NationStates Jolt Archive

I was searching around on the internet and I found this article, it's interesting(all misspellings were done by me to get around the filter on my comp, for the entire article minus the misspellings click the link):

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16110719%255E28737,00.html

Let's face facts, Europe's being run by cowards
Mathias Doepfner
August 01, 2005
THE writer Henryk Broder recently issued a withering indictment: Europe, your family name is appeasement. That phrase resonates because it is so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements.

Later, appeasement legitimised and stabilised communism in the Soviet Union, then in East Germany, then throughout the rest of Eastern Europe, where for several decades inhuman, repressive and murdrous governments were glorified.

Appeasement similarly crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Bosnia and Kosovo. Indeed, even though we had absolute proof of continuing mass murdr there, we Europeans debated and debated, and then debated still more. We were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, to do our work for us.

Europe still hasn't learned. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word equidistance, often seems to countenance suicde b0mbings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's and murdr machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.

This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions - indeed, tens of billions - of dollars in the corrupt UN oil-for-food program.

Today we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating by Islamic fundamentalists in The Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere in Europe? By suggesting - wait for it - that the proper response to such barbarism is to initiate a Muslim holiday in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of Germany's Government - and, if polls are to be believed, the German people -- actually believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich, waving that laughable treaty signed by Adolf H!tler, and declaring the advent of peace in our time.

What atrocity must occur before the European public and its political leadership understands what is really happening in the world? There is a sort of crusade under way; an especially perfidious campaign consisting of systematic attacks by Islamists, focused on civilians, that is directed against our free, open Western societies, and that is intent on their utter destruction.

We find ourselves faced with a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military clashes of the last century, a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation because that enemy is actually spurred on by such gestures. Such responses have proven to be signs of weakness.

Only two recent US presidents have had the courage needed to shun appeasement: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The US's critics may quibble over the details, but in our hearts we Europeans know the truth, because we saw it first hand.

Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of Europe from almost 50 years of and slavery. And Bush, acting out of moral conviction and supported only by the social democrat Tony Blair, recognised the danger in today's Islamist war against democracy.

In the meantime, Europe sits back in the multicultural corner with its usual blithe self-confidence.

Instead of defending liberal values and acting as an attractive centre of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, the US and China, it does nothing. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the supposedly arrogant Americans, as world champions of tolerance, which even Germany Interior Minister Otto Schily justifiably criticises.

Where does this self-satisfied reaction come from? Does it arise because we are so moral? I fear that it stems from the fact that we Europeans are so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policy of confronting Islamic ism head-on, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the US economy. But he does this because, unlike most of Europe, he realises that what is at stake is literally everything that really matters to free people.

While we criticise the capitalistic robber barons of the US because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our welfare states. "Stay out of it. It could get expensive," we cry.

So, instead of acting to defend our civilisation, we prefer to discuss reducing our 35-hour work week or improving our dental coverage, or extending our four weeks of annual paid holiday. Or perhaps we listen to television pastors preach about the need to reach out to ists, to understand and forgive.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour's house. Appeasement? That is just the start of it. Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Mathias Doepfner is chief executive of German media group Axel Springer


Well? What do you all think of that?

Wars don't do anything what so ever against Islamic terrorists.

The War on Terror is a complete farce and yuo can't blame people for not wanting to join it.

Having read the first few paragraphs, all I can say is: what country hasn't ignored massive human rights abuses in potential or actual allies? (Okay, Canada and New Zealand - but otherwise?) South Africa supports Zimbabwe, America supports the 'stans (well someone was going to mention it in this thread sooner or later...), and so on.

Axel Springer Verlag, hm?

Well, what else is there to expect from that side?

He's forgotten Europe trashed itself during WWII, and does not want to do it again.

PS - The Australian is owned by News Limited (owned by the Murdochs)

Well i like to say that the prospect of a second war like ww1 was terrifiying to europe who had enough peaple killed to learn to hate war

Well? What do you all think of that?
*yawns*

What I'm getting is it's all about Israel.

Next?

Waste of time newspaper, but what do you expect from Murdoch?

PS - The Australian is owned by News Limited (owned by the Murdochs)Murdoch Media is usually Pro-Jewish...

and this article is all about that.

A few important factual problems (Chaimberlain's the only reason we won the Battle of Britain and I didn't see the US rushing to battle the USSR, did you?) and a general pile of tripe. I'd expect better from the Daily Mail.

At least one thing was true, Europe is run by cowards.

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour's house. Appeasement? That is just the start of it. Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Yeah that fits, a good article.

Is europe a place for cowards? no. When america has fought as many major wars as europe has done over the years then maybe it's people will realise that wars create other wars.
Example: Hundred Years War between England and France in the middle ages, succeeded in creating hatred between the two countries. What was the result? More wars between England and France.

While I would like to see a less slow and beaurocratic Europe, this man, his paper and his ultimate boss Murdoc would like to see a more militant and less rational Europe, they ignore the last two hundred years and the dire lessons learnt form being too quick to act. Also, one should always be slow to come rushing to Isreal's aid, her behaviour towards the Palistiains is unforgivably crude, harsh and ill thought out and as they say, you reap what you sow.

I dont think I've ever heard such ignorant mediacratic bullshit in my life, crawl back down your hole and die.

That article is a great example of extreme right propoganda disguised as informed opinion. Its sad to think anyone could ever take that seriously or that the author could take himself seriously.

be very carefull what words u use there was not genocide in bosnia and kosovo but a civil war was in bosnia and a agression of nato to support albanian terrorist and separatist without u.n. resolution in kosovo..and europen nations openly supported the break-up of former yugoslavia,and the secession of states from it that resulted in conflicts! i think europe is run by iresponsable people....

Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's and murdr machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.



I wonder if it has been brought to this person's attention that Saddam Hussein was put in power by the Americans, and Osama Bin Laden was trained by the americans in their efforts to end the cold war?

I get the feeling that the author was told exactly what to write in this artiicle. Excellent strategic removals in the article.

However, I do agree that Europe is growing too fearful, in a way.

be very carefull what words u use there was not genocide in bosnia and kosovo but a civil war was in bosnia and a agression of nato to support albanian terrorist and separatist without u.n. resolution in kosovo..and europen nations openly supported the break-up of former yugoslavia,and the secession of states from it that resulted in conflicts! i think europe is run by iresponsable people....
You know what they say...
One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

having said that...I must admit that Yugoslavia was given the short end of the stick in all that bloody mess.

The western Powers of the World ganged up on Yugoslavia.
If I was a Yugoslavian...I would feel robbed too.

Goddammit. Axel Springer is dishing it out once again...
:rolleyes:

be very carefull what words u use there was not genocide in bosnia and kosovo but a civil war was in bosnia and a agression of nato to support albanian terrorist and separatist without u.n. resolution in kosovo..and europen nations openly supported the break-up of former yugoslavia,and the secession of states from it that resulted in conflicts! i think europe is run by iresponsable people....

What the f.... There was no genocide in Bosnia, you need to get your facts clear, have you ever heared of Srebrenica you ignorant prick!!! (I really appologise to other people who had to read this, but this post made me so angry that I had to say it in this manner). Let me guess you think that war in Croatia was also civil war? Don't get me started....

I guess Republicans are cowards too, since they fought Clinton tooth an nail not to go into Kosovo.

Europe suffers from war weariness. Saying they're cowards is like saying a past-his-prime boxer is a coward for retiring. They have every reason to hate/fear war.

I think the biggest criticism to take from the article (ignoring the right-wing rhetoric) is that if Europe does have a problem, it is with its slowness to respond to major issues. But that is the nature of international politics these days. The whole edifice has become too cumbersome to react quckly in a time of need, and the bureaucracies of Europe and the UN are the prime examples.

Bosnia IS a good example, but look also at Darfur, Niger, and other humanitarian disasters, particularly where there is a political cause. Sadly, the rapidity of the response to the tsunami is more the exception than the rule.

Henryk M. Broder is a narcistic blatherer, so I don't care about any of his writings.

I don't really think it's worth our while defending Europe's good name against an attack posted by someone who has the word "Hiltler" blocked on their computer.
We won't get an intelligent debate with someone who's mummy won't let them even type the damned name.
Bye Bye, have fun without me.

Wars don't do anything what so ever against Islamic terrorists.

The War on Terror is a complete farce and yuo can't blame people for not wanting to join it.

Join the appeasers my friend. You will be right at home. Using my UK accent. I think the article is spot on.

Henryk M. Broder is a narcistic blatherer, so I don't care about any of his writings.


Sure knock him down call him a fool. You are the people he is talking about. I would listen up if I were you.

I agree with the author about the spineless way in which European countries have appeased muslims living in our societies. All you have to do is look at how, since the London bombings, Labour politicians have lined up to kiss muslim leaders' arses and pretend they're chocolate.

But I don't agree with the author's appeal for warmongering. I'd sooner see this country take Swiss-style neutrality.

What the f.... There was no genocide in Bosnia, you need to get your facts clear, have you ever heared of Srebrenica you ignorant prick!!! (I really appologise to other people who had to read this, but this post made me so angry that I had to say it in this manner). Let me guess you think that war in Croatia was also civil war? Don't get me started.... since u are a croat i will ignore this Stupid! statement...anyways---i beat u didnt see this on -cnn or -bbc http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/001.shtml ........so suffice to say u dont know shit, if u have a problem talk to me personally and ill explain it to u nazi-wacko!

Given that The NAS Rebels recently congratulated the IRA on their conduct during their bombing campaign, where innocent men, women and children were murdered senselessly, I don't think he has much credibility.

I wonder if he thinks Palestinian Suicide bombers are 'different' because either the victims were Israeli, or because the bombers were 'sand niggers' ?

I was searching around on the internet and I found this article, it's interesting(all misspellings were done by me to get around the filter on my comp, for the entire article minus the misspellings click the link):

Filter? How old are you?

great article... sums up the state of things in europe. we ought to back off... see if the appeasement of the bad guys works. lmao. Hooray for the power of words!

since u are a croat i will ignore this Stupid! statement...anyways---i beat u didnt see this on -cnn or -bbc http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/001.shtml ........so suffice to say u dont know shit, if u have a problem talk to me personally and ill explain it to u nazi-wacko!

And you are, obviously, extremely nationalist serb. NP with that, just don't call people nazi-wackoes when you are acting just like one. It is understandable that you ignore the crimes made by serbs and consentrate on those made by others. Still, fact remains that in Sebrenica and several other places (can't remember the names of those towns) thousands of moslems were massacred. You should admit that, even if you feel like a patriot or sumthin.

Secondly, (In My Humble Opinion) Yugoslavia was doomed to collapse after the uniting factor, Mr.Tito had passed away. Croatians, Bosnian moslems and Kosovo's Albans have the same right to live in their country as Cheznyans, Tibetians or Americans. Or Serbs, for that matter. No reason to blame rest of Europe for inevitable event.

great article... sums up the state of things in europe. we ought to back off... see if the appeasement of the bad guys works. lmao. Hooray for the power of words!

(daily "sound more serious than I really am" post. hehe)

great article... sums up the state of things in europe. we ought to back off... see if the appeasement of the bad guys works. lmao. Hooray for the power of words!

(daily "sound more serious than I really am" post. hehe)

i see one great big flaw in the original article that really needs to be considered before europe stops being "appeasers".

the author made the huge and unreasonable assumption that all european countries would be on the same side in any of these conflicts. the much more sane assumption is that different countries would support different sides in any conflict based on their own national interests.

for example, when the US, UK, australia, spain, italy, poland, etc, invaded iraq based on their own calculations of right and wrong, if france, germany and russia had felt the need to enter the conflict, it would have been to support iraq as that was their own best interests. (in that iraq owed them huge debts that now will never be paid). this could have caused an escalation of war outside of iraq.

same with the intervention in the former yugoslavia. if russia wasnt "appeasing" it may well have decided it needed to support serbia. another potential escalation.

would there be NO european country which would decide to support the palestinian cause over the israeli cause? would it make things better if that country stopped "appeasing" and sent arms or soldiers to help out?

europe's commitment to peace and to solving problems without resorting to war has saved many more lives than it has cost.

since u are a croat i will ignore this Stupid! statement...anyways---i beat u didnt see this on -cnn or -bbc http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/001.shtml ........so suffice to say u dont know shit, if u have a problem talk to me personally and ill explain it to u nazi-wacko!

Yeah, I know, ignoring "stupid"statements is what you do best.

I don't know shit! Right, where were you while my county was devastated by JNA (Yugoslav national army) and cetnici (Serbian paratroops), probably back home, feeding on who knows what kind of propaganda they served you. well I was 7 and I was forced to run from my village, while granates were falling all around me. Great childhood!

But I'm older now, and not blind as you, I know all sides made war crimes, but stating that what happend in Bosnia wasn't genocide is someting that only realy extrem Serb would say. And with this ends my conversation with you, because you are not worthy the time I spent to writte this message.

-snip-
-snip-
:rolleyes:
Why don't you start a war?
Then we'll have yet another reason to let neither of you into the EU.

Secondly, (In My Humble Opinion) Yugoslavia was doomed to collapse after the uniting factor, Mr.Tito had passed away. Croatians, Bosnian moslems and Kosovo's Albans have the same right to live in their country as Cheznyans, Tibetians or Americans. Or Serbs, for that matter. No reason to blame rest of Europe for inevitable event.

You are right there,Yugoslavia was doomed to colapse, but Europe tried to keep it together and they ignored needs of other nations. You think that Milosevic would do all that things if he hadn't had some kind of support...
He knew if he did it fast that world wont even blink, but thankfully he didn't manage to do it fast, war escalated, and then Europe and USA faced facts, Yugoslavia is no more.
But if they just accepted that fact before..., well who knows now...
Europe has to take their share of responsibility...

:rolleyes:
Why don't you start a war?
Then we'll have yet another reason to let neither of you into the EU.

Yeah it is easy to joke about that when you are not involved in it... :)

Like we'll ever get in EU :)

I think the biggest criticism to take from the article (ignoring the right-wing rhetoric) is that if Europe does have a problem, it is with its slowness to respond to major issues.
One has to understand that the biggest "major issue" in western Eurasia is Europe itself.
Europe has been at war almost continually for at least 3000 years (since the emerging of the celts, before we don't know) - with perhaps a short pause when the Roman empire was big enough to fight in Asia.
For the last 50 years, there's some western countries (more and more) trying to build international structures that prevent war. Its been a success up to now: no war between France and Germany for 60 years now - never happened before. And I'm just talking about the most constant pairing of hereditary enemies you find on this globe. They were at war even before they existed :p
So, I'd want them to keep building, and stick their noses elsewhere only if they can do it besides...

This is in reference to the matter of how or if Europe will cope with the Moslem/terrorist problems in Europe:

"The difference between the Europe of pre 9/11 1683 and the Europe of post 9/11 2004 is that the former recognized the danger and successfully fought against it, while the latter is so riddled with political correctness that it does nothing to save itself.

The Dark Age of Europe was precipitated by a philosophic failure, and it appears there is a strong possibility that history will repeat itself.

We all know what we are condemned to do when we are ignorent of history, and our ignorence is astonishing."

Please read the article if you have time, it's eye-opening:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000609.php

Think about this, oh Europe!

Michelle Malkin notes, I believe with some error,

The politically correct are handmaidens of terror.

But handmaiden may be a too-mild appellation

For the worms at the core of the threat to our nation,

Who are far more concerned with our socialist purity,

Than commonsense measures for our nation's security.

They'll insist we don't need anti-terrorist powers,

Till terror bombs blow down their own ivory towers.


More than mere handmaids in true servile sense,

They're concubines of correctness in Jihadist tents,

Plying socialist sweetmeats to death-dealing masters,

Naively abetting more future disasters.

Respect our dark brothers say these houris beguiling,

No need for your paranoid, racist profiling.

Forget swarthy males from the East caused our losses,

We must share their pain, understand their root causes.



These handmaids ignore their own reasoning powers,

Like no grannies flew planes into those twin towers;

Or why we're not shown after a terror event,

Any mug shots of men of Caucasian descent.

They insist we ignore facts as plain as their faces,

Like Islamo-fascists tend to be certain races.

No, Michelle, dear, I fear that handmaiden's in error,

Simply too mild a term for these true whores for terror.

-- Russ Vaughn (www.venezuelatoday.net)

This is in reference to the matter of how or if Europe will cope with the Moslem/terrorist problems in Europe:

"The difference between the Europe of pre 9/11 1683 and the Europe of post 9/11 2004 is that the former recognized the danger and successfully fought against it, while the latter is so riddled with political correctness that it does nothing to save itself.

The problem with that is that the wars between Europe and the Seljuks/Turks/Caliphs/Sultans etc were driven by a hatred for their religion. It was less to do with politics then today- back then every Muslim was fair game to be slaughtered. Nowadays, thankfully, the realisation that not all Muslims are 'evil' has permeated through society.

Whatever you're opinion on the matter, that was a horribley written typical Murdoch piece of crap. And to think he owns 10 of 17 Australias news papers.

Or why we're not shown after a terror event,
Any mug shots of men of Caucasian descent.

Oh, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/national/main686851_popup0_3.shtml) is (http://www.unabombertrial.com/gallery/photo01.html) that (http://www.absolutecelebrities.com/mugshot/timothy_mcveigh.html) so? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-01-nichols-search_x.htm?csp=36)
Is it just me or did the poet blatantly lie and otherwise twist facts to make his extremist point?

Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's and murdr machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.

This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions - indeed, tens of billions - of dollars in the corrupt UN oil-for-food program.

Today we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating by Islamic fundamentalists in The Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere in Europe? By suggesting - wait for it - that the proper response to such barbarism is to initiate a Muslim holiday in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of Germany's Government - and, if polls are to be believed, the German people -- actually believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists.

I'm not sure how much of the rest of that I agree with, but this section is certainly, and depressingly, true.

Thank God it looks like the former East Germans are going to be taking over the reigns. Seems they're from hardier stock. To the rest, as the Muslims abandon their own sinking ships to ruin Europe, so too am I going to try my damndest to move to the US. Albeit I'll actually do it within the paramaters of the law.

An opinion/propaganda piece from the Murdoch media. Is this refuse really even worth a thread this long?

I'd like to point out to everyone that we've had this article before, when it came out. Except, at the time it was titled "Europe, thy Name is Appeasement".
Back then, the thread died pretty quickly, because I pointed out to the original poster that Matze Döpfner is the head of the Axel-Springer AG. This company prints the BILD Zeitung, Europe's and Germany's largest daily newspaper, which makes it's money by lying and stretching the truth and breaking the German Journalist Codex wherever it thinks it can get away with it. The guy has a doctorate... in MUSIC SCIENCE.
Honestly, this man makes his money with selling a newspaper which publishes blatant lies and treats people with inhuman scorn. I don't value his opinion all that much and I don't think anyone in their right mind should either.

If you know German, you can read about the lies and style of the BILD here (http://www.bildblog.de).

I'm not sure how much of the rest of that I agree with, but this section is certainly, and depressingly, true.

Thank God it looks like the former East Germans are going to be taking over the reigns. Seems they're from hardier stock.
Excuse me, but where do you get your informations? The muslim holiday was what we call a "Schnapsidee", a idea born when drunk, and never had a supporter group large enough to be called "substancial fraction".
The "former east germans" arent a political party, even if you consider the PDS an exclusive eastern political group, which never was really true and right now, with them fusing with a western states based leftwing party, even less then before. We will most likely have a swing towards conservative, but bear in mind that the german CDU/CSU are more like the american Dems, not the GOP. The other current political trend originating from the eastern states is fascism and i am sure no one will support them in strong enough numbers for them to make even one seat in the parliament.

I agree with the author about the spineless way in which European countries have appeased muslims living in our societies. All you have to do is look at how, since the London bombings, Labour politicians have lined up to kiss muslim leaders' arses and pretend they're chocolate.

That's why they plan to profile Muslims of course... And why they ignore Muslim concerns about it. Right. Think before posting.

Well? What do you all think of that?


I think you should mind your own buisness and let Europeans handle Europe and you stick to the U.S...After all it really has nothing to do with the U.S at all

A few important factual problems (Chaimberlain's the only reason we won the Battle of Britain and I didn't see the US rushing to battle the USSR, did you?) and a general pile of tripe. I'd expect better from the Daily Mail.
Well said! Chamberlain is vilified but in reality if we had gone to war over Czechslovakia we would have lost, and today Europe would either be Fascist or Communist. Chamberlain is a true British hero, and in essense he helped save the world from extremism.

Well said! Chamberlain is vilified but in reality if we had gone to war over Czechslovakia we would have lost, and today Europe would either be Fascist or Communist. Chamberlain is a true British hero, and in essense he helped save the world from extremism.

So much better than Clement attley what?
I am a Churchill supporter myself on this note, chamberlain may have got the facts wrong but he did the best he could, which not only is honourable but also British

So much better than Clement attley what?
I am a Churchill supporter myself on this note, chamberlain may have got the facts wrong but he did the best he could, which not only is honourable but also BritishDid you know that Churchill secretly kept Chamberlain briefed on everything that went on after he came to power?
Chamberlain didn't have the facts wrong: The facts were that while Britain and France had more ground forces, Germany had an overwhelming superiority where air power was concerned, and Chamberlain knew this; he'd been briefed on the situation shortly before. Such a briefing was repeated after the attack on Poland, with the odds being much more to Chamberlain's liking. Chamberlain used the Munich conference to gain time to close the gap and considering how close the Battle of Britain was, aren't you glad he opted for a later entry into an inevitable war?

Did you know that Churchill secretly kept Chamberlain briefed on everything that went on after he came to power?
Chamberlain didn't have the facts wrong: The facts were that while Britain and France had more ground forces, Germany had an overwhelming superiority where air power was concerned, and Chamberlain knew this; he'd been briefed on the situation shortly before. Such a briefing was repeated after the attack on Poland, with the odds being much more to Chamberlain's liking. Chamberlain used the Munich conference to gain time to close the gap and considering how close the Battle of Britain was, aren't you glad he opted for a later entry into an inevitable war?

AH i didnt know that..thankue :) every day i learn and learn, thanks to Nation staters i owe an urn!

so americans are critising us for appeasement, what was their response to hitler and what he did? Oh yeah nothing. But surely since they are critising Europe they got involved after czechoslavkia was invaded? No. What about Poland!? No!

Well how about when all of Europe exept the british isle was under hitler's control? No.

They got involved when they where attacked, saviors of europe!

So how many terrorists from 9/11 or other attacks came from Iraq?none

How many WMD did he have? none
Surely Iraq was the only in the world for mass killings because America went to war because of how bad Hussein was? http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2003.htm

They got involved when they where attacked, saviors of europe!

They didn't attack even then. Hitler declared war on them.

The "former east germans" arent a political party,

No, but they seem to be the leading figures of what will probably be Germany's future government. And I don't know why you're putting that in quotes as though there's something wrong with it. Are they not formerly from East Germany?

The other current political trend originating from the eastern states is fascism and i am sure no one will support them in strong enough numbers for them to make even one seat in the parliament.

Then how is it really a growing movement? Besides, Germany has plenty laws effectively preventing fascism from being a force again in Germany ever. Heh, when Adolf Hitler was voted #1 in the "Top 100 Greatest Germans" TV programme and was simply omitted.

So how many terrorists from 9/11 or other attacks came from Iraq?none

Jesus Christ. This has nothing to do with Iraq.

How many WMD did he have? none
Surely Iraq was the only in the world for mass killings because America went to war because of how bad Hussein was? http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2003.htm[/quote]

What? What the hell? Why are you posting this? What is its relevance?

just for a note, britain and france declared war on germany after germany invaded poland...it is in all the history books, accepted as fact, and is the prefered version of history.

I observe that considerably more time was spent derisively attacking the article and publisher than addressing the questions it raises. Pity, because it's a discussion worth having, or risk having draconian anti-terror laws stuck up your nose by government without a peep from the public.

In my view it is far more likely that Europe will over-react to terror by removing personal freedoms than the opposite, it appears that only the far left is taking the 'do-nothing' approach suggested by the article, and very few of them. Clearly something must be done, to watch as Rome burns is folly - only your leftists would support that and deserve the tone of the article posted by OP.

How do Europeans feel about Moslem fundamentalist terrorists recruiting and working in their countries? What is the balance between individual freedoms and safety? All nations threatened by terrorism are engaging in a dialogue about this. What is your reaction to the post 9/11 laws and proposed antiterror legislation?


These quotes are regarding the UK:

"While there appears to be broad political support for those ideas, legal experts are less certain about another proposal that would criminalize "indirect incitement" of terrorism. The government says it wants to crack down on people who praise suicide bombers as "martyrs" or otherwise justify acts of terrorism. Home Secretary Charles Clarke promised to be more specific when the legislation is presented to Parliament in September, but legal experts and civil liberties activists worry about the vagueness of the concept.

"Anything that takes us away from actual activity and locates criminal guilt in the thought processes of suspects should give us pause," said Conor Gearty, a professor of human-rights law at the London School of Economics...."

"But the problem, spelled out in a detailed parliamentary report on existing anti-terrorism laws, is that such laws inevitably make the Muslim community feel it is being singled out.

"There is no doubt that the authorities face a real challenge in acting against terrorist suspects from within particular communities, without being seen as targeting-or stigmatizing-that community," the report said. "We do not believe the government has yet found an answer to this question."

Last week, British police chiefs asked for new powers that would allow them to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge, while Conservative Party leader Michael Howard called on the government to reconsider the current ban on phone tap evidence..."

Some Euro nations have enacted legislation and are proposing legislation far more restrictive than the US Patriot Act. If laws such as these are considered acceptable, what more draconian provisions will be permitted in the future when the inevitable bombings continue? What is the risk of doing nothing, as the OP's article suggests, and is that an option?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507270077jul27,1,4996800.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
it's a registration site, use bugmenot.com

What? What the hell? Why are you posting this? What is its relevance?
Because the only justification left for the war in Iraq is the Murders that Saddam did. The revelance is that if not taking part in Iraq makes European Leaders cowards then America and every other country in the world almost is a coward for not going to war with every country and every group that commits mass murders.

Edit:
Jesus Christ. This has nothing to do with Iraq.
i know but a few people (mostly Americans)(of them mostly Fox news viewers)) think that Iraq and terrorism are linked

Because the only justification left for the war in Iraq is the Murders that Saddam did. The revelance is that if not taking part in Iraq makes European Leaders cowards then America and every other country in the world almost is a coward for not going to war with every country and every group that commits mass murders.

very clever of you :D i like that...in fact i am going to copy it and post it..its humerous :)

very clever of you :D i like that...in fact i am going to copy it and post it..its humerous :)
thanks :)

I was searching around on the internet and I found this article, it's interesting(all misspellings were done by me to get around the filter on my comp, for the entire article minus the misspellings click the link):

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16110719%255E28737,00.html

Let's face facts, Europe's being run by cowards
Mathias Doepfner
August 01, 2005
THE writer Henryk Broder recently issued a withering indictment: Europe, your family name is appeasement. That phrase resonates because it is so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements.

Whether or not this has been commented on I don't care

The US didn't give two shits about the Jews either, hell, we TURNED WAY JEWS escaping from Germany, even the cute kids. Pah on your revisionist history, pah

Absolutely pathetic, I would expect an editor to send this back, with a note that the writer (I refuse to use the word journalist here) fired for extreme ignorance and bias (ala Murdoc)
Europe remembers two horrible wars that ripped through the continent, creating ripples that will last for a long time. Who would want that again, you can't blame it for being hesitant and reluctant, trying everything before war. I'd rather live in a place like that than America, which feels compelled to burst into anywhere it sees fit.
I'd take the old woman hame before the gun wielding maniac.

I dunno man... Europe opposed going to war in the first place... at least they're consistant... The Bush administration go to war against a mass murderer that is sitting on oil... so when a mass murderer is sitting on nothing... like Sudan, suddenly the hawks go dovish... kinda weird...

Back then, the thread died pretty quickly, because I pointed out to the original poster that Matze Döpfner is the head of the Axel-Springer AG. This company prints the BILD Zeitung, Europe's and Germany's largest daily newspaper, which makes it's money by lying and stretching the truth
I believe it's called "Der Bile Zeitongue"? ;)

I dunno man... Europe opposed going to war in the first place... at least they're consistant... The Bush administration go to war against a mass murderer that is sitting on oil... so when a mass murderer is sitting on nothing... like Sudan, suddenly the hawks go dovish... kinda weird...
strange coincidence that. ;)

I dont think I've ever heard such ignorant mediacratic bullshit in my life, crawl back down your hole and die.

Tograna: Knock it off. If you disagree with it, debate on exactly why you think so. Resulting to insults is a poor way to get about in the General forum, and certainly won't help you in the future.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Dim future for Europe, I'm afraid, at least if it's to be judged by most posters on this thread.

So far all but a few have self-righteously attacked the author or the publisher, or completely missed the point of the article. Only one or two have provided a serious response. Either way, few here seem to have a thought in their heads about these serious matters, and history has shown us what happens to such.

The point is not whether you approved of the Iraq war or whatever OT rambling you're doing, but rather how you choose to confront terrorism and thuggery at home and abroad. Will you rise to the occasion of protecting yourselves, and will you react by excessive restriction of personal freedoms? I'd be very interested to hear European views on these matters.

Well said! Chamberlain is vilified but in reality if we had gone to war over Czechslovakia we would have lost, and today Europe would either be Fascist or Communist. Chamberlain is a true British hero, and in essense he helped save the world from extremism.


Ummm. What did I miss here? Or are you actually saying that it was a good move to sacrifice one of the strongest fortresses and best equipped armies in the Europe, to give GERMANY more time to build up its armies? Even Hitler was damn scared when he thought he could get in war with UK and France, but it gave him confidense; "Phew, they're sissies! Propably they will do nothing about Poland, neither!". Hitler didn't actually think that they would react, not even when his troops moved over the border. He seemed to be pretty sure that West would back up in the last minute, like in Czechoslovakia.

It seems to me that nothing could have happened WORSE than it did, if they would have kept their word. Wehrmacht wasn't even near as strong as it was
when it crushed Poland, and would have taken some serious damage when trying to push through Chechoslovakian border fortresses, easily comparable to maginot.
Besides, as said, Czechs had a great army, far better than Poland. Better than French, to be honest. But no. Sigh. it was sold by Chamberlain, just like Baltics and Finland were sold to CCCP by Adolf.

I don't understand how that, having well prepared army slowing down and taking the brunt of Germany's assault, letting French and Englishmen to step in, would have made "today's Europe either Fascist or Communist". It would have, at least, made beating the Fascism easier BY FAR than it was in reality.

since u are a croat i will ignore this Stupid! statement...anyways---i beat u didnt see this on -cnn or -bbc http://www.serbianna.com/features/srebrenica/001.shtml ........so suffice to say u dont know shit, if u have a problem talk to me personally and ill explain it to u nazi-wacko!

Calling someone a 'nazi-wacko' won't help you either. Take some time and cool down a bit, especially if there is someone that you disagree with. Use debating tactics to prove your point, rather than insults.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Will you rise to the occasion of protecting yourselves, and will you react by excessive restriction of personal freedoms? I'd be very interested to hear European views on these matters.
Surely security these days necessitates restrictions on personal freedoms?

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~
I didn't know you where a Mod.(congrats) How come it doesn't say Nationstates moderator under your name?

I didn't know you where a Mod.(congrats) How come it doesn't say Nationstates moderator under your name?

The Jolt Admins still have to make me into a full-fledged moderator.
Just for proof: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=296993 (I just don't want people to think I'm acting as if I were one)

Surely security these days necessitates restrictions on personal freedoms?

Indeed. The question is how to legislate a balance between security and loss of personal freedom. And to avoid the unintended consequences of knee-jerk security laws that curtail religious and political freedoms.

My concern is that governments, without significant input and debate among citizenry, will pass the wrong laws for the right reason. This should be a matter for urgent discussion, I'm not seeing much - but then I'm not in Europe, either.

I would make the observation I didn't see enough debate (at least to satisfy me) on the Patriot Act in the US. A law I would have reluctantly supported if it were but subject to review once a year.

Some of the laws I see being proposed in Europe are truly severe, and I'm wondering what the public view is. I don't believe some of them would ever be considered in America. I'd like to know how they are viewed, and what is the perspective of the political spectrum in various EU countries.

Wars don't do anything what so ever against Islamic terrorists.

The War on Terror is a complete farce and yuo can't blame people for not wanting to join it.


Yea who wants to join a war when your on the take from Saddam from the Oil for Food Scandel. France & Germany call your office.

Indeed. The question is how to legislate a balance between security and loss of personal freedom. And to avoid the unintended consequences of knee-jerk security laws that curtail religious and political freedoms.

My concern is that governments, without significant input and debate among citizenry, will pass the wrong laws for the right reason. This should be a matter for urgent discussion, I'm not seeing much - but then I'm not in Europe, either.

I would make the observation I didn't see enough debate (at least to satisfy me) on the Patriot Act in the US. A law I would have reluctantly supported if it were but subject to review once a year.

Some of the laws I see being proposed in Europe are truly severe, and I'm wondering what the public view is. I don't believe some of them would ever be considered in America. I'd like to know how they are viewed, and what is the perspective of the political spectrum in various EU countries.

You my friend are among the more mature contributors to these here threads. I thank you for you level headedness and I am sure I will enjoy reading your future threads.

Some of the things within the Patriot Act do concern me. However one of the biggest things this piece of legislation was to do was to tear down the wall between the CIA and FBI wich lead to near no communication between the agencies.

Yea who wants to join a war when your on the take from Saddam from the Oil for Food Scandel. France & Germany call your office.

Still, Quentin is right saying that wars wont do nothing, nothing GOOD atleast, against Islamist Terrorism. Bombing and conquering countries, cities and villages only creates more recruits for those who want to blow up WTC's and metro's.
That, I think, was his point.

Some of the laws I see being proposed in Europe are truly severe, and I'm wondering what the public view is. I don't believe some of them would ever be considered in America. I'd like to know how they are viewed, and what is the perspective of the political spectrum in various EU countries.
Which laws are you thinking about? Unfortunately most people here seem to oppose making any changes to their life even if it is for better security.

Yea who wants to join a war when your on the take from Saddam from the Oil for Food Scandel. France & Germany call your office.
all of france and germany where involved in that where they? And here I was thinking that it was corrupt individuals silly me! :p

Ummm. What did I miss here? Or are you actually saying that it was a good move to sacrifice one of the strongest fortresses and best equipped armies in the Europe, to give GERMANY more time to build up its armies? Even Hitler was damn scared when he thought he could get in war with UK and France, but it gave him confidense; "Phew, they're sissies! Propably they will do nothing about Poland, neither!". Hitler didn't actually think that they would react, not even when his troops moved over the border. He seemed to be pretty sure that West would back up in the last minute, like in Czechoslovakia.

It seems to me that nothing could have happened WORSE than it did, if they would have kept their word. Wehrmacht wasn't even near as strong as it was
when it crushed Poland, and would have taken some serious damage when trying to push through Chechoslovakian border fortresses, easily comparable to maginot.
Besides, as said, Czechs had a great army, far better than Poland. Better than French, to be honest. But no. Sigh. it was sold by Chamberlain, just like Baltics and Finland were sold to CCCP by Adolf.

I don't understand how that, having well prepared army slowing down and taking the brunt of Germany's assault, letting French and Englishmen to step in, would have made "today's Europe either Fascist or Communist". It would have, at least, made beating the Fascism easier BY FAR than it was in reality.
Indeed. WWII would likely have been better for the allies if Brittian and France attacked Germany while it was still weak. The thing is: You shouldn't let a nation that is an immediate threat and taking over many nations to have time to build up its military. Appeasement doesn't work. America learned that it is better to take some action than no action at all. You can't take out every dictatorship at the same time, but liberating a few people is better than letting them get killed.

Which laws are you thinking about? Unfortunately most people here seem to oppose making any changes to their life even if it is for better security.

Actually... all of them. Any laws curtailing freedom should be weighed carefully against potential benefit (safety).

Some examples of what I would consider possibly egregious:

- laws that "take us away from actual activity and locates criminal guilt in the thought processes of suspects" (from earlier link)

- 90 day imprisonment without charges

- can't marry a non-resident unless they speak the national language

- no wearing of religious gear

- unlimited wiretapping with no permission required

- detaining the family of the suspect as coercion

- deportation of "undesireables"

Your observation of nobody caring is really the point of the article by Doepfner, and frankly I don't understand why anyone would take offence at it - except that it has a critical tone, so I suppose that is slightly unpleasant.

While I personally advocate making restrictions to combat terrorism, and might even temporarily support some of those listed above, I think there must be more concern given to the ramifications of doing so.

Diminish freedoms further in the UK, along with the 3 million or so cameras on the street, and you really could have a big brother. But it's up to us in a democracy to decide, not the government - abdicate that concept and we're done for.

Indeed. WWII would likely have been better for the allies if Brittian and France attacked Germany while it was still weak. The thing is: You shouldn't let a nation that is an immediate threat and taking over many nations to have time to build up its military. Appeasement doesn't work. America learned that it is better to take some action than no action at all. You can't take out every dictatorship at the same time, but liberating a few people is better than letting them get killed.

...Though USA did every possible mistake in the process. Worst of those was that they lied in so horrifying way to the world about WMD's and to their own people about connections in terrorism. And, they did that "liberation operation" mostly to get cash. Rumsfeld and Bush, together with a numerous group of higher standing men in the government had personal interrests, in form of oil and rebuilding corporations.
Still, it was of course good that the madman was replaced. It just should have been done in '80s when he gased the Kurds, not when it was in their economical intresses to do so.

(Sorry if there, or any other of my posts are words that don't exist in the English language, unfortunately im not that good in it... but doing my best, so pelase be forgivable!)

Yea who wants to join a war when your on the take from Saddam from the Oil for Food Scandel. France & Germany call your office.
As opposed to the US with Carlyle and other close friends of the vice-president on the take from the same scandal.

<snip>



Dude, there seem to be two threads going on here.

The one between you and Avika which is completely irrelevant to the topic, and the dialogue between people who care whether Europe is being run by cowards and how to fix it.

No offense, but... fascinating as your views on Bush, Rumsfeld, and WWII are, maybe we could save them for another occasion unless they apply to the topic set by the OP.

Yea, sorry. I noticed it by myself, too, and will reduce that stuff. Just want to remind that my posts were responces to those who started to talk about WW2, same thing with Iraq. Someone claimed something off-topic, I saw it to be untrue and told what I thought. And that there are more than just me and Avika doing this. Stuill, you're right. I'll start to consentrate on the topic more carefully.

ISTR that a lot of the antiterrorism tactics in vogue in the US today were developed by Europe in the 1980s. (Talking Police units like FBI's HRT, etc.)

But on the main question: "IS Europe being run by Cowards?"

I think a better question might be "Why shouldn't Europe be run by Cowards?"

after all, as long as the U.S. is here, they can take the brunt of both the work, and the blame. In that sense, it is America's fault.

I didnt read your article but I question some policies of European leaders. I wouldnt exactly cowards, but they always stand behind each other in their "eu". They make descisions on a. what their citizens want(which is good) b. what other members of the eu say/do (which is bad) Also, theyr socalist. mainly. They do not want high levels of discontent among their citizens, and will not act unless persuaded.

No, but they seem to be the leading figures of what will probably be Germany's future government. And I don't know why you're putting that in quotes as though there's something wrong with it. Are they not formerly from East Germany?

No, they arent. The candidate for the CDU is, but she isnt tougher then any politician and it doesn not constitute a trend, the infrastructure of most parties, besides the new Die Linke is based on the former western states and now nationwide. It has nothing to do with former eastern residents/politicians, really. And i was putting that in quotes because i was quoting it.



Then how is it really a growing movement?
The NPD gained seats in a state parliament, something they last achieved in the '70s and seem to have a stable working relationship with the DVU, another right wing extremist party. This new uplift started in the states forming the former GDR, which means that on federal level the 10-15% they get in two or three states and 4-6% in three others will work out to less then 5%, because the west will vote 1-3% for them and they constitute 3/4 of the voters. Failing 5% means no represantation in the parliament and thus no direct threat. But nonetheless the grow in supportership and that is why i call it a disturbing trend.

Sabbatis, no response to my rebuttal? ;)

ISTR that a lot of the antiterrorism tactics in vogue in the US today were developed by Europe in the 1980s. (Talking Police units like FBI's HRT, etc.)

But on the main question: "IS Europe being run by Cowards?"

I think a better question might be "Why shouldn't Europe be run by Cowards?"

after all, as long as the U.S. is here, they can take the brunt of both the work, and the blame. In that sense, it is America's fault.

Most political theorists agree that the US won't be 'here' for very much longer- within the next generation their hegemony will have declined to a sub-1940's state. Fukuyama, Waltz, Walzer, Morgenthau all say that the US has been declining since their highpoint in the 1940's.

Don't worry Cadillac-Gage, they won't be there much longer :p

I didnt read your article but I question some policies of European leaders. I wouldnt exactly cowards, but they always stand behind each other in their "eu". They make descisions on a. what their citizens want(which is good) b. what other members of the eu say/do (which is bad) Also, theyr socalist. mainly. They do not want high levels of discontent among their citizens, and will not act unless persuaded.

Bold: Pray tell, what is wrong with that?

Underline: Every single elected government is like that. Criticizing the European leaders for it is hypocritical unless you denounce it everywhere else.

Just wanted to point out the fact that they aren't mainly socialist, but social democrates. The difference is kinda critical here, dudiones.

Most political theorists agree that the US won't be 'here' for very much longer- within the next generation their hegemony will have declined to a sub-1940's state. Fukuyama, Waltz, Walzer, Morgenthau all say that the US has been declining since their highpoint in the 1940's.

:p

"Much Longer" might be much longer than our lifetimes. Even growing at it's current rate, China is not likely to outstrip the US as the world number one economy until after 2070. In the Paradox Of American Power by Joseph Nye, he expounds upon how CULTURE, not military or even economic might determines the true power of a nation. And indeed, American culture is very powerful now...much more so than in 1940.

Think how many American songs are on the radio...how many American films are on the TV or in the theatre? How many websites are hosted in America? Where does the content come from? And I am not just talking about entertainment, but about bigger issues like values that these mechanisms communicate.

A mere 20 years ago, it looked like communism had capitalism on the ropes. The Russians were in Afghanistan and there were communist insurrections throughout the third world...but where is communism now? It was just money and guns. There was not an effective culture to communicate, because while in an ideal world, communism might work, the fact is that people are not bees...nor do they behave like bees.

America, on the other hand had been the champion of capitalism and democracy for the past half century and the success of these ideals is self evident, when compared to communism.

Now you may say that it was the economic strength of the US which PROPELLED it culture to the rest of the world, and to be sure that is part of the case, but you don't need a massive economy to due so. For example some of the most innovative cinema in the last 20 years has come out of...INDIA and HONG KONG. Vibrant cultures to be sure, and now growing economically out of all bounds, but 20 years ago that was not the case. Yet the cultre of these nations is felt well beyond their borders.

Now as a non-European, I am going to go out on a limb, here and I am sure that you will flame me.I AM NOT ANTI-EUROPEAN IN THE LEAST. I love to visit there and have many freinds there. I have travelled extensively in Europe and work for a European firm. However, I am going to describe what I see as wrong with Europe...and by Europe I realize that there really is no such general mass. I will try and be specific where possible, but I also don't want to be too long winded. Maybe you'll agree, and maybe not.

1.Nanny state- The low birth rates, high un-employment and long life span of the continental Europeans, Germany and France in particular are going to mean a financial crisis in 20 years. There will not be enough young people to pay for the retirees. The low cost of eduction is also a double edged sword as people stay as students for inordinantly long periods when they could instead be working and contributing to the economy.

2. Anti-Business- Safety nets like 2yrs at 80% pay if layed off from work, make it very difficult for European firms to fire anyone. The solution: Don't hire. Hence a very large pool of unemployed people who are fresh from university. These would normally be considered the hardest working and best group of employees to have, but they are sitting idle. Unemployment is 12% in Germany and 9% in France. Anywhere else in the world, at any other time, that would be called an economic DEPRESSION. This type of economy encourages the achievers, be they entertainers, thinkers or athletes, to go somewhere else.

Long, long vacations also put a burden on employers that would be unheard of elsewhere in the world.

Now I will give Chirac and Schroeder credit: The recent attempt at the EU consitution and their domestic agenda would have helped right some wrongs. THEY'VE HAD THE COURAGE TO TRY, but whether the domestic special interest groups will ultimately let them succeed is another thing.

3. No focus, no Compass- The EU constitution had over 400 pages. This is one of the reasons why it failed. It was unfocused and too complicated. It guaranteed hundreds of "civil rights" like "the freedom of Children to talk freely." In the US, that would just fall under "freedom of Speech", whether you are a child or not.

Ironically, the last point of the EU constitution forbade speaking AGAINST the constitution. So much for freedom of speech. Freedom of religion has also been under assualt.: The much talked about French ban on headscarves, crosses and yalmukas. German policies against Scientologists and Jehovah witnesses. Hey, I'll grant you that these folks hold some pretty strange beliefs, but taking over the world or blowing up a bus isn't one of them.

The new Pope has state loud and clear what he thinks about Europes moral compass, and it would be hard to not consider what he says.

4. No Military Power- European governments might have all the best intentions in the world, but if they can't project it beyond their borders, it isn't much good. I am not saying Europe needs to be an armed camp, like in 1914, but the EU powers should be capable of dealing with situations like Kosovo, which they failed to do.

A more recent example of this is Iran's nuclear snub. Sure they can cut a deal with the EU, but if they go back on it , so what? Will the Europeans, bomb the nuclear facility...not likey, because they don't have the capability to do that.

5. Xenophobia- I am puzzled by the European aversion to immigration. But of course, I am from a nation that is decended almost 100% from immigrants and still has them pouring in. Immigration keeps a culture fresh and new. Immigration changes a culture on the surface to be sure, but VALUES often remain the same. Plus the influx of new ideas, new talents and new skills refreshes the native populace and keeps it competitive and vigorous. I don't see that happening in Europe, except perhaps in Britain.

Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing if you agree with my statements, disagree, or maybe partly agree. If you want to sling mud, go ahead, but understand it was not my attention to do so, only to report my observations. There are too many things NOT WRONG with Europe to go into. It is a great place.

Please note that I will not reply, but I will try to read any future posts.

Now you may say that it was the economic strength of the US which PROPELLED it culture to the rest of the world, and to be sure that is part of the case, but you don't need a massive economy to due so. For example some of the most innovative cinema in the last 20 years has come out of...INDIA and HONG KONG. Vibrant cultures to be sure, and now growing economically out of all bounds, but 20 years ago that was not the case. Yet the cultre of these nations is felt well beyond their borders.
Yep. Like a childmolester seducing young kids with candy.



1.Nanny state- The low birth rates, high un-employment and long life span of the continental Europeans, Germany and France in particular are going to mean a financial crisis in 20 years. There will not be enough young people to pay for the retirees. The low cost of eduction is also a double edged sword as people stay as students for inordinantly long periods when they could instead be working and contributing to the economy.
No argument here.

2. Anti-Business- Safety nets like 2yrs at 80% pay if layed off from work, make it very difficult for European firms to fire anyone. The solution: Don't hire. Hence a very large pool of unemployed people who are fresh from university. These would normally be considered the hardest working and best group of employees to have, but they are sitting idle. Unemployment is 12% in Germany and 9% in France. Anywhere else in the world, at any other time, that would be called an economic DEPRESSION. This type of economy encourages the achievers, be they entertainers, thinkers or athletes, to go somewhere else.
80%? Wow!! Where? Certainly not where I'm living. 12% in Germany? Since when? Last time I checked it was around 10%. And in terms of unemployment 1 percentage can make a huge difference. And anywhere else it would be called a depression? Did anyone call it a booming economy? I must have missed that.



Now I will give Chirac and Schroeder credit: The recent attempt at the EU consitution and their domestic agenda would have helped right some wrongs. THEY'VE HAD THE COURAGE TO TRY, but whether the domestic special interest groups will ultimately let them succeed is another thing.
So far Schröders reforms made thing from bad to worse. So no credit here.

3.
Ironically, the last point of the EU constitution forbade speaking AGAINST the constitution. So much for freedom of speech. Freedom of religion has also been under assualt.: The much talked about French ban on headscarves, crosses and yalmukas. German policies against Scientologists and Jehovah witnesses. Hey, I'll grant you that these folks hold some pretty strange beliefs, but taking over the world or blowing up a bus isn't one of them.
No anti-Jehova policies that are known to me. Scientology however tries to undermine the economy and other cool stuff and was therefor banned.
And banning religiouse items in public schools is something they should have done a long time ago.


4. No Military Power- European governments might have all the best intentions in the world, but if they can't project it beyond their borders, it isn't much good. I am not saying Europe needs to be an armed camp, like in 1914, but the EU powers should be capable of dealing with situations like Kosovo, which they failed to do.
Ironicly the EU constitution requiresthe member states to rearm themselves. Still,I'm glad it was defeated in France and in the Netherlands. It was way to pro-American. Any constitution that names NATO as the core of the common defence policy is not worth the paper.



5. Xenophobia- I am puzzled by the European aversion to immigration. But of course, I am from a nation that is decended almost 100% from immigrants and still has them pouring in. Immigration keeps a culture fresh and new. Immigration changes a culture on the surface to be sure, but VALUES often remain the same. Plus the influx of new ideas, new talents and new skills refreshes the native populace and keeps it competitive and vigorous. I don't see that happening in Europe, except perhaps in Britain.
I am always puzzled that Yanks never seem to get it. Mass immigration may be fine for a nation like the US that doesn't have a culture of it's own. But the European nations and cultures developed over a timespan of several thousand years. It's not something you just piss away.

So far Schröders reforms made thing from bad to worse. So no credit here.You call the unemployment rate dropping from 12% to 10% worse?

No anti-Jehova policies that are known to me. Scientology however tries to undermine the economy and other cool stuff and was therefor banned.
And banning religiouse items in public schools is something they should have done a long time ago.Agreed. On all points. The Jehova's Witnesses recently gained the status of a recognized faith in the state of Berlin, entitling them to privileges that the Protestant and Catholic Church enjoy. That isn't exactly anti-Jehova, is it? As for Scientology, that got banned because they've proven to be untrustworthy. Their Narconon program is seriously only a plot to get money from the parents of addicts. And the banning of religious items counts for ALL items (except for the almost theocracy Bavaria). We have the rule that ID card pictures need to reveal the hair, unless you have religious reasons in which case you pay a fine to get your picture taken with your hair covered. It's mainly muslim women that are affected by this, but when some nuns wanted to get their pictures taken with their head covering, they had to pay too.

I am always puzzled that Yanks never seem to get it. Mass immigration may be fine for a nation like the US that doesn't have a culture of it's own. But the European nations and cultures developed over a timespan of several thousand years. It's not something you just piss away.The US has a more dominant "Leitkultur" than any European state I've seen...

You call the unemployment rate dropping from 12% to 10% worse?
When was it 12% in the past 7 years? Itwas around 8.5, 9% before they started counting people who were in somekind of training program in January.

The US has a more dominant "Leitkultur" than any European state I've seen...
You don't seem to get it either. US "culture" is not something that developed over thousands of years. It's like fastfood.
So pissing it away for something new is no loss.

When was it 12% in the past 7 years? Itwas around 8.5, 9% before they started counting people who were in somekind of training program in January.I distinctly recall the figure 12% being mentioned on the Tagesschau some time in the past. Regardless of that, the unemployment rate has dropped for about four consecutive months.

You don't seem to get it either. US "culture" is not something that developed over thousands of years. It's like fastfood.
So pissing it away for something new is no loss.I probably have a better insight to culture than a lot of people here, seeing that I grew up in two separate ones. The value of "culture" shouldn't be measured in age. American culture did develope over thousands of years, since it's an offshoot of a lot of those older cultures. German culture didn't develop for thousands of years either, for that matter. Germany's only been around as a country since the 1870s and before that, we were part of the Frankish empire. There were no "Germans" around before then, just as there were no "Americans" around before the continent got settled.

I distinctly recall the figure 12% being mentioned on the Tagesschau some time in the past. Regardless of that, the unemployment rate has dropped for about four consecutive months.
Then your watching a different Tagesschau then me. Unless your confusing a regional unemployment rate with the national average. Several states and regions have 12% or more. As for dropping. Those are seasonal influences that happen every year. But it's still less then the year before or before etc....

I probably have a better insight to culture than a lot of people here, seeing that I grew up in two separate ones.
That makes two of us. So don't assume you have a deeper insight then me on that matter.

The value of "culture" shouldn't be measured in age. American culture did develope over thousands of years, since it's an offshoot of a lot of those older cultures.
And that is my point. There is no "American" culture. It's a composition of lot's of aspects of other cultures. Hence, it did not develop. But it's more like a Big Mac.

German culture didn't develop for thousands of years either, for that matter. Germany's only been around as a country since the 1870s and before that, we were part of the Frankish empire. There were no "Germans" around before then, just as there were no "Americans" around before the continent got settled.
My, my. I didn't realise in what poor state the schools in Germany realy are.
So before 1870 the German states where part of the Frankish Empire? You might want to pick up a history book or two before you try to talk about German history with me again. Cause you just skipped 1000 years.

The editorial is news to me how?
If you want to win a war you need to take the fight to them! :sniper:

Then your watching a different Tagesschau then me. Unless your confusing a regional unemployment rate with the national average. Several states and regions have 12% or more. As for dropping. Those are seasonal influences that happen every year. But it's still less then the year before or before etc....Tell you what. Put some statistics on or let's drop the arguement.

That makes two of us. So don't assume you have a deeper insight then me on that matter.I said "probably" didn't I? :p

And that is my point. There is no "American" culture. It's a composition of lot's of aspects of other cultures. Hence, it did not develop. But it's more like a Big Mac.Didn't develop? It just magically appeared out of no where? Just because you don't like American culture because it might be more "superficial" than others and not have "roots" like others doesn't mean it's not a culture. It is different from European cultures because it is based on assimilating the cultures of immigrants. It is more dynamic than European cultures, and yet, at the same time, more stagnant.

My, my. I didn't realise in what poor state the schools in Germany realy are.
So before 1870 the German states where part of the Frankish Empire? You might want to pick up a history book or two before you try to talk about German history with me again. Cause you just skipped 1000 years.Muahahaha. Have you ever tried to convince a Bavarian that he was German? I can guarantee you that back before the 1870s those states may have been German by heritage, but some of them most certainly didn't consider themselves as such.
My original post might have been misleading. Those two instances that can be considered when Germany was founded, after the Break up of the Frankish Empire (first German state) and after the Franco-Prussian War (most recent German state). In between those, there have been times when there was NO German state. That's the point I was making. Just like America, Germany wasn't around forever. Those were the two most obvious choices for "origins" of a Germany to base "German culture" on. I'm sorry that I worded it in a way that you misunderstood it.

The editorial is news to me how?
If you want to win a war you need to take the fight to them! :sniper:The editorial isn't "news", it's the opinion of a man that makes his money running a printing house that publishes Europe's biggest lying print-medium.

The editorial isn't "news", it's the opinion of a man that makes his money running a printing house that publishes Europe's biggest lying print-medium.
Meh, it's just an expression - you know what I mean (well maybe not; this is the internet afterall :D)

America, on the other hand had been the champion of capitalism and democracy for the past half century and the success of these ideals is self evident, when compared to communism.

When was the US ever a champion for democracy? The US have backed more dictators than Russia ever did.

I have no interest in a political debate, i just want to correct some very misunderstood facts.

3. No focus, no Compass- The EU constitution had over 400 pages. This is one of the reasons why it failed. It was unfocused and too complicated. It guaranteed hundreds of "civil rights" like "the freedom of Children to talk freely." In the US, that would just fall under "freedom of Speech", whether you are a child or not.
Considering the "zero tolerance" policies at most usian schools i am glad that my future children will have a guaranteed right to speak up.

Ironically, the last point of the EU constitution forbade speaking AGAINST the constitution. So much for freedom of speech. Freedom of religion has also been under assualt.: The much talked about French ban on headscarves, crosses and yalmukas. German policies against Scientologists and Jehovah witnesses. Hey, I'll grant you that these folks hold some pretty strange beliefs, but taking over the world or blowing up a bus isn't one of them.
Taking over the world is exactly what Scientology is about, read up on your Hubbard and you will see that it was his express goal to have scientologists seated in every key decision making position. As that is considered undermining the democratic principles of this country they are under surveillance. Not for their religious beliefs, but for their stated political, worldly goals. And while next to everybody is annoyed by JWs they arent given any hassle at all from official side.

5. Xenophobia- I am puzzled by the European aversion to immigration. But of course, I am from a nation that is decended almost 100% from immigrants and still has them pouring in. Immigration keeps a culture fresh and new.
Muahaha. Excuse me, but who exactly has "Minutemen" vigilantes patroling its southern border? Must be us xenophobic europeans. Nearly all EU contries take in more immigrants and political refugees per capita than the US.

The low cost of eduction is also a double edged sword as people stay as students for inordinantly long periods when they could instead be working and contributing to the economy.
The low cost of education is blessing, not a sword. The large majority of students don't attempt to be lifetime students. Most start working after attaining a degree, which takes four years.

The tax-funded education permits people from lower economic classes to avail of university education - it's not the privelege for the very rich that you have in the US. This reduces inequality and increases class mobility. It also pays for itself as the large number of educated people in the workforce contribute more to the economy.

He's forgotten Europe trashed itself during WWII, and does not want to do it again.

PS - The Australian is owned by News Limited (owned by the Murdochs)

But the German newspaper is a know conservative outlet and boosted of the CDU.

The low cost of education is blessing, not a sword. The large majority of students don't attempt to be lifetime students. Most start working after attaining a degree, which takes four years.

The tax-funded education permits people from lower economic classes to avail of university education - it's not the privelege for the very rich that you have in the US. This reduces inequality and increases class mobility. It also pays for itself as the large number of educated people in the workforce contribute more to the economy.

"Public Education" or Socialized Government Schools are good that they give everybody the chance for upward social mobility, but bad in that they crush individual thinking and indoctrinate from a young age narrow incorrect views of thinking.

"Public Education" or Socialized Government Schools are good that they give everybody the chance for upward social mobility, but bad in that they crush individual thinking and indoctrinate from a young age narrow incorrect views of thinking.
Source please?

Pray tell why, oh why, would only "Public Education" indoctrinate from a young age narrow incorrect views of thinking? Surely, any school can do that. And what better regulatory body is there to make sure that it isn't the case than the government?

Source please?

Pray tell why, oh why, would only "Public Education" indoctrinate from a young age narrow incorrect views of thinking? Surely, any school can do that. And what better regulatory body is there to make sure that it isn't the case than the government?

Well i'll give you two examples i think you'll agree with. First the pledge of alliagance where everyday in U.S. Publlic schools you worship the government. This is very similar to the good ol' days of the nazi's where everyone was "educated" by the government.

Personal responisbility in education is the only way to avoid being used by the government

Well i'll give you two examples i think you'll agree with. First the pledge of alliagance where everyday in U.S. Publlic schools you worship the government. This is very similar to the good ol' days of the nazi's where everyone was "educated" by the government.

Personal responisbility in education is the only way to avoid being used by the government
And you're telling me that private school do not recite the pledge?

The only way to truly be free of "being used by the government" is to educate yourself, alone, without help. Unfortunately, it has shown to be a poor way to get ahead in life as you are behind the learning curve of the other "drones".

Studies have been made on how a children learns best. These studies have been used to make school programs. If you feel the government is brainwashing you, feel free to use one of the tools they taught you like decision-making, use of judgment or a critical review of the programs and find a better way to educate yourself from now on.

Even if I find the pledge a stupid policy, I wouldn't say the US children are brainwashed by the school. Surely the rampant patriotism they can see in their neighbourhood, on TV and their family has something to contribute.

Tell you what. Put some statistics on or let's drop the arguement.
My claimsare on the news on a regular basis. If anyone your the one that needs too proove the claim of 12% dropping to 10%. I still remember back in '89 when the numbers where around 2000,0000.


Didn't develop? It just magically appeared out of no where? Just because you don't like American culture because it might be more "superficial" than others and not have "roots" like others doesn't mean it's not a culture. It is different from European cultures because it is based on assimilating the cultures of immigrants. It is more dynamic than European cultures, and yet, at the same time, more stagnant.
*sigh* You still don't get it. I said mass immigration is fine for a root and souless culture like the US one. But European ones have a soul a history. And pissing them away trough mass immigration US-style isn't something wonderfull like the threadstarter is suggesting.

Muahahaha. Have you ever tried to convince a Bavarian that he was German? I can guarantee you that back before the 1870s those states may have been German by heritage, but some of them most certainly didn't consider themselves as such.
Well, Bavarians are a special case. But as for the rest. Those were often political decisions. And like today they didn't always reflect the true sentiments of the population. For eample the battle off Rossbach. Even the people living in states allied with France celebratet the French defeat. Just look at Merkel. I doubt that the majority of the German population supports Merkels US ass sucking policy. Most recently the Mainz affair. An entire city under lockdown and an entire region shut down. US killers on the roofs. Just for one asshole. Shame that the grenade in Grozny didn't go off.