

That is because the US does not want Europe to be an equal partner. Why do you think that France withdrew from the integrated military structure in the first place? I think many of the countries in the EU other than the 'neutral' ones are more than willing to have their own defence but that when Europe starts to suggest this it is always dismissed by the US. I don't think if even Europe had the same size army as the US, that the US would be interested as treating them as equals. They want to be the ones in change, they would not want to be in some situation where their troops would have to listen to a foreign general.

You've obviously never been to New York, California, Louisiana and North Dakota. Or even the US at all?

I have been many places in the US mostly in the Midwest, New England, New York and New Jersey, but I have been out West and to Florida as well. Culturally, all those place I would consider closer culturally to each other than the four nations in the UK.

Right. Because there was no Constitution. Had all citizens of the UK been named equal (as in the US), it'd be the same. Kind of like how the Civil War decided the 3/5ths Compromise.

So it would have take a full out civil war then instead of a evolution of rights? The Welsh and Scots are equal to the English now but they did not have the same rights for awhile. Things slowly evolved into what the UK is today. Scotland (1707) and Wales (1500's) being joined with England predate the US constitution, and the time of the US constitution there were certainly a large population of the US that was treated as inferior to others, so how would a constitution helped the Welsh or Scots?

We in the US avoid the issue entirely by not having a national language. Need to take your drivers exam in Lithuanian? No problem.


We've had folks speaking Creole for a few hundred years now without any special legislation in about the same sized land area.


The UK did not have an offical language before this either, but that does not mean that Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic weren't actively discourged and then ignored and finally granted more full rights. In theory in Wales, you can conduct all your business with the government in Welsh. It is not always the case as that the Welsh Language Act is not as strong as should be but things can be appelled to national courts or the EU courts to correct this.

As a Slovak ex-pat, I sniff at your racism, sir, and bid you good day.

When Slovakia catches up economically to the core nations and if they want deeper integration, I would have no problem with them joining the core nations, but seeing how that most of the East European nations look to the US more I don't see that happening soon.

Or rather, of your own country. Look at this map of the US: http://www.ricehope.com/history/Map1776.jpg
Now imagine if Virginia never came around to joining the US. (It was the 12th of the 13 to join). Basically, the US would never have survived.

Homoginization has been going on in Europe for centuries. The Metric system, the Euro and driving on the right are only the most obvious ones of the last two hundred years. The UK is free of some of that, as it's not really a part of "the Continent".

But how do these things you listed destroyed the culture? That is far more my concern. I don't mind hamonisation for trade and travel. A United States of Europe would need a common language, etc, which is far more damaging to culture than things like currency and units of measurement.

Congratulations. You've just doomed Europe to never catch up with the US. Without going federalist, all of the small states will continue to duplicate effort, waste money, and lack a cohesive foreign policy.

It depends what you mean by 'catch up to the US'. I don't think that the EU wants to be police man to the world, rather to show another way of doing things through negotication and regulations. Besides the constitution that you seem to think should be so important for the EU would not have created an USE despite whatever wild imaginations that Valery Giscard d'Estaign has had. It just made things a little less messy than the treaty system and ended the problem of the rotating presidency. Not even the EU foreign minister it would created could force a cohesive foreign policy if some member nations did not want to go along.

I propose you break up France so that the EU can gain even more diversity with countries for the Breton, Alsatian, Corsican, Catalan, Basque, Flemish and others peoples that live in France.
Gee, all of a sudden, diversity isn't such a big asset, eh?

The difference there is they all speak French, other than the Corsians, there are not largest enough populations that would find an independent Savoie, Brittany, etc appealing. I am in favour of giving more powers to the regional government as that regional government are better at resolving certain issues than a nation or supranation government, but there are very few people in France that would support the destruction of a French state.

As above. Without going federalist, all of the small states will continue to duplicate effort, waste money, and lack a cohesive foreign policy.

It's pretty much the same, actually. The proto-US fought a war with a mighty Empire, then forged a new country in order to compete with the rest of the world.
Europe fought two wars in a row, then had three generations of "cold war". It's now looking to forge a new identity in order to compete with the rest of the world.

Who says destroy? If a USE came into being, would Italians cease to be Italians any more than New Yorkers are New Yorkers?

It is eminently logical. At the time of the US Revolution, Massachusettes and Georgia had very little in common, too. Georgia was founded as a haven for criminals to get a second chance. Massachusettes was almost a religious state; and was founded on religion. Meanwhile, Maryland was founded for Catholics, while Pennsylvania was strong with Quakers. And let's not forget the Dutch and Swedish effects in (the future) New York and New Jersey.

And, let's face it, English is the current dominent language of the world. French, German, and Spanish are also very common. So adopt the four as official tongues, or bring up Esperanto or Latin or something as a language for politics and allow everyone to use whatever they want for everything else.
Here in the US, I often speak Slovak, Polish, or Spanish as well as English, depending of the situation. If I go into a Polish deli or bar, or a Mexican restauant, or my Slovak Chuch, for example.

However, you are assuming that everything in Europe would play out as it has in the US. It has been the experience in Europe that when a larger unit has taken over culturally different units that it is tolerant of the other culture influence, rather assimilation has taken place. You are also assuming that everyone will be multiligual. Most people I know took in English for their Bac (test for end of high school) and passed the exam but if they go to the UK there are not really able to communicate very well. Or when Brits come to France and took French for their GSCS and A levels, they are not really able to communicate very well either. I don't see how that you could have a truly multiligual nation were some people speak mostly one language and only bits of another.

Being multiligual, I am sure you know how a lot of things are lost in translations. I don't see how that people that more monoligual would be able to trust a government that is mostly conducting itself in a language that they don't understand. I often feel a bit nervous when I am in a country where I don't speak the language even though I know I will most likely find someone that can speak English or French, but I could not imagine that with the main government institutions I had to live with normally that way.

Again with the differences you are talking about in the US before it was the US, it was not difference that had such a deep historical background and most people spoke English as first language. There is no European language and historically you are dealing with very different cultures.

It takes time for these things to develop especially with some EU members that are not so willing to cooperate on common defence.

Thank you for *confirming* that the EU is not peace-keeping organization.

I am aware that Jugoslavia no longer exists, but troops are still needed and the EU forces have been able to take over for that in Bosnia. France went into Haiti with the US this last time.

True, but if the EU really wanted to be considered a peace-keeping force, one would think that they would secure their own continent from genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Yes, indeed France did. And also had less troops in Afghanistan than *Canada*, were not involved in Iraq, and kept a very low profile in Ivory Coast. All in all, that's hardly a glowing endorsement for making the planet better for what's supposed to be a major power.

The ousted president was even complaining that it was the French being neo-colonial. France is in the Ivory Coast as a part of a UN mandate and is not allowed do much other try to keep the sides apart. It doesn't help the Ivorian government has been accusing the French for neo-colonialism for this UN mandate.

A little political fire isn't worth enduring to keep the peace? I assume you understand that the US isn't particularly happy with a good portion of the world being unhappy with it about Iraq.

The UK trades far more with Europe than the US. I would not really consider the UK culturally much closer to the US. You get about as much American culture on French TV and radion as you do British TV and radio. Even though the Brits are more economically liberal than most Europeans, they are certainly more social democratic than most Americans.

Collectively, sure. On a country to country basis, tho...
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ
UK trade:
US 15%, Germany 10.7%, France 9.2%, Ireland 6.8%, Netherlands 6.1%, Belgium 5.2%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.2% (2004).

I think you might be off, there. London feels like an odd part of Boston to me.
Of course we differ politically; that's no surprise. Everyone does. But culturally, I can find a LOT more UK/US interchange than US/French or UK/French, especially post WW2. On television, in music, in theatre...

That is because the US does not want Europe to be an equal partner. Why do you think that France withdrew from the integrated military structure in the first place?

That's news to us. Personally, I'd love the US to not have to pay 23% of NATO's budget. http://www.basicint.org/europe/NATO/member_contrib.htm

Because in the 60s, having lost in Viet Nam, lost in Algeria, and only a generation out from WW2 occupation, DeGaulle KNEW that France couldn't spend and support a military as large nor as powerful in the bi-polar Cold War World as it had before 1939.

I think many of the countries in the EU other than the 'neutral' ones are more than willing to have their own defence but that when Europe starts to suggest this it is always dismissed by the US.

Only because Europe keeps failing to actually DO anything. The US, for all that it doesn't do, or does wrong, still has troops aiding the South Koreans, goes into Haiti, and at least tries to change the world for what it thinks will be the better.
I can't think of a single example of a EU-led stand to improve anything, except for the EU. I can't think of anything after the UK/French intervention in the Suez.

I don't think if even Europe had the same size army as the US, that the US would be interested as treating them as equals.

Why? We have always looked to Europe for our origin, we've always respected European culture, fashion, and economic power, and even military power. You think the US didn't respect the USSR? How about during the post-WW1 peace talks? US military hegemony is still only two or three decades old. And it's *not* taken for granted.

They want to be the ones in change, they would not want to be in some situation where their troops would have to listen to a foreign general.

Yes, and no. The US does not like it's troops under the command of foreigners, and it rarely happens. By the same token, how on Earth is the US "in charge" of various European defense expenditures? At *any* time in the past... fifteen years at least, any Euro gov't could have raised it's military standards.
As it stands, right now only 4% of what military the EU has is rapid deployment.

I have been many places in the US mostly in the Midwest, New England, New York and New Jersey, but I have been out West and to Florida as well. Culturally, all those place I would consider closer culturally to each other than the four nations in the UK.

I'm pretty surprised about that, unless you did what most Americans do in Europe: see each city for two days and then leave. New Orleans, New York, Los Angeles and Miami are all very, very different. One must get past the Starbucks and McDonalds as in Prague one must get past the strip shows and beer halls.

Welsh, Scots, English and Irish vs. Black Creole, Navajo, 4th generation NYC Jewish and Texan? Sounds like a push to me... :D

So it would have take a full out civil war then instead of a evolution of rights? The Welsh and Scots are equal to the English now but they did not have the same rights for awhile. Things slowly evolved into what the UK is today. Scotland (1707) and Wales (1500's) being joined with England predate the US constitution, and the time of the US constitution there were certainly a large population of the US that was treated as inferior to others, so how would a constitution helped the Welsh or Scots?

Possibly.
Actually, Wales joined much earlier. I believe it was in the 13th century, but it's been some time since I studied Middle-Ages European history. ;) Yes, they lacked the rights for a long, long time. But should have had them. Perhaps in the time of Cromwell...

That they needed a Constitution is not necessitated that it be done on the US's timetable, nor impetus. There were several times it could have been done.

The UK did not have an offical language before this either, but that does not mean that Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic weren't actively discourged and then ignored and finally granted more full rights.

And these are the same people without a Constitution to protect their right to worship, read, and speak whatever they want, right? Hmm.

In theory in Wales, you can conduct all your business with the government in Welsh. It is not always the case as that the Welsh Language Act is not as strong as should be but things can be appelled to national courts or the EU courts to correct this.

Which wouldn't be a problem in the US.

When Slovakia catches up economically to the core nations and if they want deeper integration, I would have no problem with them joining the core nations, but seeing how that most of the East European nations look to the US more I don't see that happening soon.

Yet the EU bent the economic rules for Italy, and things are looking shaky for Germany already.

Hmm. So is it political, or economical, then? Seems to me, you use one as a justification and another as a whip. Of *course* the Eastern nations look more towards the US. In my home county, everbody has at least one blood relation that went to the US.

But how do these things you listed destroyed the culture? That is far more my concern. I don't mind hamonisation for trade and travel. A United States of Europe would need a common language, etc, which is far more damaging to culture than things like currency and units of measurement.

If you're worried about cultural destruction, I'd worry a LOT more about immigration and most Euro nations lack of acceptance than a Euro-fusion. There are 4th or 5th generation Turks in Germany that still aren't citizens.
A common language for politics, yes. Or maybe four. But even this Slovak knows that his language simply won't be a player.
Oh? Do you have any idea how many French, German, and other foreign words get assimilated into English? Mon Deux! :)

It depends what you mean by 'catch up to the US'. I don't think that the EU wants to be police man to the world, rather to show another way of doing things through negotication and regulations.

The US doesn't want to be the world's policeman either. But that doesn't mean that the job doesn't need doing. :(

Besides the constitution that you seem to think should be so important for the EU would not have created an USE despite whatever wild imaginations that Valery Giscard d'Estaign has had. It just made things a little less messy than the treaty system and ended the problem of the rotating presidency. Not even the EU foreign minister it would created could force a cohesive foreign policy if some member nations did not want to go along.

The EU constitution as rejected (sanely!!) by the French and Dutch was a mess. It was to fine in many details, and a void with others... and was less a Constitution than a buisiness contract.

The difference there is they all speak French, other than the Corsians, there are not largest enough populations that would find an independent Savoie, Brittany, etc appealing.

Yes. And do you know how much of America doesn't speak English?
Besides which, whom are you or I to say what they want? If one wants diversity, diversity one must have.
My point here is that it exists on some level anywhere, in any population. Parisians are not Catalans, yet you co-exist in the same country the same way Texans and Hawaiians do here.
I think your fear of a USE erasing culture is somewhat unfounded, especially given the Internet and mass media. Odds are, you probably see/hear/experience more imported culture in a day than your grandparents might in a week or more.
Heck, you're contaminating yourself right now by speaking to a Slovak-American. :D

I am in favour of giving more powers to the regional government as that regional government are better at resolving certain issues than a nation or supranation government, but there are very few people in France that would support the destruction of a French state.

So, in theory, you'd be for a USE if France is left to it's own devices for everything that is a regional issue, then?

However, you are assuming that everything in Europe would play out as it has in the US. It has been the experience in Europe that when a larger unit has taken over culturally different units that it is tolerant of the other culture influence, rather assimilation has taken place.

Hmm. I'd not say that. Need I point to the Partitions of Poland, or the formation of Imperial Germany? How about 1066 and the Invasion of England? The Crusades? Fascism? Life behind the Iron Curtain? (I was in Poland & Czechoslovakia in the early 80s... I can speak to that one with experience.) The Spanish & Portugese conquest of South America or the varied Euro colonials in African and Asia? The Protestant Reformation?
...and that's just off the top of my head.

You are also assuming that everyone will be multiligual. Most people I know took in English for their Bac (test for end of high school) and passed the exam but if they go to the UK there are not really able to communicate very well.

Yet Euros love to joke how Americans are so stupid because most of us only speak one language. Ah, irony. :) I'll remember that on my next trip to somewhere where I don't speak the language.
(Actually, I had great fun last time in Vienna. I tried to pick up this girl in a Scottish themed-bar in English. She rebuffed me in German. I explained in my poor German that I didn't speak it so well, and if she could try Spanish? She declined, so I tried Slovak. As she spoke some Czech, she was taken aback that I really was an American...)

So, what will happen? I simply can't see the EU going anywhere in it's current form.

Or when Brits come to France and took French for their GSCS and A levels, they are not really able to communicate very well either. I don't see how that you could have a truly multiligual nation were some people speak mostly one language and only bits of another.

Good riddle. Perhaps the Euros need to tone down the rhetoric on American stupidity, eh? ;)

Being multiligual, I am sure you know how a lot of things are lost in translations. I don't see how that people that more monoligual would be able to trust a government that is mostly conducting itself in a language that they don't understand. I often feel a bit nervous when I am in a country where I don't speak the language even though I know I will most likely find someone that can speak English or French, but I could not imagine that with the main government institutions I had to live with normally that way.

Which is why the EU needs to do something about it. Either go with the "big 4" languages, or adopt something neutral, or keep the EU as an economic unit only. The EU simply cannot wield any real international credibility until it can speak with a unified foreign policy and military. And that won't happen at this rate.

BTW: Your English is exceptionally good.

Again with the differences you are talking about in the US before it was the US, it was not difference that had such a deep historical background and most people spoke English as first language. There is no European language and historically you are dealing with very different cultures.

Actually, most of the founders spoke several languages, most of them French or German plus Latin and Greek.

Latin. It's the basis of most of the continent. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania... Add in it's huge effect on English and you gain Great Britain, Ireland and Malta. No, it doesn't do much for the German speakers nor the Slavs. But the Slavs might go for it anyway, because except for the Poles, none of them has any expectation of being treated as being very important linguistically anyway.
Well, there is that whole Christianity thing, but that seems to be out of fashion.

Thank you for *confirming* that the EU is not peace-keeping organization.

I suppose that my definition is slightly different than yours. I meant that the EU made impossible to have war between the member nations. It does not necessary mean something militarily to me. There are many ways to prevent war other than have troops stand between the two sides.

True, but if the EU really wanted to be considered a peace-keeping force, one would think that they would secure their own continent from genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Yes, indeed France did. And also had less troops in Afghanistan than *Canada*, were not involved in Iraq, and kept a very low profile in Ivory Coast. All in all, that's hardly a glowing endorsement for making the planet better for what's supposed to be a major power.

A little political fire isn't worth enduring to keep the peace? I assume you understand that the US isn't particularly happy with a good portion of the world being unhappy with it about Iraq.

Iraq? The Iraq War was totally unnecessary. If it was for humanitarian reasons, it should have happened when the genocide happened, not several years later. Iraq was a threat to no one; he had been contained since the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was not a good leader but anyone’s definition, but there are far worse dictators in the world that no one does anything about. If anything the Iraq War did more damage than help, giving a place for terrorists to go where there is little control and making those nations that participated targets. The US removed one of the few secular regimes in the area. Hussein would not allow the terrorists in his country because they were against him since they believe all secular regimes are evil and should be destroyed so they were just as much out to get him as the West.

I don’t mind a little political fire for doing something to keep the peace. However, the force in Ivory Coast, as I said before, had only a limited role by the UN mandate. It is important to keep the peace but it is also important to respect the international law if you expect others to do so in return.

Collectively, sure. On a country to country basis, tho...
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ
UK trade:
US 15%, Germany 10.7%, France 9.2%, Ireland 6.8%, Netherlands 6.1%, Belgium 5.2%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.2% (2004).

I think you might be off, there. London feels like an odd part of Boston to me.
Of course we differ politically; that's no surprise. Everyone does. But culturally, I can find a LOT more UK/US interchange than US/French or UK/French, especially post WW2. On television, in music, in theatre...

I mean collectively, of course. On country by country basis is not a far comparison as that the US population is much bigger than the largest EU nation, Germany (83 million).

Boston to me seemed more European to me than most places in the US; however, I still feel more comfortable in London than in the US. I don’t believe that UK gets anymore American culture than France does. You find as many American TV shows (granted there are dubbed into French) and as much American music in France as you do on British TV. The US just has a lot of cultural influence on most of Europe from talking to other Europeans about what they see on TV and hear on the radio.

That's news to us. Personally, I'd love the US to not have to pay 23% of NATO's budget. http://www.basicint.org/europe/NATO/member_contrib.htm

Because in the 60s, having lost in Viet Nam, lost in Algeria, and only a generation out from WW2 occupation, DeGaulle KNEW that France couldn't spend and support a military as large nor as powerful in the bi-polar Cold War World as it had before 1939.

That and de Gaulle saw it was more practical to have nuclear weapons for France to protect herself. Since the US would not give them to France, France had to focus more of the military spending on that rather than conventional weapons. It gave France the ability exercise a foreign policy independent of the US or the USSR.

If the US is only paying 23%, are you saying that the Canadians are paying the other 77%? Per capita, many of the EU nations pay much more into NATO than the US does. The US is a bigger nation; therefore will have a big military. It is silly to imagine Luxembourg can produce the same size military as a nation the size of the US. France, Germany, and the Benelux countries are working towards closer integration in military integration ahead of the rest of the EU; together is about 38% NATO’s budget far more than the US despite the smaller population.

Why? We have always looked to Europe for our origin, we've always respected European culture, fashion, and economic power, and even military power. You think the US didn't respect the USSR? How about during the post-WW1 peace talks? US military hegemony is still only two or three decades old. And it's *not* taken for granted.

Yes, and no. The US does not like it's troops under the command of foreigners, and it rarely happens. By the same token, how on Earth is the US "in charge" of various European defense expenditures? At *any* time in the past... fifteen years at least, any Euro gov't could have raised it's military standards.
As it stands, right now only 4% of what military the EU has is rapid deployment.

I get the impression often from the American government that they take American hegemony for granted. Many Europeans feel that they are controlled by the US through or the US always tries to and then tries to pretend that they don’t want us as allies anymore when Europe thinks that the action is wrong and refuses to go along, such as Iraq. I don’t think that there will be a massive EU wide defence because of the UK, and that is why it is necessary to push forward with our relationship with those nations are that more committed to this goal rather than waiting around for the others. This is different than the rapid reaction force.

I'm pretty surprised about that, unless you did what most Americans do in Europe: see each city for two days and then leave. New Orleans, New York, Los Angeles and Miami are all very, very different. One must get past the Starbucks and McDonalds as in Prague one must get past the strip shows and beer halls.

Welsh, Scots, English and Irish vs. Black Creole, Navajo, 4th generation NYC Jewish and Texan? Sounds like a push to me... :D

I have seen a lot of the Midwest and New England because I have relatives there; we went on vacation in August there most summers (yes, I know the stereotype that the French almost always go on vacation to friends or relatives is my family.). To me Boston, Chicago, New York and Indianapolis are not that different. I have only been to Florida once and out in the West twice. Things look somewhat different but the culture is very much the same. It sound like to me that you talking about multiculturalism, you certainly have that in the UK. The cities I have lived in there are many Kurds, Greeks, Pakistanis, French, Brazilians, Chinese, etc, and I have only lived in Wales, which is hardly concerned the culture capital like London. The biggest city, the capital Cardiff/Caerdydd, is about 270,000 people. There are certainly more nationalities than the Welsh, Scots, English and Irish in the UK.

Possibly.
Actually, Wales joined much earlier. I believe it was in the 13th century, but it's been some time since I studied Middle-Ages European history. ;) Yes, they lacked the rights for a long, long time. But should have had them. Perhaps in the time of Cromwell...

That they needed a Constitution is not necessitated that it be done on the US's timetable, nor impetus. There were several times it could have been done.

And these are the same people without a Constitution to protect their right to worship, read, and speak whatever they want, right? Hmm.

You are referring to Llywelyn who the English defeated in the 1280, and the English kidnapped his daughter so that she would not be able take her birthright. However, Wales did still have some independence under the Marcher lords, or the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr would not really been able to happen in 1400. The Acts of Union between England and Wales did not happen until the 1500s. I remember having to learn all of this in my Welsh classes. I think I have the children’s book on Llywelyn we used in somewhere.

You think that if I could only speak Lithuanian that I could really get a driver’s licence doing in Lithuanian? The only two people I know that have tried to get green cards told me that you can’t get a green card unless you speak English. So that sounds to me like an official language even if it is not a law. I would assume that in order to get a job or driver’s license in the US that you need a green card.

Yet the EU bent the economic rules for Italy, and things are looking shaky for Germany already.

Hmm. So is it political, or economical, then? Seems to me, you use one as a justification and another as a whip. Of *course* the Eastern nations look more towards the US. In my home county, everbody has at least one blood relation that went to the US.

The GDP per capita of Slovakia is lower than those nations. Italy’s GDP is $27,700, France $28,700, Germany $28,700, Slovakia $14,500. Even the lower than the low end of the Eurozone economies Greece ($21,300) and Portugal ($17,900) are have a significantly larger GDP, according to that CIA site you posted earlier. I would not prefer not to even have Greece and Portugal in the core. I don’t equate being in the Eurozone to being in the core. I think it has to do with deeper integration, militarily, economically, politically and with the lower GDP, they are not able contribute as well as others so I would like nations close to the level of France and Germany.

If you're worried about cultural destruction, I'd worry a LOT more about immigration and most Euro nations lack of acceptance than a Euro-fusion. There are 4th or 5th generation Turks in Germany that still aren't citizens.

Germany is changing is its immigration laws so that those that move to Germany can become German citizen more easily without having to be married to a German. I think that will also be an issue that will be dealt with more as that France and Germany are working on merging their systems of citizenship. Germany has its idea of citizenship through blood, but in France, it is by birth, and it is easier to get French citizenship than British for immigrants. I would imagine that arrangement would force the Germans to loosen up their citizenship standards even more. Especially as that blood as citizenship would be hard to define, France is an ethnically mixed nation, something like 1/3 of the nation has at least one foreign born grandparent.

The US doesn't want to be the world's policeman either. But that doesn't mean that the job doesn't need doing. :(

I think that someone needs to enforce international law but that can be one nation or a small group of nations such as NATO or the EU; it should be the UN. Yes, the UN does need reform so that it can enforce the laws that it makes, but I think that constructive proposals need to be made in order to do this instead of destroying it or making it a slave to any one group be it the US or Europe.

The EU constitution as rejected (sanely!!) by the French and Dutch was a mess. It was to fine in many details, and a void with others... and was less a Constitution than a buisiness contract.

Then why did you say that the EU as a contribution to humanity should be dependent on European Constitution?

Yes. And do you know how much of America doesn't speak English?
Besides which, whom are you or I to say what they want? If one wants diversity, diversity one must have.
My point here is that it exists on some level anywhere, in any population. Parisians are not Catalans, yet you co-exist in the same country the same way Texans and Hawaiians do here.
I think your fear of a USE erasing culture is somewhat unfounded, especially given the Internet and mass media. Odds are, you probably see/hear/experience more imported culture in a day than your grandparents might in a week or more.
Heck, you're contaminating yourself right now by speaking to a Slovak-American. :D

In France, the official language is French. The Catalans can speak Catalan with each other if they wish but if they want to deal with the French government, they must use French. I don’t think that there are many people that live in France that don’t speak French other maybe some of the Brits that have immigrated to France or from other places in the EU. Sure, the Parisians are different than the Catalans, but they are different than everyone. But seriously, I have more in common with a French Catalan than a Hungarian that does not speak French or English as that we would not be able to communicate.

I know that I experience more of other cultures than my grandparents do but I also live in Wales most of the time. I think that I am a bit of an exception; most of my friends in France, if they do have the Internet, don’t read pages in English. More young people are like me now and go and study in another EU country as that the EU helps us do that financially. Therefore, the internet is more my way of getting French media most of the time. The only French newspaper I can find without going to the university library is Le Monde so if I want to know what is happening in France I read the French media online in French. :D

But I still don’t feel that my fears are unfounded, look at what is happening at the Danish language. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3049669.stm

So, in theory, you'd be for a USE if France is left to it's own devices for everything that is a regional issue, then?

No, as there are things that are dealt better with on the regional or local level, there are things are better dealt with on the national level. I think that what de Gaulle wanted to do with Senate reform and giving more powers to regional government would have been ideal in my view. It would hardly made President or the National Assembly powerless, but it would have given more power to the regions.

Hmm. I'd not say that. Need I point to the Partitions of Poland, or the formation of Imperial Germany? How about 1066 and the Invasion of England? The Crusades? Fascism? Life behind the Iron Curtain? (I was in Poland & Czechoslovakia in the early 80s... I can speak to that one with experience.) The Spanish & Portugese conquest of South America or the varied Euro colonials in African and Asia? The Protestant Reformation?
...and that's just off the top of my head.

England tried to make the Welsh, Scots, and Irish assimilate. The Revolution in France wiped out most of the linguistic difference. The Spanish and Portuguese in their colonies propagated there languages and their religion in South America. The fascist regimes in Europe tried to isolate what was not seen of the nation.

Yet Euros love to joke how Americans are so stupid because most of us only speak one language. Ah, irony. :) I'll remember that on my next trip to somewhere where I don't speak the language.
(Actually, I had great fun last time in Vienna. I tried to pick up this girl in a Scottish themed-bar in English. She rebuffed me in German. I explained in my poor German that I didn't speak it so well, and if she could try Spanish? She declined, so I tried Slovak. As she spoke some Czech, she was taken aback that I really was an American...)

So, what will happen? I simply can't see the EU going anywhere in it's current form.

Good riddle. Perhaps the Euros need to tone down the rhetoric on American stupidity, eh? ;)

Which is why the EU needs to do something about it. Either go with the "big 4" languages, or adopt something neutral, or keep the EU as an economic unit only. The EU simply cannot wield any real international credibility until it can speak with a unified foreign policy and military. And that won't happen at this rate.

BTW: Your English is exceptionally good.

Actually, most of the founders spoke several languages, most of them French or German plus Latin and Greek.

Latin. It's the basis of most of the continent. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania... Add in it's huge effect on English and you gain Great Britain, Ireland and Malta. No, it doesn't do much for the German speakers nor the Slavs. But the Slavs might go for it anyway, because except for the Poles, none of them has any expectation of being treated as being very important linguistically anyway.

Well, there is that whole Christianity thing, but that seems to be out of fashion.

I have never been one to make fun of the Americans for not being able to speak another language. I always have a good laugh when I hear some of my friends attempt to speak English. When they come to visit me, I am often the one that ends up speaking for everyone. But it is not that odd that I will speak English with my follow students, go meet up with my friends and speak French and then go home to study and listen to Radio Cymru in Welsh. It is very rare that I only speak one language all day long.

I don’t think that we would be able to settle on the big 4 as you say. I have friends that work for Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales) who are very happy that the Plaid representatives in the European Parliament can speak in Welsh. I don’t think if you can convince them that it is okay to speak English there, that it would be too easy to get all the nations in the EU to move to 4 languages. Then again, I could almost envision a world a long way in the future where only 3 languages exist, English plus Welsh and French because we both are so protective of our languages. There is a reason that so many French people come to university in Wales. :)

I think there will be able to have something in way of a core EU with deep integration partly because of the language issues makes such integration on EU-wide level.

There is, of course, the democracy issue as well. There is only a very small minority that wants a federal EU so how do you impose a regime on a people that don’t what it? If you were able set up framework the regime, I would imagine that most people would vote of a party that pledges to dissolve it and re-establish the old nation-states.

Thanks for your complement on my English; I would like to think that is good as I have lived in Wales for most of the time the past 4 years, but I am not so sure. You should tell that to the man that as proofreads my work, who complains about my English sounding like ‘foreign English’.

I suppose that my definition is slightly different than yours. I meant that the EU made impossible to have war between the member nations. It does not necessary mean something militarily to me. There are many ways to prevent war other than have troops stand between the two sides.

Yes. Except that every member of the EU was already in NATO for most of the EU’s history. Even today, who’s an exception besides Sweden?
Peace = absence of military conflict.
:rolleyes: Really? Did your President Mitterand keep the peace by not allowing US jets to fly over when bombing Libya? All of his policies turned Paris into the most attacked capital in Europe during the 80s! He’d have been better off by taking a more militant stand.

Iraq? The Iraq War was totally unnecessary. If it was for humanitarian reasons, it should have happened when the genocide happened, not several years later. Iraq was a threat to no one; he had been contained since the first Gulf War.

Sort of. The minor detail that the entire planet had the same intelligence is what disturbs me. In hindsight, yes it was not really necessary. However, IF (and I'm giving 2 in 5 odds here) Iraq straightens out over the next decade, it will be the biggest "rehabilitation" of a nation since Japan.

Saddam Hussein was not a good leader but anyone’s definition, but there are far worse dictators in the world that no one does anything about.

Yep. Including France and the EU. You still haven't answered about France's total lack of policy to HELP the world. The US gets bashed when it intervenes (Iraq), and when it does nothing (Sudan). I wish the world would make up its mind.

If anything the Iraq War did more damage than help, giving a place for terrorists to go where there is little control and making those nations that participated targets.

I disagree. It has attracted would-be terrorists to Iraq like a magnet, keeping them from doing anything anywhere else. That's a good thing.

As for targets: Please explain why Iraq precipitates attacks and Afghanistan doesn't. It would seem to ME that since Afghanistan had a clerical/absolutist government that was FAVORABLE to the Taleban & Al Queda that they'd have gone on a terror attack over THAT.

Sounds more like wishful thinking on the part of those that want to see the US & Allies lose face.

The US removed one of the few secular regimes in the area. Hussein would not allow the terrorists in his country because they were against him since they believe all secular regimes are evil and should be destroyed so they were just as much out to get him as the West.


Dude. He was aiding and bankrolling Palestinian terror cells! http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/December/19%20o/Saddam%20and%20Palestine%20By%20Daoud%20Kuttab.htm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/11/18/2003211541

I don’t mind a little political fire for doing something to keep the peace. However, the force in Ivory Coast, as I said before, had only a limited role by the UN mandate. It is important to keep the peace but it is also important to respect the international law if you expect others to do so in return.

Ah. So you don't think France should go out of it's way to help others. I see. As a Permanent Security Council member, France could at any time have brought up resolutions to expand the UN role.
Or, France could have done something really crazy, and actually DONE something it its own name.
Respect international law?!? Like how the Liberian mercenaries did?
http://author.voanews.com/english/2005-07-07-voa60.cfm

Boston to me seemed more European to me than most places in the US; however, I still feel more comfortable in London than in the US. I don’t believe that UK gets anymore American culture than France does. You find as many American TV shows (granted there are dubbed into French) and as much American music in France as you do on British TV. The US just has a lot of cultural influence on most of Europe from talking to other Europeans about what they see on TV and hear on the radio.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was going about it the other way: I see a lot more British influence in the US than French.

That and de Gaulle saw it was more practical to have nuclear weapons for France to protect herself. Since the US would not give them to France, France had to focus more of the military spending on that rather than conventional weapons. It gave France the ability exercise a foreign policy independent of the US or the USSR.

:confused: And that happened in what reality? Please tell me what was different in French foreign policy after it acquired the bomb. Really. I don't recall France striking out on it's own and doing much of anything.

If the US is only paying 23%, are you saying that the Canadians are paying the other 77%? Per capita, many of the EU nations pay much more into NATO than the US does.

Did you look at the site? It lists every member's budgetary spending into NATO. I’m not saying that the Canadians are paying 77%, I’m saying that the US is footing over 1/5th of the bill.
If you’re saying the US doesn’t want the Europeans as equal partners, could it be because we’re paying the most? Aside from the UK, the rest are slacking!
BTW: I read the chart wrong. If you add up all three columns, the US is paying nearly 26%.

As for the "per capita" argument: The US spent $1.51/citizen. Germany spent $3.76/citizen. France spent $1.29/citizen. Netherlands spent $4.94 and Greece spent $1.00. It doesn't seem out of whack to me, given also the manpower and logistics that each also provides. Now, if someone was spending like $15/citizen, that'd be much more.
This also doesn't take into account the benefits the European members get: Germany alone gets $12 BILLION/year in rent monies from the US!

The US is a bigger nation; therefore will have a big military. It is silly to imagine Luxembourg can produce the same size military as a nation the size of the US. France, Germany, and the Benelux countries are working towards closer integration in military integration ahead of the rest of the EU; together is about 38% NATO’s budget far more than the US despite the smaller population.

Of course I don't expect any of the individual European nations to field anything near the US military. That'd be absurd.
However, that lack of manpower and spending is a major problem for the EU: It STILL won't be taken seriously, as it can't actually deploy anything to anywhere very quickly. Nevermind that without a real (federal) Constitution, it will never have a unified diplomatic policy and will be split as the Polish were when they had the Liberum Veto.

I get the impression often from the American government that they take American hegemony for granted. Many Europeans feel that they are controlled by the US through or the US always tries to and then tries to pretend that they don’t want us as allies anymore when Europe thinks that the action is wrong and refuses to go along, such as Iraq. I don’t think that there will be a massive EU wide defence because of the UK, and that is why it is necessary to push forward with our relationship with those nations are that more committed to this goal rather than waiting around for the others. This is different than the rapid reaction force.

Not for granted. But we do kind of enjoy it. ;) Seriously: the wide majority of Americans never leave the country. Most of them don’t know the difference between Vienna and Venice. (Scares the life out of me, sometimes.)

Please cite examples. I'm fascinated to learn HOW the US is actually controlling anything, as we rarely even plan ahead/control ourselves.
Europe went to Iraq: We were very happy to have the UK, Poland, Italy and Spain with us, along with the support of other nations, including Slovakia.
The chocolate producing countries =/= Europe! This is a major piece of arrogance that is worthy of the same jibes made towards America.
I speak to my cousins in Slovakia and Poland frequently. The common perception there is that France seeks to speak for Europe without being responsible for Europe. And, they've not forgotten how France totally failed to come to their aid sixty years ago and instead chose to build and hide behind the Maginot Line. Had France built a mighty tank and artillery and airforce to match the Army, it’d have been able to hold off the Blitzkrieg in 1940, and with the other allies likely destroy Nazi Germany in the same year.

I have seen a lot of the Midwest and New England because I have relatives there; we went on vacation in August there most summers (yes, I know the stereotype that the French almost always go on vacation to friends or relatives is my family.). To me Boston, Chicago, New York and Indianapolis are not that different.

I can see how Chicago and New York are similar. Boston however, has a very different feel to it... and didn’t you say you found it to be the most Euro city here?
I've only been to Indianapolis once, so I really can't speak for it. In way of comparison, I really don't see much of a huge difference between Antwerp, Luxembourg, and Dusseldorf. Or between Kosice, Prague and Krakow. Maybe it's a geography thing.

I have only been to Florida once and out in the West twice. Things look somewhat different but the culture is very much the same.

It depends where you go and what you do. If you stay in the touristy areas, sure, it's similar. The same way any cities are. There is of course an American identity. By the same token, go sightseeing in Vienna and sightseeing in Berlin or even Paris. Culturally, all three cities are quite rich, yet you'll find they are all fairly similar: porn is much more acceptable, huge cathedrals, an area of cobblestone streets, beer in the pubs is more expensive in the touristy area, etc.

It sound like to me that you talking about multiculturalism, you certainly have that in the UK. The cities I have lived in there are many Kurds, Greeks, Pakistanis, French, Brazilians, Chinese, etc, and I have only lived in Wales, which is hardly concerned the culture capital like London. The biggest city, the capital Cardiff/Caerdydd, is about 270,000 people. There are certainly more nationalities than the Welsh, Scots, English and Irish in the UK.

Certainly. And the US has about 280 different nationalities. I live near Bridgeport, CT. On one street I can hear Polish, Slovak, Spanish, Viet Namese, Hindi, Russian, Portugese, Ukranian, Jamaican, Italian, and Hungarian. And it's not a very big city. New York City? They’ve got everything. So does Los Angeles and Chicago to lesser degrees. The Cuban section of Miami and the French Quarter in New Orleans are VERY different. My point simply is that life in the US isn’t an episode of Dallas or The Simpsons or whatever.

You are referring to Llywelyn who the English defeated in the 1280, and the English kidnapped his daughter so that she would not be able take her birthright. However, Wales did still have some independence under the Marcher lords, or the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr would not really been able to happen in 1400. The Acts of Union between England and Wales did not happen until the 1500s. I remember having to learn all of this in my Welsh classes. I think I have the children’s book on Llywelyn we used in somewhere.

Interesting! I (of course) never studied it in that much detail. Thanks.

You think that if I could only speak Lithuanian that I could really get a driver’s licence doing in Lithuanian? The only two people I know that have tried to get green cards told me that you can’t get a green card unless you speak English. So that sounds to me like an official language even if it is not a law. I would assume that in order to get a job or driver’s license in the US that you need a green card.

Yes. My father's friend took it in Slovak. He even has a Social Security Card, even though he's NOT a US citizen and doesn't speak English.

Nope. Getting a driver's license does not necessarily require a green card. The license is a state document; the green card is a federal one.

The GDP per capita of Slovakia is lower than those nations. Italy’s GDP is $27,700, France $28,700, Germany $28,700, Slovakia $14,500. Even the lower than the low end of the Eurozone economies Greece ($21,300) and Portugal ($17,900) are have a significantly larger GDP, according to that CIA site you posted earlier. I would not prefer not to even have Greece and Portugal in the core. I don’t equate being in the Eurozone to being in the core. I think it has to do with deeper integration, militarily, economically, politically and with the lower GDP, they are not able contribute as well as others so I would like nations close to the level of France and Germany.

...but there aren't any. France, Italy and Germany are the "big boys" on the EU block. You've got to contend with the smaller and poorer areas of your own economic union the same way we do.
Compare New York to New Mexico. Or California to Wyoming. It's the same thing. Yet every state brings something to the mix. This a reason as to why the US has been strong economically.
Also, things change over time. No one ever thought that Arizona would amount to very much.

Germany is changing is its immigration laws so that those that move to Germany can become German citizen more easily without having to be married to a German. I think that will also be an issue that will be dealt with more as that France and Germany are working on merging their systems of citizenship. Germany has its idea of citizenship through blood, but in France, it is by birth, and it is easier to get French citizenship than British for immigrants. I would imagine that arrangement would force the Germans to loosen up their citizenship standards even more. Especially as that blood as citizenship would be hard to define, France is an ethnically mixed nation, something like 1/3 of the nation has at least one foreign born grandparent.

:confused: Are you telling me that France and Germany are working to form a common citizenry? If so, that kind of blows your "keeping our culture" argument out of the water.

I think that someone needs to enforce international law but that can be one nation or a small group of nations such as NATO or the EU; it should be the UN. Yes, the UN does need reform so that it can enforce the laws that it makes, but I think that constructive proposals need to be made in order to do this instead of destroying it or making it a slave to any one group be it the US or Europe.

And that’s what happens now. Unfortunately, it’s not applied evenly. Almost everybody has presence in Afghanistan, but few in the Congo or Iraq.

Personally, I’d like to see the Permanent seats on the council expanded to include Japan, India, Brazil, and Germany. I’d also like to see the majority vote (by a margin of 2) win. (So a 6-3 vote would pass, a 5-4 would not.)

Then why did you say that the EU as a contribution to humanity should be dependent on European Constitution?

I didn’t. I just pointed out that so far, there hasn’t been an EU contribution to humanity, and that this is likely to continue until the EU has a federal constitution… it is still just a trade consortium.

In France, the official language is French. The Catalans can speak Catalan with each other if they wish but if they want to deal with the French government, they must use French. I don’t think that there are many people that live in France that don’t speak French other maybe some of the Brits that have immigrated to France or from other places in the EU. Sure, the Parisians are different than the Catalans, but they are different than everyone. But seriously, I have more in common with a French Catalan than a Hungarian that does not speak French or English as that we would not be able to communicate.

And that, like the printing of one’s own currency, is a sacrifice that has to be made on some level. You still mint coins, but only one side is “French”. Likewise, for federal issues, a USE would have to have an official language. It’s not politically correct, but it’s a necessity. And the way I see it, only English or German are serious contenders, unless Latin or Esperanto is chosen.

I know that I experience more of other cultures than my grandparents do but I also live in Wales most of the time. I think that I am a bit of an exception; most of my friends in France, if they do have the Internet, don’t read pages in English. More young people are like me now and go and study in another EU country as that the EU helps us do that financially. Therefore, the internet is more my way of getting French media most of the time. The only French newspaper I can find without going to the university library is Le Monde so if I want to know what is happening in France I read the French media online in French. :D

So you’re becoming a European citizen. My cousins have spent time in Denmark over their summer breaks (one is going for a Doctorate, the others are going for their University Diplomas), working. It’s becoming more and more common, and will likely continue thus.

Yes, the instant access of the ‘Net is tres cool. My father though it was the greatest thing in the world when I tuned in the World Cup (Hockey) on Realplayer for him when I stopped by his house one Sunday. I’m proud to say that the guy who wouldn’t enter the room the computer was in during the 80s will now fire up Explorer and read Pravda and Novy Cas on his own...

(Side note: Have you ever been to Portmerion? I’m a big fan of the old TV series “The Prisoner”, and have always wanted to go there.)

But I still don’t feel that my fears are unfounded, look at what is happening at the Danish language. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3049669.stm

Yep. It’ll eventually be a niche language like Navajo or Creole. Languages go extinct all the time. Manx died in 1974 (they’re trying to revive it, but the last native speaker died without ever speaking to anyone still alive). There’s a whole list of dead languages here:
It’s not great, but it happens with time.

No, as there are things that are dealt better with on the regional or local level, there are things are better dealt with on the national level. I think that what de Gaulle wanted to do with Senate reform and giving more powers to regional government would have been ideal in my view. It would hardly made President or the National Assembly powerless, but it would have given more power to the regions.

So… let’s see… in a USE, you’d have local level politics (ala Alsasce or Normandie), then state government (France), then national government (USE). Rather like being in Fairfax County, which is part of Virginia, which is part of the USA.
…Sorry, I’m still not understanding why you consider that a bad thing. :D

England tried to make the Welsh, Scots, and Irish assimilate. The Revolution in France wiped out most of the linguistic difference. The Spanish and Portuguese in their colonies propagated there languages and their religion in South America. The fascist regimes in Europe tried to isolate what was not seen of the nation.

Right. And in NONE of the examples I sited was there the tolerance you posted…

I have never been one to make fun of the Americans for not being able to speak another language. I always have a good laugh when I hear some of my friends attempt to speak English. When they come to visit me, I am often the one that ends up speaking for everyone. But it is not that odd that I will speak English with my follow students, go meet up with my friends and speak French and then go home to study and listen to Radio Cymru in Welsh. It is very rare that I only speak one language all day long.

:cool:

I don’t think that we would be able to settle on the big 4 as you say. I have friends that work for Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales) who are very happy that the Plaid representatives in the European Parliament can speak in Welsh. I don’t think if you can convince them that it is okay to speak English there, that it would be too easy to get all the nations in the EU to move to 4 languages. Then again, I could almost envision a world a long way in the future where only 3 languages exist, English plus Welsh and French because we both are so protective of our languages. There is a reason that so many French people come to university in Wales. :)

It can’t continue. Can you imagine translating Slovak into Welsh? :(
Cute idea, but I think South America would have something to say about that… along with those little places like China & India.

Consider this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4703289.stm
"At press conferences at the European Commission, it can take two minutes just to flick through the 20 different language channels. It is a veritable Tower of Babel."

I think there will be able to have something in way of a core EU with deep integration partly because of the language issues makes such integration on EU-wide level.

Unless a language of governance is adopted. That’s why I still keep coming back to Latin or Esperanto. ;)

There is, of course, the democracy issue as well. There is only a very small minority that wants a federal EU so how do you impose a regime on a people that don’t what it? If you were able set up framework the regime, I would imagine that most people would vote of a party that pledges to dissolve it and re-establish the old nation-states.

It’s going to take generations. It did here in the US. They guys that signed the Constitution weren’t even mostly the ones that fought in the wars on the American Frontier in the 1750s.

Probably. You can argue that’s what American politics has turned into since 2000. The trouble with a society where everything is available at an instant is that so few are willing to compromise. I’ve waited four hours to get through customs before. I can’t wrap my head around people that find four minutes too long to be in a drive though window at a bank.

Thanks for your complement on my English; I would like to think that is good as I have lived in Wales for most of the time the past 4 years, but I am not so sure. You should tell that to the man that as proofreads my work, who complains about my English sounding like ‘foreign English’.

Not at all, it is the truth.

That’s okay. I’m sure he’d complain about mine as well… after all, it’s not Her Majesty’s English. I’ve been regaled more than once when I’ve been in London that us Yanks are ruining the mother tongue.
I don’t think so, of course, but we’re probably contributing to their waistlines with all the McDonalds and Starbucks everywhere…

Wow, even on Bastille Day the Busheviks have to go out of their way to piss all over the French.

:rolleyes:

As for everyone else, Joyeux Jour de Bastille!

They had really classy fireworks in Strasbourg last week and some mightily good beer too!

More than week later and this thread is still being kicked around?

Geez, guys, start another thread. This is like discussing whether Santa is Republican or Democrat (after New Year's, on a thread called 'The Night Before Christmas').

It's stale. Move on. If you Americans still want to taunt Frenchmen, just come right out with a thread dedicated to the task, already.

More than week later and this thread is still being kicked around?

Geez, guys, start another thread. This is like discussing whether Santa is Republican or Democrat (after New Year's, on a thread called 'The Night Before Christmas').

It's stale. Move on. If you Americans still want to taunt Frenchmen, just come right out with a thread dedicated to the task, already.

You have my persmission to unsubscribe. :D

Yes. Except that every member of the EU was already in NATO for most of the EU’s history. Even today, who’s an exception besides Sweden?
Peace = absence of military conflict.
:rolleyes: Really? Did your President Mitterand keep the peace by not allowing US jets to fly over when bombing Libya? All of his policies turned Paris into the most attacked capital in Europe during the 80s! He’d have been better off by taking a more militant stand.

Non-NATO EU members of the old EU 15, Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden. http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
I am not that fond of Mitterrand, so I am not the best person to defend him. I was not old enough to vote for him back then, but I don’t think that he had the best judgement at times. I do disagree with his decision to not allowing the Americans to do anything about an obvious terrorist regime like the Libyans, especially as they took many French lives in down another airliner.

Sort of. The minor detail that the entire planet had the same intelligence is what disturbs me. In hindsight, yes it was not really necessary. However, IF (and I'm giving 2 in 5 odds here) Iraq straightens out over the next decade, it will be the biggest "rehabilitation" of a nation since Japan.

However, if everyone had this intelligence of the Iraqi weapons, why didn’t just give to the UN inspectors? It was intelligence that was obviously too unclear to direct the inspectors to a site with weapons. President Chirac even told Hans Blix, “The intelligence services sometimes ‘intoxicate each other’.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4465820 So I don’t think that everyone so convinced.

I don’t think that you can compare Iraq and Japan. The problem with Iraq is that it is ethnically split nation. Japan is more or less homogenous. I think that it is one of the reasons that Germans was able to be rehabilitated too. You have 3 different groups that do not like each other in Iraq. The many of the Sunni Kurds would like to have their own country, which if they did manage to break off would be a massive issue for the region as that there are many Kurds outside the Iraq borders who probably would want to break of their nations and join. It could not only destabilise countries that are not favourable to the West like Syria and Iran, but Turkey. If Turkey goes into civil war, who knows how long it will be before that Turkey could get in a position to join the EU and could turn them away from the West. There is the issue that the Sunni Arabs in the country, a minority, had been oppressing the larger Shiite population. These could be a problem when the ‘coalition’ withdraws from the nation. As well, the many of the Shiites are interested in closer relations with Iran; I don’t know about you, but that makes me a bit nervous to have a possible second Iran in the region.

Yep. Including France and the EU. You still haven't answered about France's total lack of policy to HELP the world. The US gets bashed when it intervenes (Iraq), and when it does nothing (Sudan). I wish the world would make up its mind.

That is because the US is seen as picking and choosing on the basis of what can get them something. Iraq has resources that the Americans want, as does Afghanistan. Sudan and Zimbabwe don’t.

I don’t think that France has total lack of policy to help the world. France gives almost 3 times in foreign aid as a percentage of GDP than the US. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/61/31504039.pdf France has troops in Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo; they are the biggest part of the UN force in Ivory Coast. They were on a peacekeeping mission in Democratic Republic of Congo and moved troops to the Sudanese border to protect refugee camps.

I disagree. It has attracted would-be terrorists to Iraq like a magnet, keeping them from doing anything anywhere else. That's a good thing.

As for targets: Please explain why Iraq precipitates attacks and Afghanistan doesn't. It would seem to ME that since Afghanistan had a clerical/absolutist government that was FAVORABLE to the Taleban & Al Queda that they'd have gone on a terror attack over THAT.

Sounds more like wishful thinking on the part of those that want to see the US & Allies lose face.

Afghanistan is not criticised because Taliban allowed for terrorist training camps in their country. They allow Osama bin Laden to stay in their country, who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 11 September. Most nations agreed that something needed to be done about Afghanistan; the US went against the international community’s wishes by going into Iraq.

I don’t believe that the attacks on Madrid or London would have happened if they did participate in Iraq. Iraq certainly did not attract those would be terrorists. Al-Qaeda even said that it would attack those that were part of the Iraq war because they say it as evidence of US and its allies wanting to the Muslim world. I don’t think that it is good thing that innocent Iraqis are getting killed by the terrorists because of the occupation and the desire by some to start a civil war between the different groups in Iraq.

Dude. He was aiding and bankrolling Palestinian terror cells! http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/December/19%20o/Saddam%20and%20Palestine%20By%20Daoud%20Kuttab.htm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/11/18/2003211541

I should have been clearer; he was against Al-Qaeda and other those that would have attacked in Iraq. It is not good that he was funding Palestinian terrorists, but Iraq is not the only nation guilty of that.

Ah. So you don't think France should go out of it's way to help others. I see. As a Permanent Security Council member, France could at any time have brought up resolutions to expand the UN role.
Or, France could have done something really crazy, and actually DONE something it its own name.
Respect international law?!? Like how the Liberian mercenaries did?
http://author.voanews.com/english/2005-07-07-voa60.cfm

It is not so much the Security Council that could make the reforms that I think are necessary. I am under the impression that such reform would have to go through other institutions in the UN where more nations participate. I know that current Prime Minister is an advocate of UN reform, and I would be surprised that if it was possible to make the reform through the Security Council because he would have proposed them when he was foreign minister.

It is clear the government in Ivory Coast has been less than respectful of international law. However, unless the peacekeeping forces are in the area when this happens, it difficult for them to do much about, especially if these mercenaries went back to Liberia. The troops have a very limited mandate there. Even if the French government decided to go beyond that mandate, there is the issue that it is a former colony and they would have to be careful to not cross into the perceived view that they are going back to colonialism.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was going about it the other way: I see a lot more British influence in the US than French.

Well, that might make for a nicer view of the Brits in the US, but I know people in the UK that get harassed for being American or though to be American. Poor Canadians! You would be surprised. I have seen far more anti-US sentiment in the UK than I do in most places in France. The French might not like the US government but most people won’t go up to Americans and harass them. I have seen that here in Britain with a couple of my friends when people find that they are American.

:confused: And that happened in what reality? Please tell me what was different in French foreign policy after it acquired the bomb. Really. I don't recall France striking out on it's own and doing much of anything.

It gave France the ability to pursue relations outside of NATO. France was able to have a relationship with the Communist nations during the Cold War. The Soviets certainly would not have cared what the French had to say if they were just seen as pawns of the US and were not able to provide some sort of defence for themselves.

Did you look at the site? It lists every member's budgetary spending into NATO. I’m not saying that the Canadians are paying 77%, I’m saying that the US is footing over 1/5th of the bill.
If you’re saying the US doesn’t want the Europeans as equal partners, could it be because we’re paying the most? Aside from the UK, the rest are slacking!
BTW: I read the chart wrong. If you add up all three columns, the US is paying nearly 26%.

As for the "per capita" argument: The US spent $1.51/citizen. Germany spent $3.76/citizen. France spent $1.29/citizen. Netherlands spent $4.94 and Greece spent $1.00. It doesn't seem out of whack to me, given also the manpower and logistics that each also provides. Now, if someone was spending like $15/citizen, that'd be much more.
This also doesn't take into account the benefits the European members get: Germany alone gets $12 BILLION/year in rent monies from the US!

Of course I don't expect any of the individual European nations to field anything near the US military. That'd be absurd.
However, that lack of manpower and spending is a major problem for the EU: It STILL won't be taken seriously, as it can't actually deploy anything to anywhere very quickly. Nevermind that without a real (federal) Constitution, it will never have a unified diplomatic policy and will be split as the Polish were when they had the Liberum Veto.


What I am saying if the US only paying 26%, I don’t see how that means that Europe and Canada are not keeping their end of the deal. It seems to me if they are paying about 74% they are being equal partners to me. As for the German bases, I thought that the Americans were planning on pulling out many of their bases of Germany in the next few years. Just as well for the Americans, the reason that I have heard from Germans the most from Germans that don’t like Americans is the way that the American military acts in their country. Troops idle in another country where they are not really needed often leads to trouble.

I don’t see why there needs to a federal system to have a unified military and foreign policy between a few nations. This one of the reason that I think there will be a two or three speed Europe. No one wants to have a federal system so that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

Not for granted. But we do kind of enjoy it. ;) Seriously: the wide majority of Americans never leave the country. Most of them don’t know the difference between Vienna and Venice. (Scares the life out of me, sometimes.)

Please cite examples. I'm fascinated to learn HOW the US is actually controlling anything, as we rarely even plan ahead/control ourselves.
Europe went to Iraq: We were very happy to have the UK, Poland, Italy and Spain with us, along with the support of other nations, including Slovakia.
The chocolate producing countries =/= Europe! This is a major piece of arrogance that is worthy of the same jibes made towards America.

Hmm… do they not teach geography then? In France, I don’t think you could have finished secondary school without knowing what the capitals are of most countries. Not everyone know where some smaller city is in the US but I am sure that most French people would know where LA, Chicago, New York, and Washington DC are.

Anyway, I am not saying that US is actually controlling anything that it is doing in foreign policy because to me as you said it doesn’t really seem to be sure where it is going enough to point others to what to do. But the European nations that did not go along with the Iraq saw the US as hostile towards them because they were frustrated that they did not control them. Remember “Forgive Russia, Ignore Germany, Punish France” or the whole ‘freedom’ fries and “freedom” toast or dumping French wine down the drain (BTW: Thanks to people that did that as that you already had paid for the wine! We already had your money! Though it was a bit wasteful, if you didn’t want anymore, you should have shipped to me, I would have disposed of it properly.). Or Bush’s whole thing that, “You are for us, or you are against us.” All this things give many Europeans the impression that US thinks if its allies don’t do as they wish, they are their enemies.

I speak to my cousins in Slovakia and Poland frequently. The common perception there is that France seeks to speak for Europe without being responsible for Europe. And, they've not forgotten how France totally failed to come to their aid sixty years ago and instead chose to build and hide behind the Maginot Line. Had France built a mighty tank and artillery and airforce to match the Army, it’d have been able to hold off the Blitzkrieg in 1940, and with the other allies likely destroy Nazi Germany in the same year.

See what happens when you don’t listen to de Gaulle? :D He advocated that France should have a tank force with air force backing for many years before the war. People just insulted him for it. Anyway, sadly, you can’t go back in time and make them listen to him. Well, I don’t think that France has forgotten what had happened for the most part now. It is a shame that it took until Chirac to apologise for Vichy, but I suppose that for awhile it was hard to be able and for France to reassert herself and of course, Mitterrand did not want to talk about because of his role in the war. There are some sick people like Le Pen that would like to make it not seem like a big deal, but I feel that they are still a minority.

I can see how Chicago and New York are similar. Boston however, has a very different feel to it... and didn’t you say you found it to be the most Euro city here?
I've only been to Indianapolis once, so I really can't speak for it. In way of comparison, I really don't see much of a huge difference between Antwerp, Luxembourg, and Dusseldorf. Or between Kosice, Prague and Krakow. Maybe it's a geography thing.
It depends where you go and what you do. If you stay in the touristy areas, sure, it's similar. The same way any cities are. There is of course an American identity. By the same token, go sightseeing in Vienna and sightseeing in Berlin or even Paris. Culturally, all three cities are quite rich, yet you'll find they are all fairly similar: porn is much more acceptable, huge cathedrals, an area of cobblestone streets, beer in the pubs is more expensive in the touristy area, etc.


Boston was more European looking that the other places to me, but it was less different to the other American cities to me than the different cities in Europe. Sure, where I am from in Alps is very similar to French speaking part of Switzerland in many ways, especially as that we were one of the last to enter the French state and were part of the same kingdom for a long time, but Greece or Sweden are very different, even Spain feels very foreign to me. The border areas are more similar, but as you go more from nation to nation, it is very different.

Certainly. And the US has about 280 different nationalities. I live near Bridgeport, CT. On one street I can hear Polish, Slovak, Spanish, Viet Namese, Hindi, Russian, Portugese, Ukranian, Jamaican, Italian, and Hungarian. And it's not a very big city. New York City? They’ve got everything. So does Los Angeles and Chicago to lesser degrees. The Cuban section of Miami and the French Quarter in New Orleans are VERY different. My point simply is that life in the US isn’t an episode of Dallas or The Simpsons or whatever.

I don’t think that US is like what is seen on TV. Though sadly, a lot of people do, which should be scarier with the UK as that they get Jerry Springer and other such shows. It is no wonder that some many Brits seem to think the Americans are not too intelligent. I don’t think that though that the UK is less diverse than the US. There are less major cities by the nature of size difference but London, Birmingham, etc are just a diverse as major cities in the US.

Yes. My father's friend took it in Slovak. He even has a Social Security Card, even though he's NOT a US citizen and doesn't speak English.

Nope. Getting a driver's license does not necessarily require a green card. The license is a state document; the green card is a federal one.

How did he get in the US for long enough to do a driver’s license in the US without a green card? Or are there not many restrictions on that? Sorry, for asking a lot of questions about that it is just puzzling to me because I have been told to be in the US for more than 3 months you need a visa of some kind. Isn’t Social Security something to one gets if one is working but don’t you need a green card to work if you are not a citizen? I am guessing that he is not a citizen as that he does not speak English.

...but there aren't any. France, Italy and Germany are the "big boys" on the EU block. You've got to contend with the smaller and poorer areas of your own economic union the same way we do.
Compare New York to New Mexico. Or California to Wyoming. It's the same thing. Yet every state brings something to the mix. This a reason as to why the US has been strong economically.
Also, things change over time. No one ever thought that Arizona would amount to very much.

I don’t think that you can have a fully integrated federal EU with 25, 27 or whatever it expands to, as that there are many languages more that simple multiculturalism as within nations themselves. You could have a confederal when you have a few nations with a few languages. I doubt that most people would be willing to let their language to be made second class. If you are going to have a deeper integration with the language issues, it is best to do with it countries that are economically similar.

:confused: Are you telling me that France and Germany are working to form a common citizenry? If so, that kind of blows your "keeping our culture" argument out of the water.

They are supposed to harmonise citizenship law and have a common passport. That doesn’t mean that the Germans are going to be forced to learn French or the French learn German. Nor does it mean that suddenly the German history textbooks are going start by saying, “Our ancestors, the Gauls…” I say it this way because France will overtake Germany in population within the next 50 years with the current population statistics .

Personally, I’d like to see the Permanent seats on the council expanded to include Japan, India, Brazil, and Germany. I’d also like to see the majority vote (by a margin of 2) win. (So a 6-3 vote would pass, a 5-4 would not.)

I would like to see this as well, but unfortunately the US said no to Germany so I think that this is proposal has been taken off the table.

I didn’t. I just pointed out that so far, there hasn’t been an EU contribution to humanity, and that this is likely to continue until the EU has a federal constitution… it is still just a trade consortium.

But like I have said before that the EU does more than just trade. If it did not, why on would Switzerland, who has no problem being part of the European Free Trade Area, not want to be part of the EU? Certainly, Canada, because of NAFTA, could not tell the US and Mexico that their workers are not allowed to work anymore 48 hours a week. The EU has many rules that regulate more than just trade, but human rights, workers’ rights, environmental law, agricultural regulations, etc.

And that, like the printing of one’s own currency, is a sacrifice that has to be made on some level. You still mint coins, but only one side is “French”. Likewise, for federal issues, a USE would have to have an official language. It’s not politically correct, but it’s a necessity. And the way I see it, only English or German are serious contenders, unless Latin or Esperanto is chosen.

I don’t think you could do it is all that I am saying. I don’t think anyone would accept such a government. No one in France would want to have a government that is run solely in English telling them what to do, no more than any other nation wants to be dominated by another language. Not only does it give an unfair advantage to the nation that people are native speakers, I don’t see how people can trust a government that is normally not speaking the same language that they do.

(Side note: Have you ever been to Portmerion? I’m a big fan of the old TV series “The Prisoner”, and have always wanted to go there.)

No, I have been mostly in the south of Wales. I have been to only to a few places in the North because it is very hard to get north and south in Wales without a car. I think the closest I have been is Bangor.

Yep. It’ll eventually be a niche language like Navajo or Creole. Languages go extinct all the time. Manx died in 1974 (they’re trying to revive it, but the last native speaker died without ever speaking to anyone still alive). There’s a whole list of dead languages here:
It’s not great, but it happens with time.

I don’t think that many people in Europe would want put the EU in a direction that would bring an end to their language. There are probably some countries that are not considered about the effects to their language and their culture but I think that many countries when it comes down to a decision like that you will see a massive nationalist backlash. For example, the leader of Plaid Cymru starved himself for the language back in 1980, finally Thatcher gave in when she released that he would let himself die of starvation if she did not given. Imagine if you are dealing with tens of millions of people in each country instead of the hundreds of thousands of Welsh speakers in one.

It can’t continue. Can you imagine translating Slovak into Welsh? :(
Cute idea, but I think South America would have something to say about that… along with those little places like China & India.

Consider this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4703289.stm
"At press conferences at the European Commission, it can take two minutes just to flick through the 20 different language channels. It is a veritable Tower of Babel."

Unless a language of governance is adopted. That’s why I still keep coming back to Latin or Esperanto. ;)

It happens though. I have joked with my friends if something bad happens and for some reason I was not able to a PhD, I would try to get a job in Brussels translating Welsh to French. I don’t see how you can eliminate it at this stage. Like I said before, few countries are going to willing to have their language sacrificed. It would be even more difficult to adopt something like Latin or Esperanto because not only, the populations of the countries do not speak the languages, neither do the elites. At least if you had the ‘big 4’ as you suggested it before the Eurocrats and the national politicians are likely to speak one of the languages.

It’s going to take generations. It did here in the US. They guys that signed the Constitution weren’t even mostly the ones that fought in the wars on the American Frontier in the 1750s.

Probably. You can argue that’s what American politics has turned into since 2000. The trouble with a society where everything is available at an instant is that so few are willing to compromise. I’ve waited four hours to get through customs before. I can’t wrap my head around people that find four minutes too long to be in a drive though window at a bank.

I think in some ways that the EU will continue to get closer but I am sure there will not be a federal Europe in my lifetime nor in my future children’s nor grandchildren’s lifetimes. I think, if it does come about, a federal Europe will not be for at least another 200 years. It has taken over 50 years to get this far, think about how long it would take to have a USE.