NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this topic can go several ways, but what interests me mainly is where do you people think the EU should stop its expansion (that is, unless you think it has already expanded enough, or even too much).

The Border with Russia and Istanbul.

The Border with Russia and Istanbul.
Belarus and the Ukraine included?
No Turkey? (It cannot really stop at Istanbul, unless you want part of Turkey in and the rest out.)

Well, Europe ends at the Urals, the Atlantic, the North Sea, the Mediterrainain and the Sea of Marma. So anywhere in between is part of Europe. Any country with a foothold in those boundaries I'd say is fair game for EU expansion(cough cough Turkey, Russia).

The Border with Russia and Istanbul.
The Urals, Istanbul, Atlantic and the Med, surely?

Ok, this topic can go several ways, but what interests me mainly is where do you people think the EU should stop its expansion (that is, unless you think it has already expanded enough, or even to much).

I think Europe should stop to the east with Russia, and to the south east, not go beyond Turkey (excluding turkey from the EU).

I dont think there is any room for any any of the countries beyond those borders in Europe, nor do I consider them Europeans. Russia is a little different because they are west past the ural mountains europeans and east past the ural mountains asian. However, even though Russia is quasi Euro, I dont think they are interested with any inter Euro affiars or should be at that. I dont think Turkey should be in the EU because it has a HUGE muslim population and I dont see any way Europe could benefit from having an 150% increase in muslim population. That would be total suicide because, to the best of my understanding, European Union countries have free unregulated travel between them. I shudder to think about the day when muslim extreamists can simply travel around Europe unchecked and unstoppable.

I dont think Turkey should be in the EU because it has a HUGE muslim population and I dont see any way Europe could benefit from having an 150% increase in muslim population. That would be total suicide because, to the best of my understanding, European Union countries have free unregulated travel between them. I shudder to think about the day when muslim extreamists can simply travel around Europe unchecked and unstoppable.

Okay...

Should Albania and Bosnia be prevented from joining too, on the basis of religion?

Geographically at the Ural and the Bosborus.

Culturally I'd think Poland is still in - but beyond that it gets very Russian. Romania and Bulgaria are in as well, but the Ukraine isn't. I don't think Turkey really is either...and one's got to guess a little about the Serbs (and the others) sometimes.

Politically I wouldn't actually set borders. I think it can grow as large as it wants to - as long as the conditions are right. Whether that means North African States joining, or Turkey joining, or even Kazakhstan joining - as long as the countries have proper democratic principles, and are compatible legally and economically, I'd let them join.
That of course requires a working political system to cope with it, which the EU doesn't have right now - thanks to people in part scared of the expansion.

Okay...

Should Albania and Bosnia be prevented from joining too, on the basis of religion?

Let them exclude whomever they want.

And, in regards to your first post, yes, all Muslims are extremists.

(jk)

Okay...

Should Albania and Bosnia be prevented from joining too, on the basis of religion?

Yes, I was getting to those...I think they should be prevented from joining. They are scumbag countries with nothing to add to Europe....Although, admitingly, I am not a Euro, and as I am not I have no real say in this....So I say, here are my views Europe...Do with them what you want!

Well, that's an ... interesting point of view. :rolleyes:

He was kidding. (hence the "jk")

Yes, I was getting to those...I think they should not. They are scumbag countries with nothing to add to Europe....Although, admitingly, I am not a Euro, and as I am not I have no real say in this....So I say, here are my views Europe...Do with them what you want!

Racist much?

Yes, I was getting to those...I think they should be prevented from joining. They are scumbag countries with nothing to add to Europe....Although, admitingly, I am not a Euro, and as I am not I have no real say in this....So I say, here are my views Europe...Do with them what you want!

Thanks.

He was kidding. (hence the "jk")
....well, I still need to learn a lot about web-talk...

I might just delete that post. :headbang:

Geographically at the Ural and the Bosborus.

Culturally I'd think Poland is still in - but beyond that it gets very Russian. Romania and Bulgaria are in as well, but the Ukraine isn't. I don't think Turkey really is either...and one's got to guess a little about the Serbs (and the others) sometimes..
What does "culturally" mean? If it's religion, Bulgaria=Romania=Serbia=the Ukraine*=Russia (while the EU is confessionaly split, and the modern identity being proudly agnostic); other elements, aside from being subjective and emmited from a center that aims to exclude, were adopted by many (if not closer to all) countries of the World.

Politically I wouldn't actually set borders. I think it can grow as large as it wants to - as long as the conditions are right. Whether that means North African States joining, or Turkey joining, or even Kazakhstan joining - as long as the countries have proper democratic principles, and are compatible legally and economically, I'd let them join.
That of course requires a working political system to cope with it, which the EU doesn't have right now - thanks to people in part scared of the expansion.
And why not beyond those borders? At which point would it become absurd? (Well, I guess French Guyana, St. Pierre-and-Miquelion and Mayotte being EU lands before Lithuania has kinda touched that level.)

-----------
*Except for the fact that the Ukraine has many more Greek Catholics (more European?)

He was kidding. (hence the "jk")



Racist much?

OOOOOO...somebody dropped the *R* bomb:rolleyes:

First of all, stop being such an (American) liberal. Not everything has to do with RACISM, RACISTS, BIGOTRY, NAZIS...blah blah. I didnt even mention the races of the people in those countries...I simply said they are scumbag countries who have nothing to add to Europe. I said NOTHING about the racial aspect of those countries. You may argue that by saying I was talking about excluding muslim countries from the EU, you would be correct. However, Islam isnt a race, its a religion. It doesnt have to do with me being a xenophobe, it has everything to do with those countries being un-European.

Thanks.

Your welcome?

The Border with Russia and Istanbul.

Not Constantinople?

Russia should be in.

We all love Russia.

OOOOOO...somebody dropped the *R* bomb:rolleyes:

First of all, stop being such an (American) liberal. Not everything has to do with RACISM, RACISTS, BIGOTRY, NAZIS...blah blah. I didnt even mention the races of the people in those countries...I simply said they are scumbag countries who have nothing to add to Europe. I said NOTHING about the racial aspect of those countries. You may argue that by saying I was talking about excluding muslim countries from the EU, you would be correct. However, Islam isnt a race, its a religion. It doesnt have to do with me being a xenophobe, it has everything to do with those countries being un-European.

Okay, my bad. You're simply a bigot.

In the mediterranean. We shouldn't accept no cubic liter more!

Okay, my bad. You're simply a bigot.

Admitting you were wrong is the first step to understanding. I have reached someone...I can sleep well tonight.:p

Not Constantinople?

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I mean even New York was once New Amsterdam. Guess people just liked it better that way. Why'd Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks.

Get it right. Sheesh.:p

Your welcome?
Gee ya jackass, you ever think there might be people on here right now from those 'scumbag countries' with nothing to offer? Did you? :mad: :mad:

How can they be un-European when, in fact, they are right in the middle of the European continent?

How can they be un-European when, in fact, they are right in the middle of the European continent?
Who?

What does "culturally" mean?
Hmm, well, this may sound a little harsh, but I don't think Russia is really European. It's always been a little different, even if their leadership has tried its best to look Western.
So, when I say "culturally", I guess primarily "Is their culture/way of life/understanding of themselves more Russian than 'Western'"?
It's a lot about outlook too...I guess in principle if the Ukraine would get its act together and take clear steps toward moving West and splitting with Russia they'd qualify too.

And why not beyond those borders? At which point would it become absurd?
Well, at some point we'd have to think about a new name, that's all. And then you end up being a parallel organisation to the UN too, which I'm not sure is a good thing.

I didnt even mention the races of the people in those countries...I simply said they are scumbag countries who have nothing to add to Europe.
I'd really like to know what the definition for "scumbag country" is.
Especially considering all the things that Albanians, Bosnians and Serbs have done in the past for Europe (eg resistance against Osman Empire).

Gee ya jackass, you ever think there might be people on here right now from those 'scumbag countries' with nothing to offer? Did you? :mad: :mad:

Of course I have thought of that. But just because the country is scumbag doesnt mean the people are...moron, way to generalize. For instance, Mexico is a piece, but I have nothing against Mexicans, in fact I have a couple friends and even a close family friend whos Mexican......

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

Good to see that someone out there is paying attention.

Hmm, well, this may sound a little harsh, but I don't think Russia is really European. It's always been a little different, even if their leadership has tried its best to look Western.
So, when I say "culturally", I guess primarily "Is their culture/way of life/understanding of themselves more Russian than 'Western'"?
It's a lot about outlook too...I guess in principle if the Ukraine would get its act together and take clear steps toward moving West and splitting with Russia they'd qualify too.


Well, at some point we'd have to think about a new name, that's all. And then you end up being a parallel organisation to the UN too, which I'm not sure is a good thing.


I'd really like to know what the definition for "scumbag country" is.
Especially considering all the things that Albanians, Bosnians and Serbs have done in the past for Europe (eg resistance against Osman Empire).

You are right about Russia, they have always been different...Thats just the way Russians are. Not saying its good, not saying its bad, but they've always been different, I know what you mean.

My definition for a scumbag country is whatever I feel is appropriate when applied to whatever I'm talking about. It would be one thing If I was trying to spread my definition of it upon others, but I am simply stating my opinion.

Of course I have thought of that. But just because the country is scumbag doesnt mean the people are...moron, way to generalize. For instance, Mexico is a piece, but I have nothing against Mexicans, in fact I have a couple friends and even a close family friend whos Mexican......
And when he's around you refer to Mexico as wet-back country where smelly people with big hats live?
I believe your categories are quite bumpkinesque!

How can they be un-European when, in fact, they are right in the middle of the European continent?

Because theres more to being European than just geographical. I guess you could say those countries are European geographicaly, but thats about it.

And when he's around you refer to Mexico as wet-back country where smelly people with big hats live?
I believe your categories are quite bumpkinesque!

lol, dude, what the hell are you smoking?:p

My definition for a scumbag country is whatever I feel is appropriate when applied to whatever I'm talking about. It would be one thing If I was trying to spread my definition of it upon others, but I am simply stating my opinion.
Riight. But you see, normally one's opinion is based on something tangible... yours just appears to be..well, racist.

"They're scumbags because its my opinion they're scumbags"

I thought I'd post a map for all of those who aren't fully up to scratch with where stuff is...

http://www.ezilon.com/eu_map_europe.jpg

Riight. But you see, normally one's opinion is based on something tangible... yours just appears to be..well, racist.

"They're scumbags because its my opinion they're scumbags"

Enough with the racist crap...I dont like those countries and in my opinion they shouldnt be included in the Euro U, thats it...Done, finished.

I hate when people think everything is RACIST...enough.

lol, dude, what the hell are you smoking?:p
Nothing. Just regular cigarettes. That might be the problem exactly.

It's just strange to see Bosnia & Albania excluded while being surrounded on all sides by "European" countries. Sure, before they could join the EU a lot has to improve - I just wouldn't be as blatant and completely rule them out, or - even worse - call them names. (I mean, you can have your opinion alright, but that was simply impolite, IMHO -Edit: and that is all I will say to that...-).

In the mediterranean. We shouldn't accept no cubic liter more!
Cubic liter?:confused:?
Lets see a milliliter is one cubic centimeter, so a cubic militer would be in the 9th demension...

For instance, Mexico is a piece, but I have nothing against Mexicans, in fact I have a couple friends and even a close family friend whos Mexican......
And he whips out the defence every bigot seems to use when accused of being a bigot. "I can't hate ______ because I have friends who are ________!" is an old excuse that is becoming a cliché.

Enough with the racist crap...I dont like those countries and in my opinion they shouldnt be included in the Euro U, thats it...Done, finished.

I hate when people think everything is RACIST...enough.

Ugh... BUT WHY? WHY do you think the shouldn't be included? WHY don't you like them? A simple answer will (hopefully) dispell any racsim claims. ;)

Nothing. Just regular cigarettes. That might be the problem exactly.

It's just strange to see Bosnia & Albania excluded while being surrounded on all sides by "European" countries. Sure, before they could join the EU a lot has to improve - I just wouldn't be as blatant and completely rule them out, or - even worse - call them names. (I mean, you can have your opinion alright, but that was simply impolite, IMHO).

I understand what you are saying. I know what I said was impolite, because I dont try to hide my feelings. Like you said, for them to be included lots of work would have to be done....In my opinion its not worth it, in others it is. To each his own.

Hmm, well, this may sound a little harsh, but I don't think Russia is really European. It's always been a little different, even if their leadership has tried its best to look Western.
So, when I say "culturally", I guess primarily "Is their culture/way of life/understanding of themselves more Russian than 'Western'"?
It's a lot about outlook too...I guess in principle if the Ukraine would get its act together and take clear steps toward moving West and splitting with Russia they'd qualify too.
My question was about what shapes/shaped European identity.
We Europeans (since I assume Romania is included in there) have had a way of defining things in retrospect, and it's "firs-come-first-served". We're in, so there must be a reason for that.
One could find arguments for anything being more Western that anything else, but nobody can really say what "Western" means.

I'd really like to know what the definition for "scumbag country" is.
Especially considering all the things that Albanians, Bosnians and Serbs have done in the past for Europe (eg resistance against Osman Empire).
While I have not the slightest intention of agreeing with the guy you're answering to, what you replied raised interesting points.
First of all, I do not think that linking good or bad gestures to an ethos or some other national derivative is ever a working basis. The Serbs did nothing as a whole, nor indeed does any such identity.
Still, if you have to look at it that way, there are things which you do not take into account.
- if Serbs can be said to be "something distinct" (still, a sinuous path if ever), Bosnians are not much - well, unless Muslims. Like Albanians. And they couldn't have fought the Ottomans as such.
- those who did fight the Ottomans did so for the interval in which it was of no important use - they had given in and (including Romanian lands) had become Ottoman mignons by the XVIth century - although most by the early 1400s. The Habsburgs didn't miss them much when they themselves faced the Turks... (btw: Wallachians fought in the Vienna siege, on the Ottoman side; well, there is this story that the hospodar chose to shoot at fellow Christians only straw cannonballs, but really).
- the Ottomans get a lot of bad press. In short, they weren't barbarians, nor outsiders, nor revolutionaries.

Cubic liter?:confused:?
Lets see a milliliter is one cubic centimeter, so a cubic militer would be in the 9th demension...


And he whips out the defence every bigot seems to use when accused of being a bigot. "I can't hate ______ because I have friends who are ________!" is an old excuse that is becoming a cliché.

CLICHE! You want to know whats becoming cliche. When anyone who shows any kind of negative attitude towards anything is totally deemed a complete racist, bigot, and/or Nazi. Its getting old guys.

My question was about what shapes/shaped European identity.
Strange really...but I guess my definition of European/Western has always been one that is defined against the Russians (ie Not Russian = European).
I have no idea why, most Russians I met I liked, and I have no immediate, gut-wrenching problems with their politics either (except that I can't stand Putin and his clique)...but I guess that's one of those things that just moves into your head and stays there.

Still, if you have to look at it that way, there are things which you do not take into account.
I had a feeling I wouldn't get away with it while you're around....:D

But it is true...I consider the Albanians to be European probably more virtue to geography than anything else, and although the ongoing conflict in the former Yugoslavia is revolting and I'd love nothing more than to distance myself from "those types", I can't.

So if you asked me right now what "Europe" is, I'd say it's Western Europe, Germany, Poland, the Balcans, Bulgaria and Romania plus Scandinavia and Finland. For no other reason than this being what I always considered to be "Europe" - despite the official border being the Ural.

So if you asked me right now what "Europe" is, I'd say it's Western Europe, Germany, Poland, the Balcans, Bulgaria and Romania plus Scandinavia and Finland.

What of the Baltics?

(Just curious)

I had a feeling I wouldn't get away with it while you're around....:D
:D

But it is true...I consider the Albanians to be European probably more virtue to geography than anything else, and although the ongoing conflict in the former Yugoslavia is revolting and I'd love nothing more than to distance myself from "those types", I can't.

So if you asked me right now what "Europe" is, I'd say it's Western Europe, Germany, Poland, the Balcans, Bulgaria and Romania plus Scandinavia and Finland. For no other reason than this being what I always considered to be "Europe" - despite the official border being the Ural.
I could still be picky, but we agree to much in general for that to have to happen.
(We will not agree on several things on this topic, but I respect your opinion.)

What of the Baltics?
To be honest, they're not included in my traditional definition (must be that they used to be Soviet Republics, although unwillingly)...but I have quickly come to terms with accepting them as full EU members, so I'm flexible.

What of the Baltics?

(Just curious)
Well, he also forgot countries that are in the EU, such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
But that was not intended, I guess.

But that was not intended, I guess.
No, no it wasn't. Sorry to any Czechs and Slovaks around. :(

What about the UK?

Europe Forever woot! Europe should never ever ever end neither chronologically nor geographically! the EU i think, if it got more countries from outside it, would change to perhaps the CU continental union ect. And chronologically it is the greatest international achievement EVER! except for the founding of the USSR

And chronologically it is the greatest international achievement EVER! except for the founding of the USSR

Give me your address, I'll send you some money to buy a one-way ticket to the REAL WORLD.

Europe should end at the English Channel.

USSR was great :) beside if you mean EUROPE as a continent then Iceland down to Turkey, as a political ideology, it shouldnt end anywhere

USSR was great :)

How was the Russian Empire great in any way/shape/form? It killed millions of its own citizens, detained political oppenents and practiced imperialism whilst ranting against it abroad. It caused environmental disasters, and suppressed democracy in the Warsaw Pact.

Care to exaplain yourself?

Europe should end at the English Channel.

Ehhh.... what?

Iceland.

Europe should end at the English Channel

Ehhh.... what?

Politically

How was the Russian Empire great in any way/shape/form? It killed millions of its own citizens, detained political oppenents and practiced imperialism whilst ranting against it abroad. It caused environmental disasters, and suppressed democracy in the Warsaw Pact.

Care to exaplain yourself?

It attempted to build a Utopia. anything that attempts this has naturally got great intentions behind it

Europe should end at Canada.

Politically
I reiterate.... what?

What right do you (assuming you're British) have to decide what affects others states?

Europe should end at Canada.
Canada should end at Australia.

I reiterate.... what?

What right do you (assuming you're British) have to decide what affects others states?

The fact that he is british ;p

Canada should end at Australia.
Right you are, Ken.

Or perhaps the other way around?

It attempted to build a Utopia. anything that attempts this has naturally got great intentions behind it

Hitler tried to build a Utopia in Nazi Germany. Do you admire his great intentions?

Well, he may have thought his intentions were good.

basicly it doesn't matter the european union will just at some point hit the fact that now it isn't able to agree on anything

I reiterate.... what?

What right do you (assuming you're British) have to decide what affects others states?

I've never claimed to decide what affects other states. If the countries of continental Europe want to sign up to a new Franco-German condominium called Europe, that's their business.

All I ask is that the country which helped save Europe from domination by a single power be allowed home rule.

I've never claimed to decide what affects other states. If the countries of continental Europe want to sign up to a new Franco-German condominium called Europe, that's their business.

All I ask is that the country which helped save Europe from domination by a single power be allowed home rule.

And what if the people of the country which helped save Europe from domination by a single power choose to join a pan-European government?

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

I mean even New York was once New Amsterdam. Guess people just liked it better that way. Why'd Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks.

Get it right. Sheesh.:p

Surely you mean Byzantium!





Also, I would like to add that we Norwegians will never join the EU! Forever shall the coins of your union be cursed with a gigantic flaccid penis, pointing down at the rest of the countries!

And what if the people of the country which helped save Europe from domination by a single power choose to join a pan-European government?

If you'd ever been to Britain or had a deep knowledge of it, you'd know that that can't happen in the forseeable future, if ever.

If you'd ever been to Britain or had a deep knowledge of it, you'd know that that can't happen in the forseeable future, if ever.

You did not answer my question.

Surely you mean Byzantium!





Also, I would like to add that we Norwegians will never join the EU! Forever shall the coins of your union be cursed with a gigantic flacid penis, pointing down at the rest of the countries!

Norway isn't in the EU, and has one of the highest GDPs in the world, whilst maintaining its linguistic, social and cultural independence. If it can work for Norway, why not for Britain?

You did not answer my question.

What's the point?

What's the point?

I don't know. It seems like you think it's your mission to prevent the takeover of your nation by the evil imperialist EU. I'm just asking what you would do if the majority of the people of Britain wanted to be part of the EU.

What's the point?
Ireland and Iceland are 'beyond the English Channel'. But maybe that enclosed viewpoint does not consider these places to be worthy to be part of Europe.

Europe's West border stops at Iceland, Ireland to Portugal in the South. If Britain wants to be in a black hole nearly totally surrounded by 'Europe', then knock yourselves out.

Note i said Europe, and not the EU.

I don't know. It seems like you think it's your mission to prevent the takeover of your nation by the evil imperialist EU. I'm just asking what you would do if the majority of the people of Britain wanted to be part of the EU.

Assuming there was a clear majority in favour of federalisation, who would I be to oppose? However this is a moot point, as the British have been consistently eurosceptic, with euroscepticism rising according to recent polls.

Only 34% of a large sample of British people support continued membership. 60% think there should be a referendum to decide the issue once and for all.

When will politicians wake up?

Ireland and Iceland are 'beyond the English Channel'. But maybe that enclosed viewpoint does not consider these places to be worthy to be part of Europe.

Europe's West border stops at Iceland, Ireland to Portugal in the South. If Britain wants to be in a black hole nearly totally surrounded by 'Europe', then knock yourselves out.

Note i said Europe, and not the EU.

To all intents and purposes, the EU and Europe are one and the same. Europe geographically cannot be viewed as a continent, as there is no large discontinuation between it and Asia. A mountian range does not normally count as a continental barrier, so why should the Urals?

Norway isn't in the EU, and has one of the highest GDPs in the world, whilst maintaining its linguistic, social and cultural independence. If it can work for Norway, why not for Britain?

Very different political culture. Similar reason to why, say, speeding ticket fines are linked to income in Norway, but suggesting such a policy in Britain would most probably be electoral suicide.

To all intents and purposes, the EU and Europe are one and the same. Europe geographically cannot be viewed as a continent, as there is no large discontinuation between it and Asia. A mountian range does not normally count as a continental barrier, so why should the Urals?

So in fact, you agree that your previous statement that 'Europe should stop at the English Channel', is bullshit then?

Very different political culture. Similar reason to why, say, speeding ticket fines are linked to income in Norway, but suggesting such a policy in Britain would most probably be electoral suicide.

They have a different political culture because they are two distinct nation states. The fact that the EU is made up of 25 distinct nation states means that any attempt at unification is doomed to failure, and potentially harmful.

They have a different political culture because they are two distinct nation states. The fact that the EU is made up of 25 distinct nation states means that any attempt at unification is doomed to failure, and potentially harmful.

I'd doubt so. If the US can survive despite being effectively four separate nations, if Holland can survive despite its deep political and cultural divides, I think the EU can unify at some point in the future. Not in the near future, but some point.

So in fact, you agree that your previous statement that 'Europe should stop at the English Channel', is bullshit then?

That was merely a metaphor for Britain's EU membership. Discussing where the borders of the European continent lie bores me, as the division of the world into North, South America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Australasia is arbitrary, and not based in any deep-seated geographical distinction.

They have a different political culture because they are two distinct nation states. The fact that the EU is made up of 25 distinct nation states means that any attempt at unification is doomed to failure, and potentially harmful.

That depends on the nature of the unification and how it is done though.

Though you seem to have taken a left turn somewhere to go from what I said to what you claimed.

I'd doubt so. If the US can survive despite being effectively four separate nations, if Holland can survive despite its deep political and cultural divides, I think the EU can unify at some point in the future. Not in the near future, but some point.

Major groupings (whether they maybe political, social, or any other) in America have gone to war only once (the Civil War).

How many wars have been fought in Europe?

To compare the two is foolish, as the USA is far more homogenous in every way than "Europe".

That was merely a metaphor for Britain's EU membership. Discussing where the borders of the European continent lie bores me, as the division of the world into North, South America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Australasia is arbitrary, and not based in any deep-seated geographical distinction.

Well not really. And sorry if it bores you to recognise that there are countries that lie to the West and North of Britain that are in Europe. Now be a good boy, and put the blinkers back on...

That depends on the nature of the unification and how it is done though.

Though you seem to have taken a left turn somewhere to go from what I said to what you claimed.

A left turn? Please explain.

Major groupings (whether they maybe political, social, or any other) in America have gone to war only once (the Civil War).

How many wars have been fought in Europe?

And this means what?

To compare the two is foolish,

Yes it is, just like you did above.

Well not really. And sorry if it bores you to recognise that there are countries that lie to the West and North of Britain that are in Europe. Now be a good boy, and put the blinkers back on...

They are not blinkers, I'm just not interested in pointless geographical debate.

The ones with blinkers are EU federalists: while they only think of Europe, others think of the world beyond.

A left turn? Please explain.

When one goes off at a tangent.

I think that is the most succinct way I can explain it.

Major groupings (whether they maybe political, social, or any other) in America have gone to war only once (the Civil War).

How many wars have been fought in Europe? I know. I'm not saying it will be quick or easy, just saying that somewhere in the long run it is possible, especially if shifts in global power incentivize unification. Which is one ofthose IR possibilities that is very real but not often debated about.

And this means what?



Yes it is, just like you did above.

I did it to demonstrate that Europe has countless more divisions on every level than the United States.

I did it to demonstrate that Europe has countless more divisions on every level than the United States.

How do wars hundreds of years ago create division "on every level"?

I did it to demonstrate that Europe has countless more divisions on every level than the United States.
That's ridiculous.
When the US was started, the states were very different indeed. They had completely different cultures, government-styles and ways of life.
Not even their language was really the same, considering that for example they didn't know whether to make German or English the official language in the USA.

But a few decades of living together tends to eliminate differences, and the EU has got plenty of time to wait.

How do wars hundreds of years ago create division "on every level"?

There is war in Europe today! Ever heard of Bosnia? Conflict continues at a lower level in Ulster, Bosnia and Spain.

As for talking about wars "hundreds of yers ago", may I remind you that the greatest war Europe has ever seen was in the last century?

That's ridiculous.
When the US was started, the states were very different indeed. They had completely different cultures, government-styles and ways of life.
Not even their language was really the same, considering that for example they didn't know whether to make German or English the official language in the USA.

But a few decades of living together tends to eliminate differences, and the EU has got plenty of time to wait.

Where do I begin...

All the states which were founders of the USA had a political system of British origins, and all the key-players were British. They agreed on a system of government within a few years, something which Europe patently cannot achieve.

NB America doesn't have an official language, so I don't know where you're getting your information from.

Your last point is the most abusrd. The English and the Scottish have been united for nearly 300 years with strong links going back still further. Are you stupid enough to suggest that there are no differences between the two?

There is war in Europe today! Ever heard of Bosnia? Conflict continues at a lower level in Ulster, Bosnia and Spain.

OK, I thought you were talking larger scale. By the criteria you seem to be working with one could argue that the US has had a great many wars too.

As for talking about wars "hundreds of yers ago", may I remind you that the greatest war Europe has ever seen was in the last century?

What are your criteria for "greatest?"

Your last point is the most abusrd. The English and the Scottish have been united for nearly 300 years with strong links going back still further. Are you stupid enough to suggest that there are no differences between the two?

No, in the same way that there are still differences between northerners and southerners in the US. Yet they still work together rather well. So I think you've actually hurt your own point, since unity can be achieved despite differences that are often deep.

Quote from Anarchic Conceptions...

"OK, I thought you were talking larger scale. By the criteria you seem to be working with one could argue that the US has had a great many wars too"

Can you give me any examples in the US today where ethnic/political/social groups are killing each other in an attempt to win? All armed conflict is war, no matter the scale.

"What are your criteria for "greatest?""

I did not mean greatest with positive connotations, which I'm guessing you already knew (but still wanted to make a cheap point). I meant that it was the war which destroyed the most human life, and had the worst consequences of any conflict.

Where do I begin...

All the states which were founders of the USA had a political system of British origins, and all the key-players were British. They agreed on a system of government within a few years, something which Europe patently cannot achieve.

You make it sound like both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution were put to a popular vote.

If that had happened it is possible that one wouldn't have been ratified.


Your last point is the most abusrd. The English and the Scottish have been united for nearly 300 years with strong links going back still further. Are you stupid enough to suggest that there are no differences between the two?

I think he meant:

"But a few decades of living together tends to eliminate differences [that would stand in the way of unity]"

Or something similar.

No, in the same way that there are still differences between northerners and southerners in the US. Yet they still work together rather well. So I think you've actually hurt your own point, since unity can be achieved despite differences that are often deep.

Again, an inappropriate example.

Does the southern US have its own national sports teams?

Does the southern US have an independence party that is second in most elections?

Does the southern US have a completely different language to English (Gaelic in Scotland) that they are attempting to reintroduce to increase the sense of national identity?

WHEN does Europe end?:D :D

Quote from Anarchic Conceptions...

"OK, I thought you were talking larger scale. By the criteria you seem to be working with one could argue that the US has had a great many wars too"

Can you give me any examples in the US today where ethnic/political/social groups are killing each other in an attempt to win? All armed conflict is war, no matter the scale.

Do you want to revise that before I reply?

"What are your criteria for "greatest?""

I did not mean greatest with positive connotations, which I'm guessing you already knew (but still wanted to make a cheap point). I meant that it was the war which destroyed the most human life, and had the worst consequences of any conflict.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought were giving it positive connotations, I wasn't making a cheap point.

Though it is possible to argue that there have been previous conflicts that have destroyed more human life and have had worse conflicts.

I think he meant:

"But a few decades of living together tends to eliminate differences [that would stand in the way of unity]"

Or something similar.

It's still an invalid point. Muslims and Hindus have coexisted in India for over 1000 years, but the majority Muslim provinces in 1947 preferred independence to being part of a greater India.

I can trot out plenty more examples if required. Perhaps you could give some of integration after a few decades?

All the states which were founders of the USA had a political system of British origins, and all the key-players were British.
You should ask a few Americans, I'm sure they can tell you a few things about that.

They agreed on a system of government within a few years, something which Europe patently cannot achieve.
They were being threatened from the outside - Europe isn't. It's pretty obvious that not everyone was happy with the way the constitution and the government turned out, but in times of war (or war-like circumstances) you can't be picky.

NB America doesn't have an official language, so I don't know where you're getting your information from.
It's an urban legend that illustrates how many of the people in the early US was German...but there were very real attempts to print US laws bilingually.

Your last point is the most abusrd. The English and the Scottish have been united for nearly 300 years with strong links going back still further. Are you stupid enough to suggest that there are no differences between the two?
I can only agree with Chikyota...and instead of refuting him/her, you only further underscored that Scotland, Wales and England are very different, yet they work with each other just fine.
I'd appreciate if you kept the insults to a minimum though - it doesn't exactly strengthen your argument.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought were giving it positive connotations, I wasn't making a cheap point.

Though it is possible to argue that there have been previous conflicts that have destroyed more human life and have had worse conflicts.

What are these previous conflicts which destroyed more human life? Warfare from 1939-1945 was practically a production line of death, which had never been available before (although WWI was a warning precursor).

What are these previous conflicts which destroyed more human life? Warfare from 1939-1945 was practically a production line of death, which had never been available before (although WWI was a warning precursor).

And where are the examples of the "and had the worst consequences of any conflict"?

Quote from Neu Leonstein...

"You should ask a few Americans, I'm sure they can tell you a few things about that."

Very well, kindy tell me which of the founding fathers were not of British origin.


"They were being threatened from the outside - Europe isn't. It's pretty obvious that not everyone was happy with the way the constitution and the government turned out, but in times of war (or war-like circumstances) you can't be picky."

How many of the states cared enough to secede from the union? Even loyalist New England didn't.


"It's an urban legend that illustrates how many of the people in the early US was German...but there were very real attempts to print US laws bilingually."

Urban LEGEND. Besides, it refers to the early US before it had developed a strong sense of national identity. The difference between the US and Europe is that the US didn't replace any long-lived existing states with ancient historical routes, which is what would happen in Europe.


"I can only agree with Chikyota...and instead of refuting him/her, you only further underscored that Scotland, Wales and England are very different, yet they work with each other just fine.
I'd appreciate if you kept the insults to a minimum though - it doesn't exactly strengthen your argument."

You think the constituent nations of the UK work just fine? If they did, why do the nationalist parties almost always come second in elections in those countries? Why do they have their own sports teams and mini embassies? There is great disquiet about the UK vs its constituent nations, which seems to be growing.

If that's a properly functioning union, god help us.

And where are the examples of the "and had the worst consequences of any conflict"?

I think the casualty figures speak for themselves.

60 million

And let's not forget the near-extermination of European Jewry.

I think the casualty figures speak for themselves.

60 million

Would it not be easier to go futher back in time pick a war where the consequences was more and more war that culminated in the Second World War. And that the EU has helped to achieve something largely unique in European history, that being no huge continental wars for an unprecedented amount of time.

Though, all this is largely academic in that you haven't explained how these wars cause divisions on all levels of society.

And let's not forget the near-extermination of European Jewry.

If anything that was a consequence of the first world war since that happened largely independently of the war and started before the war..

Would it not be easier to go futher back in time pick a war where the consequences was more and more war that culminated in the Second World War. And that the EU has helped to achieve something largely unique in European history, that being no huge continental wars for an unprecedented amount of time.

Though, all this is largely academic in that you haven't explained how these wars cause divisions on all levels of society.



If anything that was a consequence of the first world war since that happened largely independently of the war and started before the war..

Actually, the mass exterminations happend during the war. As they only started when the Third Reich invaded Poland and encountered the vast numbers of Jews and undersirebles...I.E., Slavs, Commies....etc.

All I know is this:

No Europe = No chance of Ace of Bass making a comeback.

Enough said.

Actually, the mass exterminations happend during the war. As they only started when the Third Reich invaded Poland and encountered the vast numbers of Jews and undersirebles...I.E., Slavs, Commies....etc.

Ahh true. But plans were already being drawn up to remove Jews from German society. The Second World War only made this removal more horrific.

Any, very few things only have one cause, the Holocaust isn't one of them.

Quotations from Anarchic Conceptions...

"Would it not be easier to go futher back in time pick a war where the consequences was more and more war that culminated in the Second World War. And that the EU has helped to achieve something largely unique in European history, that being no huge continental wars for an unprecedented amount of time."

Wars are still going on the Balkans! Has the EU gone to any great attempts to stop them? No, because it is incapable of effective joint action.

"Though, all this is largely academic in that you haven't explained how these wars cause divisions on all levels of society."

Wars help to entrench the differences between nations, as they are important in helping to define national characteristics. Besides, war is not the only cause of division in Europe. There's linguistic, political, geographical, economic, religious... you name it, it's got it!



"If anything that was a consequence of the first world war since that happened largely independently of the war and started before the war.."

The extermination only began in 1942, right slap bang in the middle of the war.

All I know is this:

No Europe = No chance of Ace of Bass making a comeback.

Enough said.

If only that were true of Take That :(

Very well, kindy tell me which of the founding fathers were not of British origin.
Pretty much all of them - they were born in America, and most spent their entire lives there. Given how hard they were fighting the Brits, and how much they loved the French, if they did have British origins, they didn't care a lot.
But that's beside the point...the question is whether the country, the population, the culture of the place was British, or even uniform. And no one could argue that they were.
http://www.theusaonline.com/people/growth.htm

How many of the states cared enough to secede from the union? Even loyalist New England didn't.
As I said, they realised that their differences were overshadowed by the need to stick together given the situation. And besides, had one state not signed, I would think it would've had an angry militia army at its throat pretty quick.
Then there was obviously the civil war which, while much later, was also (to a pretty big extent) about sorting out what the constitution meant for the states and their rights.

The difference between the US and Europe is that the US didn't replace any long-lived existing states with ancient historical routes, which is what would happen in Europe.
That may be our difference - I acknowledge the origin of the countries, but I'm also quite aware that those origins were primarily about spilling blood, about local leaders trying to carve a name for themselves out of the flesh and bones of their victims - and that those origins ultimately resulted in both world wars.
I can see that no one in Europe has a chance of staying important to the world on their own, and ultimately, just like the States did back in America, differences must be put aside and a little bit of pragmatism needs to come to the forefront.

If that's a properly functioning union, god help us.
It works, doesn't it? Give the dog a bone...if people think they wanna call themselves "Scottish" rather than "British", then let them.
Even if Europe would become a Federal Superstate tomorrow, no one would take away your right to go about and call yourself English (I presume you're English...sorry if you're not).

If only that were true of Take That :(
Yeah, but they're from the British Isles, and we all know that's not really Europe...

[quote]Wars are still going on the Balkans! Has the EU gone to any great attempts to stop them? No, because it is incapable of effective joint action.

huge continental wars


Wars help to entrench the differences between nations,

Though this wasn't the case with the First or Second World Wars. Where the casualties were so horrific that the there were attempts to stop similar things happening again.

as they are important in helping to define national characteristics.

Really? I am somewhat bemused by this comment, unless you think the only useful national characteristic are those useful to wage more war.

Besides, war is not the only cause of division in Europe. There's linguistic, political, geographical, economic, religious... you name it, it's got it!

Though the question shouldn't be if there are divisions in Europe. But if those divisions stand in the way of unity.

There are such divisions in my home city.

The extermination only began in 1942, right slap bang in the middle of the war.

Indeed, at the Wannsee Conference. Though measures to eliminate the Jews were already underway before the war started. They just weren't so horrific.

Ahh true. But plans were already being drawn up to remove Jews from German society. The Second World War only made this removal more horrific.

Any, very few things only have one cause, the Holocaust isn't one of them.

Yes...Plans for mass deportation to an "Israel" in America, or an Island (Madagascar) off the coast of Africa. Not to purge the /Europe/the world of Jews. Mass deportation and mass murder are two totally different things. No one even thought up the scheme up a systematic efficient killing proccess until the invasion of Eastern Europe.

Yes...Plans for mass deportation to an "Israel" in America, or an Island (Madagascar) off the coast of Africa. Not to purge the /Europe/the world of Jews. Mass deportation and mass murder are two totally different things. No one even thought up the scheme up a systematic efficient killing proccess until the invasion of Eastern Europe.

This is all beside the point I was making. Namely that the Holocaust has more than one cause. With the more important one being the First World War (in my opinion).

This is all beside the point I was making. Namely that the Holocaust has more than one cause. With the more important one being the First World War (in my opinion).

Just a question. Have you read Mein Kampf?

Just a question. Have you read Mein Kampf?

Yes. Well part of it.

I found it one of the most boring and brainless pieces of drivel ever written.

Why?

Yes. Well part of it.

I found it one of the most boring and brainless pieces of drivel ever written.

Why?

Did you??? Who would have thought that a book which reveals all the "reasons" and "logic" behind one of the most infamous atrocities in history could be boring drivel?...Well, ya learn something new everyday.

I was wondering If you had read it because Hitler speaks of why he hates Jews and much of it (not all) comes from the Great War. So I was just wondering if you used him as a source for your statements. Thats all.

Did you??? Who would have thought that a book which reveals all the "reasons" and "logic" behind one of the most infamous atrocities in history could be boring drivel?...Well, ya learn something new everyday.

Well, maybe I stopped reading before the good part ;)

I was wondering If you had read it because Hitler speaks of why he hates Jews and much of it (not all) comes from the Great War. So I was just wondering if you used him as a source for your statements. Thats all.

No just that the aftermath of the first world war, with all the restrictions and reperations etc imposed on Germany helped the Nazi party to originally gain support (which then waned during Stresemann's watch).

There are of course other, linked causes, the Great Depression being another important one in my opinion.

Well, maybe I stopped reading before the good part ;)



No just that the aftermath of the first world war, with all the restrictions and reperations etc imposed on Germany helped the Nazi party to originally gain support (which then waned during Stresemann's watch).

There are of course other, linked causes, the Great Depression being another important one in my opinion.

Of course your right, I thought you were talking about the animosity towards Jews, not the Nazis takeover of Germany...We were talking about two different things.

And the good part, you did stop reading before.;)

I really do worry about the state of mind of the population.

Europe is a barrier to free trade which keeps poor countries poor. I almost fell out of my seat when someone wrote "we shouldn't let Turkey into the EU because they have a large muslim population and we don't want to let extremists into our country". My GOD. Reminds me of when few countries would take jewish refugees from Germany because of their predjudices. You think all muslims are terrorists? If it wasn't for the UK's evil foreign policy (and yes, it is evil) then there wouldn't be anyone trying to blow us up anyway.
Can someone please tell me the purpose of the EU other than to keep people from certain countries out due to predjudice and starving other countries of trade due to huge tariffs? Oh yeh and to give some more bureaucrats something to do. Getting rid of 'EU status' would make the world a much safer place.

Europe is a barrier to free trade which keeps poor countries poor.

Because we all know that the structural adjustment programmes foisted on poor countries in the 80s and 90s by the World Bank worked wonders.

Oh wait...

I really do worry about the state of mind of the population.

Europe is a barrier to free trade which keeps poor countries poor. I almost fell out of my seat when someone wrote "we shouldn't let Turkey into the EU because they have a large muslim population and we don't want to let extremists into our country". My GOD. Reminds me of when few countries would take jewish refugees from Germany because of their predjudices. You think all muslims are terrorists? If it wasn't for the UK's evil foreign policy (and yes, it is evil) then there wouldn't be anyone trying to blow us up anyway.
Can someone please tell me the purpose of the EU other than to keep people from certain countries out due to predjudice and starving other countries of trade due to huge tariffs? Oh yeh and to give some more bureaucrats something to do. Getting rid of 'EU status' would make the world a much safer place.

I really do worry about your state of mind.

So heres what I'm going to do. Instead of sitting around and telling us that having unlimited unchecked access to Europe with a country that has millions of muslims of which atleast a couple percent would be willing to go on a Jihad, why dont you take my advice.
Go buy a horse, go ride up into the mountains, play with yourself and dont bother anyone.

I really do worry about the state of mind of the population.

Europe is a barrier to free trade which keeps poor countries poor. I almost fell out of my seat when someone wrote "we shouldn't let Turkey into the EU because they have a large muslim population and we don't want to let extremists into our country". My GOD. Reminds me of when few countries would take jewish refugees from Germany because of their predjudices. You think all muslims are terrorists? If it wasn't for the UK's evil foreign policy (and yes, it is evil) then there wouldn't be anyone trying to blow us up anyway.
Can someone please tell me the purpose of the EU other than to keep people from certain countries out due to predjudice and starving other countries of trade due to huge tariffs? Oh yeh and to give some more bureaucrats something to do. Getting rid of 'EU status' would make the world a much safer place.

Dont try to compare the situation in the 30's with whats going on in the world now a days.

Dont try to compare the situation in the 30's with whats going on in the world now a days.

Oh, don't pick on the old.

Anyone who can remember the 30's should be treated with respect ;)

Oh, don't pick on the old.

Anyone who can remember the 30's should be treated with respect ;)

Haha..lol, not gonna lie, that made me laugh:p

If the govt didn't go starting illegal wars, invading people's countries, bombing weddings, then they wouldn't want to blow us up and you wouldn't need passports let alone checkpoints.
Blair and Bush are the biggest terrorists in the world today.

If the govt didn't go starting illegal wars, invading people's countries, bombing weddings, then they wouldn't want to blow us up and you wouldn't need passports let alone checkpoints.
Blair and Bush are the biggest terrorists in the world today.

Couldnt find a horse, huh?

Ya hear that?

Those are the mountains, calling your name

STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO POOOOOOOOOOOT.....see, I told you so.

Why are you so scared of terrorists? The coalition have killed just as many innocent people than were killed on sept 11 in a war based on lies. Can you give me a reason not to compare it with the 30s? The predjudices are still there.

Norway isn't in the EU, and has one of the highest GDPs in the world, whilst maintaining its linguistic, social and cultural independence. If it can work for Norway, why not for Britain?

You can't really compare, Norway is a country with around 4 1/2 million people, UK has over 65 million. Norway has no incentive to join EU because of one simple reason, oil. If I remember correctly the EU has special deals with norway because of just, the oil. Norway is also the most expensive country on the continent afaik.

Regarding Turkey I don't disagree with the decision to let them apply for EU membership for several reasons. The main reason being that they are a muslim nation, something that hopefully will create some kind of bridge between Europe and the Middle East that will lead to greater cultural understanding making it harder for fundamentalists to convince people we over here are devils in disguise.

Stating that the EU has failed in it's mission to promote peace in is hardly fair, there have been no large scale conflicts. Saying that it is a failure because of the Balkans is way too petty. For that matter afaik there are peace keeping forces in the Balkans.... but I might be wrong (I know there were and havn't heard of them being pulled out?).

I would say that the Russians should be allowed to join as a large amount of the population lives in Europe and they have played a vital part in european history. Not to mention that they are sitting upon huge natural gas reserves... and ofcourse, russians are bloody sweet drinking patners :cool:

To continue I would like to say that while I am not opposed to expanding further beyond Europe I hardly see the EU as the right institution to do so and it would require extreme reforms. Not that it doesn't require reforms at the moment, especially the subsidies (hey, someone calculated that to get maximized subsidies you should start a cocoa nut farm in northern sweden) and giving it an army large enough to accomplish something.

Sorry if I got sidetracked, too late :headbang:

Why are you so scared of terrorists?

This line speaks for itself...Why am I scared of terrorists? Ohhhhhhh now I see. I bet your one of "those" who thinks that terrorists just need some more hugs and are just wrongly understood. I hate your kind. Listen, newbie. This is war. They attack us, we attack them. Its either kill or be killed. In an ideal world, things shouldnt have to come down to that. But this world isnt ideal is it? We just have to go out an attack them before they can get to our families and our homes. We have to be ready. Something wicked this way comes and we can only hope that when it does, this time, we will be ready.

Wow, you really do soak up the govt propaganda like a sponge.
"THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!! HATE ALL MUSLIMS, DONT QUESTION OUR CRUSADE THROUGH INNOCENT COUNTRIES THAT HAVNT ATTACKED US!! "

This line speaks for itself...Why am I scared of terrorists? Ohhhhhhh now I see. I bet your one of "those" who thinks that terrorists just need some more hugs and are just wrongly understood. I hate your kind. Listen, newbie. This is war. They attack us, we attack them. Its either kill or be killed. In an ideal world, things shouldnt have to come down to that. But this world isnt ideal is it? We just have to go out an attack them before they can get to our families and our homes. We have to be ready. Something wicked this way comes and we can only hope that when it does, this time, we will be ready.

You sir is exactly what makes it easy for terrorists to recruit people that blow themselves up. "Them and us, good and evil, black and white". Wouldn't life be nice if it all was so easy? But wait a second, ever heard of gray areas or are those something alien to you? I am not saying you can solve terrorism with hugs and understanding, I am not proposing welcoming terrorists with open arms, in fact I say shoot them if they try anything but do NOT attack. Premptive action for all it's worth, but think for a second about why terrorism exists and saying "islam" is hardly fair as islam is an religion at least as peaceful as christianity. I suggest that you take a minute or two to think about the reasons behind terrorism and you might find that we aren't entirely innocent. In Sweden we have a saying, "som man bäddar får man liggar", "as you make your bed you will have to lie in it". The closest english saying I can think of is "digging your own grave" but it doesn't really fit.

Wow, you really do soak up the govt propaganda like a sponge.
"THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!! HATE ALL MUSLIMS, DONT QUESTION OUR CRUSADE THROUGH INNOCENT COUNTRIES THAT HAVNT ATTACKED US!! "
Yeah all that...
But did you really type out and sent this: "Why are you so scared of terrorists?"

I'm in stitches here :D

Wow, you really do soak up the govt propaganda like a sponge.
"THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!! HATE ALL MUSLIMS, DONT QUESTION OUR CRUSADE THROUGH INNOCENT COUNTRIES THAT HAVNT ATTACKED US!! "

Um...Afghanastan harbored the terrorits, everyone knows that. So, they actually did attack us. You said innocent countries, countries plural. That would mean you included Afghanastan with Iraq. So...In conclusion, your an idiot.

Yeah all that...
But did you really type out and sent this: "Why are you so scared of terrorists?"

I'm in stitches here :D

Yeah...smart guy:rolleyes:

You sir is exactly what makes it easy for terrorists to recruit people that blow themselves up. "Them and us, good and evil, black and white". Wouldn't life be nice if it all was so easy? But wait a second, ever heard of gray areas or are those something alien to you? I am not saying you can solve terrorism with hugs and understanding, I am not proposing welcoming terrorists with open arms, in fact I say shoot them if they try anything but do NOT attack. Premptive action for all it's worth, but think for a second about why terrorism exists and saying "islam" is hardly fair as islam is an religion at least as peaceful as christianity. I suggest that you take a minute or two to think about the reasons behind terrorism and you might find that we aren't entirely innocent. In Sweden we have a saying, "som man bäddar får man liggar", "as you make your bed you will have to lie in it". The closest english saying I can think of is "digging your own grave" but it doesn't really fit.

There are no gray areas in this war. The second you stop to look around for a gray area, a terrorists slips through your borders. Although I do understand what your saying, I respect it, and I know that I cannot make everybody share my views. I also understand your saying, although I dont think it really applies to what we are talking about. Also, I noticed your from Sweden. Its supposed to be AMAZING up there. I was thinking about going to visit Sweden this upcoming summer actually.

Yeah...smart guy:rolleyes:I don't read those smileys well. Please feel free to have another try... I am a smart guy or not..?

[QUOTE=Stoo_Pot]The coalition have killed just as many innocent people than were killed on sept 11 in a war based on lies.QUOTE]

complete understatement. The US "coalition of the willing" has killed over 200,000 Innocent Iraqis as of several months ago, not counting Afghanistanis. We have tortured, just as they have. We have spread propaganda, just as they have. And the number of US casualties, over 11,000 right now, is quite a bit higher than 9-11. This war in Iraq is only hurting us. It's hurt us abroad, in that we have lost our image (we are the #1 most hated country in the world) it's hurt us internally, as we become more divided, and most of all, it's given them way more recruits. Images of Guantanamo Bay and Torture prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan have only helped them by helping make the world seem more black and white. You hear that? Seeing the world in black and white is not only a good way to get yourself and other people killed, it's a good way to have continual violence. Seeing in black and white will not help us. It will only hurt us.

And who defines who a terrorist is? For all what could be happening, the Republicans could define every registered democrat as a terrorist. It's as easy as labling people "enemy combatants".

Just make sure you come during the summer as the winter's about as much fun as a... right, brain dead.

What I was coming at was that western imperialism is pretty much the most important cause behind terrorism, if we hadn't meddled in other countries business they wouldn't have had a reason to try and blow themselves up against us. Invading Iraq was pretty much handing a xmas present to any terrorist organization in need of recruits giving them a reason to hate the US. If we assume that imperialism is a pretty certain source of terrorism, then define imperialism as "a relationship of political, and/or economic, and/or cultural domination and subordination between geographical areas". I think few here will have a problem seeing that this exists between the US and the Middle East. So if imperialism creates terrorism and the US is practising imperialistic ambitions they are directly to blame for the terrorism....

Sorry if I came a bit anti-us there, didn't mean to, western imperialism in general was bad :rolleyes:

I don't read those smileys well. Please feel free to have another try... I am a smart guy or not..?

Lol I was talking about him. You were laughing because he asked why we are scared of terrorits. Then you said something about how you couldnt believe he asked that....and I said yeah smart guy with a sarcastic face thing...Because hes an idiot...not you.

Why are you afraid of terrorists is a very important question. By scaring people, the govt can get away with a lot more e.g. starting an illegal war and still have the public's backing (although they have lost it now). I think the fear you are feeling has been amplified and hyped up by the media and the govt. I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq ever declaring war on the US. I wish I was even shown ONE photograph of a terrorist training camp in Iraq. Oh yeh, but I forgot that's not why we went to war. We went to war because there were WMDs, and oh yeh they didn't exist. Colin Powell has even publcly said that the war in Iraq is nothing whatsoever to do with Sept 11th. If terrorists were living in either of these places, where is the proof that their govts were helping them? It's well known that there are terrorists living in the UK, most of which are probably already British citizens like those involved with the London tube bombings so please, come and give us a regime change.

Sorry if I came a bit anti-us there, didn't mean to, western imperialism in general was bad :rolleyes:

don't worry. Saying it doesn't make you anti-US. It makes you against the US's actions. I'm a US citizen, and I'm against our actions. Does that make me anti-US? no.

Just make sure you come during the summer as the winter's about as much fun as a... right, brain dead.

What I was coming at was that western imperialism is pretty much the most important cause behind terrorism, if we hadn't meddled in other countries business they wouldn't have had a reason to try and blow themselves up against us. Invading Iraq was pretty much handing a xmas present to any terrorist organization in need of recruits giving them a reason to hate the US. If we assume that imperialism is a pretty certain source of terrorism, then define imperialism as "a relationship of political, and/or economic, and/or cultural domination and subordination between geographical areas". I think few here will have a problem seeing that this exists between the US and the Middle East. So if imperialism creates terrorism and the US is practising imperialistic ambitions they are directly to blame for the terrorism....

Sorry if I came a bit anti-us there, didn't mean to, western imperialism in general was bad :rolleyes:

I totally understand your view. And I beleive its a very logical one to have...Not everyone is going to have the same views on the world, if they did, well we wouldnt be having this convo right here. I agree with disagree, but I find your views totally reasonable and logical.

And who defines who a terrorist is? For all what could be happening, the Republicans could define every registered democrat as a terrorist. It's as easy as labling people "enemy combatants".

This definition, taken from a neutral source (European Committee for International Schools, ECIS) insurance policy definition of terrorism is the best I have found so far.

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

Why are you afraid of terrorists is a very important question. By scaring people, the govt can get away with a lot more e.g. starting an illegal war and still have the public's backing (although they have lost it now). I think the fear you are feeling has been amplified and hyped up by the media and the govt. I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq ever declaring war on the US. I wish I was even shown ONE photograph of a terrorist training camp in Iraq. Oh yeh, but I forgot that's not why we went to war. We went to war because there were WMDs, and oh yeh they didn't exist. Colin Powell has even publcly said that the war in Iraq is nothing whatsoever to do with Sept 11th. If terrorists were living in either of these places, where is the proof that their govts were helping them? It's well known that there are terrorists living in the UK, most of which are probably already British citizens like those involved with the London tube bombings so please, come and give us a regime change.

Well, since were being invited...sure, why not!

**Millions of Americans stand behind me and march to England....over the water, lol**

Why are you afraid of terrorists is a very important question. By scaring people, the govt can get away with a lot more e.g. starting an illegal war and still have the public's backing (although they have lost it now). I think the fear you are feeling has been amplified and hyped up by the media and the govt. I don't remember Afghanistan or Iraq ever declaring war on the US. I wish I was even shown ONE photograph of a terrorist training camp in Iraq. Oh yeh, but I forgot that's not why we went to war. We went to war because there were WMDs, and oh yeh they didn't exist. Colin Powell has even publcly said that the war in Iraq is nothing whatsoever to do with Sept 11th. If terrorists were living in either of these places, where is the proof that their govts were helping them? It's well known that there are terrorists living in the UK, most of which are probably already British citizens like those involved with the London tube bombings so please, come and give us a regime change.

note - actually the Iraq War was not illegal. A UN thing passed in 1997 allowed any country the right to invade Iraq. So, technically, we were allowed. Does that mean it was a good idea? no.

As for the training camps in Iraq, that's complete bull. In afghanistan, there were, but not in Iraq. Bin Ladin actually asked for aid from Saddam, who refused. How bad do you have to be to be rejected by a dictator :p

This definition, taken from a neutral source (European Committee for International Schools, ECIS) insurance policy definition of terrorism is the best I have found so far.

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

that's a very good definition. Unfortunately, it can be very easily changed by the government. Take suicides in Guantanamo. Record numbers were being reported there, but all of a sudden, they dropped. Politicians said the situation had improved. Turned out that instead of suicides they were being called "self inflicted casualties". It's so incredibly easy to change definitions, that to declare an international "war on terrorism" could easily end up quite bad.

As for how far the EU can expand, I say let them expand as far as they want. As long as countries join willingly and are not forced to, I'm all for it.

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

Seems that, according to this definition, going to Iraq to topple the existing govt and create a democracy is a terrorist act.

Well, since were being invited...sure, why not!

**Millions of Americans stand behind me and march to England....over the water, lol**

The yanks are coming, the yanks are coming! :D

Seems that, according to this definition, going to Iraq to topple the existing govt and create a democracy is a terrorist act.

it says basically that a terrorist is a person who commits an act of violence to put a group of people in a state of fear. That's not what the Iraq war was for.

the use of force - in connection with govt - committed for political/ideological reasons - intention to influence any other govt

If they really did go there for WMDs then its not terrorist, but if it was to create regime change then that fits the criteria for terrorist.

The yanks are coming, the yanks are coming! :D

You red coat bastards..lol.

**Once me and my army of fellow Americans get there, we, along with the British, unite and march, again over the water, lol, to France to fight those damn Frenchies....the Swedish, Danes, Finnish, and Norwegians, sieze this opportunity to raid the coast of England and resetle Normandy, while ze Germans decide, hey, why not, and invade Poland....Meanwhile, Russia starts collecting everyones bread supply, and carelessly spilling nuclear radiation all over the Kola Penninsula, all the while Portugal decides to go do something for the first time in like 400 years, but nobody notices so Portugal sulks back to the Iberian to be cast in Spains shadow for the rest of eternity**

Then we all wake up....:p

[QUOTE=Dakota Land] The US "coalition of the willing" has killed over 200,000 Innocent Iraqis as of several months ago, not counting Afghanistanis.QUOTE]

Just curious where the 200,000 comes from.

The below link says about 35,000.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

If you've got something more accurate, I'm genuinely interested.

I would say that at it's largest it could include Russia, the Ukraine, the caucases, turkey, Palestine and Syria, and North African nations. That however, would come far into the future. Presently Russia and the Ukraine don't seem to want EU membership, or stand a chance at getting it(maybe the EU can take back East Prussia, even though all the prussians were deported). Turkey looks like it might, but that would likely be a bad move for the EU, although it would secure them the bosphorous. North Africa and Middle Eastern Nations can't even think about joining for another 50 years, if they're lucky, but I could see their membership eventually if they become more wealthy and western.

oops, yours is correct. sorry, added an extra 0 :D

Then we all wake up....:p
Got You there AI. I read you right then :)
People should have something to do when reading/typing these things... here's how I see this thread in tabs:

intro
|C |F |G |C |
|am |dm |F |G |

middle
|am G |F |dm |G |
|am G |F |dm |G |

outro:
|:C |F |C |F :|

Got You there AI. I read you right then :)
People should have something to do when reading/typing these things... here's how I see this thread in tabs:

intro
|C |F |G |C |
|am |dm |F |G |

middle
|am G |F |dm |G |
|am G |F |dm |G |

outro:
|:C |F |C |F :|

Yeah I dont, uh, eh, I dont really, um,....what?....Dude, no disrespect but what were you trying to say there? I noticed your Finnish, well it could be the language barrier...but you totally lost me on that last pot...could you try to change it and re send it...sorry bro...thanks.

Yeah I dont, uh, eh, I dont really, um,....what?....Dude, no disrespect but what were you trying to say there? I noticed your Finnish, well it could be the language barrier...but you totally lost me on that last pot...could you try to change it and re send it...sorry bro...thanks.
Oh. Forget it. You obviously don't play guitar. sowwy.

Going back aways someone said something about come countries having nothing to contribute to the EU or being too different culturally/religiously. As I understand it part of the EU "soft power" gambit is bringing these counrties into the fold and "reforming" them by imposing standards for open democratic multicultural gorvernance and helping their developement through trade and investment. I'll just say it's done wonders for Ireland, but whether it wil continue to work as the EU expands east remains to be seen. I guess the EU will hit a critical mass at some point and stop there.

Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless
Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless

Life is timeless
Europe endless
Life is timeless
Europe endless

Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless
Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless

Parks, hotels and palaces
Europe endless
Parks, hotels and palaces
Europe endless

Promenades and avenues
Europe endless
Real life and postcard views
Europe endless

Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless
Europe endless
Endless endless endless endless

Elegance and decadence
Europe endless
Elegance and decadence
Europe endless

-Kraftwerk

In terms of governmental ideals, Isreal could join a western group like the EU, but I doubt it would...

They're in the eurovision. If the Palestinian thing gets sorted out then its only a matter of time.

Right you are, Ken.
Sorry but WTF?
[shocked and hopeful]LM?????[/shocked and hopeful]

I thought I'd post a map for all of those who aren't fully up to scratch with where stuff is...

http://www.ezilon.com/eu_map_europe.jpg

on the east up to belarus/ukraine. Not so sure about turkey joining, but that seems like a moot point now. Balklands are a must. All of these nations have always had a big role in europe, and thus should be allowed to join.

Turkey may join in a few years if it gets it's whole human rights problem in order. However balklands are a must, they are the backbone of Europe.

I think Japan should be allowed to join. It's democratic, it's advanced, what more do you want. Just change the name a little.

Gee, this thread really got enormous.

However balklands are a must, they are the backbone of Europe.
How do you figure? And what is it that you include in "the Balkans"?
(note: I'm from Romania)

Sorry but WTF?
[shocked and hopeful]LM?????[/shocked and hopeful]
It's from MCX (Most Extreme Elimination Challenge). It is a TV show that is originally a Japanese game show, then two guys redo the audio.

Its basicly 22 minutes of watching Japonese people get hurt.

How do you figure? And what is it that you include in "the Balkans"?(note: I'm from Romania)

"The Balkans, which in Turkish means 'mountains,' run roughly from the Danube to the Dardanelles, from Istria to Istanbul, and is a term for the little lands of Hungary, Romania, Jugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and part of Turkey, although neither Hungarian nor Greek welcomes inclusion in the label."......a quote from one of my favorite books 'Balkan Ghosts' by 'Robert Kaplan.

Backbone might be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that the Balkan Countries need to be included in the EU. This will help to politically stabilize southeastern Europe, and therefore, Europe as a whole.

By the way, what part of Romania are you from? I've been to Rousse but never managed to actually cross the border. My wife is a native Bulgarian and we spend several weeks in Pazardjik, BG (near Plovdiv) every year. I always miss the mountains and the Black Sea as soon as we return back home to Michigan.

"The Balkans, which in Turkish means 'mountains,' run roughly from the Danube to the Dardanelles, from Istria to Istanbul, and is a term for the little lands of Hungary, Romania, Jugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and part of Turkey, although neither Hungarian nor Greek welcomes inclusion in the label."......a quote from one of my favorite books 'Balkan Ghosts' by 'Robert Kaplan.

Backbone might be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that the Balkan Countries need to be included in the EU. This will help to politically stabilize southeastern Europe, and therefore, Europe as a whole.
I was asking because many chose to exclude north-of-the-Danube lands from the Balkans, while others strech them all the way to Budapest.
I can't tell myself, but one thing that always bothered me is the fact that the Balkans (with or without Romania) are meant to stand out as a hellhole, by citing many contradictory views and attitudes (Euro-optimism and Euro-skepticism are both critical of the Balkans). In many ways, I think it is unfair to whatever is always included in the Balkans (Bulgaria, let's say): the way my country can suck is unequaled by any other except perhaps, through sheer coincidence, Albania (and no fault of some "Balkan ethos").
Plus, anything that is wrong in the Balkan politics (and Romanian) stems from the values of yesterday Europe (Volkist nationalism that was shoved down our throats when we were part of multinational Empires had to become something right away, because becoming something seemed like a good idea to our Western tutors; it took a generation for those very same tutors to start deploring Balkan degenaracy).
I write these because, while I don't think Kaplan's is neccesarily bad, I would like to recomend more analitical literature, like "Imagining the Balkans" by Maria Todorova.

By the way, what part of Romania are you from? I've been to Rousse but never managed to actually cross the border. My wife is a native Bulgarian and we spend several weeks in Pazardjik, BG (near Plovdiv) every year. I always miss the mountains and the Black Sea as soon as we return back home to Michigan.
Oh, Bulgaria is just beautiful. Especially around Plovdiv. I've been there and it looks like a place to spend a lifetime in.
I'm Wallachian, I guess. I was born in Pitesti, which is in the high hills by the Transylvanian Alps (on Bulgaria's side) relatively close to the Olt valley. I've lived in Bucharest for half my life, but I still go to Pitesti every once in a while. I used to dislike the place when I was younger, but it has become much better than Bucharest since then.
Two thirds of my family come from around Oltenita (on the Danube, in front of Tutrakan). In fact, my great-great-grandfathers on that side were Bulgarian.

I think Japan should be allowed to join. It's democratic, it's advanced, what more do you want. Just change the name a little.
It is Racist.

Mongolia should be able to join EU!*






*irrelevant, never happen, et cetera

Don't you Europeans feel that we (Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians etc. - no, not Croats in this case) would only serve as drains on your budgets?
Not that I'm unhappy about iy, but do you think we deserve a free ride?

Don't you Europeans feel that we (Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians etc. - no, not Croats in this case) would only serve as drains on your budgets?


No, not really. The longer term benefits outweigh the shorter term losses. One could have said the same when Ireland, Spain, Portugal or Greece joined. Now its the time they are giving back to the benefit of the rest.

And why not Croats might I enquire? :confused:

And why not Croats might I enquire? :confused:
Two reasons: no matter what thy do, they are not gonna join any time soon (we'll have to wait until their war criminals die of old age in the comfort of their homes); most importantly, polish a bit around the corners, and they're in a category with Slovenia, which in economic and social terms ammounts to:
(Romania + Serbia) •10²

Two reasons: no matter what thy do, they are not gonna join any time soon (we'll have to wait until their war criminals die of old age in the comfort of their homes); most importantly, polish a bit around the corners, and they're in a category with Slovenia, which in economic and social terms ammounts to:
(Romania + Serbia) •10²

O.....kay...

O.....kay...
Hm. Is it the Maths thing?

Ok, this topic can go several ways, but what interests me mainly is where do you people think the EU should stop its expansion (that is, unless you think it has already expanded enough, or even too much).
it's gone too far already..what the hell can we do with nations like Turkey and medieval countries like Poland ?

I'm a European (Belgian) and I don't think any countries should be allowed to join the European Union any time soon, now that we've just added 12 eastern European countries to the list, which has, like it or not, weakened the concept of a united Europe. Proof: last year, the French and the Dutch took down the European Constitution.
On the long term, I think expansion could go as far as Russia (90% of it's population living west of the Ural), the Balkans and Turkey (very long term). Now, people in (especially western) Europe just aren't ready to welcome a big country with Islam as the main religion in the EU.

it's gone too far already..what the hell can we do with nations like Turkey and medieval countries like Poland ?
Dude, I think Poland is already in.

On the long term, I think expansion could go as far as Russia (90% of it's population living west of the Ural), the Balkans and Turkey (very long term).
You want to split Russia in half? Will we ever get to see the independent republics of Sakha, Buryatia and Vladivostok?

I'm a European (Belgian) and I don't think any countries should be allowed to join the European Union any time soon, now that we've just added 12 eastern European countries to the list, which has, like it or not, weakened the concept of a united Europe. Proof: last year, the French and the Dutch took down the European Constitution.
On the long term, I think expansion could go as far as Russia (90% of it's population living west of the Ural), the Balkans and Turkey (very long term). Now, people in (especially western) Europe just aren't ready to welcome a big country with Islam as the main religion in the EU.
I agree. We need time to cohede first. Further expansion, if any, should be limited to former Communist countries of the East. If it was possible, we would readily welcome Norway or Switzerland, yet for the time being they don't want to join. :( In the long-term future, we would welcome Russia in due to her vast resources and European identity. We must welcome her all in, not just half. That would be idiotic and would serve as a major turn off to the Russians as it is an insult to their nation.

Turkey? Never. As a nation she is not European, she has a large muslim population, she has committed several genocides of European nations, she is not even wanted by most European citizens. Canada or Australia are more suitable candidates based on their cultural identity and economic power.

Dude, I think Poland is already in.

I know , so let's kick them out
I recently read that the new polish president compares his "new" politics with the teachings of the new pope and says they are equal ...hello ?? year 2005 or 1005 ??

If Japan joined the EU, this would encourage immigration and slowly brak down their endemic racism. Yet another reason.

I know , so let's kick them out
I recently read that the new polish president compares his "new" politics with the teachings of the new pope and says they are equal ...hello ?? year 2005 or 1005 ??
Oh, come on. That's just the usual rhetoric in a Catholic country, especially from a conservative politician. I mean, it doesn't stike you as unusual that a Christian Party is governing Germany, nor that the gvt. in Italy is a coalition that includes the reformed Fascists and the Northern League.

Poland struck me as a great place to live in when I visited there (it certainly is better than my country, and you're not calling it medieval - even though it is due to join within the next two years).

Would Japan even consider such a proposition? :rolleyes: The Japanese are vehemently racist, to this day, even if they don't show it so openly as before. Admitting a rich, foreign nation like Japan may indeed promote multiculturalism, yet the argument remains that this will only be due to Japan's affluence and high standard of living. Furthermore, it is the EUROPEAN Union, not the global union or anything. I don't think that we should integrate non-European members.

Poland is fine and may emerge as a powerful economy within the EU. It is staying.

Poland is fine and may emerge as a powerful economy within the EU. It is staying.
You'd better view Poland as a powerful economy as it is. Just wait till we get in there: it will screw up your standards.
Man, I can't get enough of bashing my own country.

Hey its your country, say what you like about it :p We are willing to give Poland a chance.

You want to split Russia in half? Will we ever get to see the independent republics of Sakha, Buryatia and Vladivostok?

I don't want to split Russia, it was just an argument pro Russia in the EU.

Should Russia join the EU, it would be the largest superstate ever to exist :)

Should Russia join the EU, it would be the largest superstate ever to exist :)

I doubt it'd cover a quarter of the earth's surface.

That honour goes to the British Empire :)

Russia alone is that large :p In terms of population, we would be near 1 billion citizens with full integration of Russia, Eastern Europe and Norway. Not as much as China, but damn close.

Russia would suck Europe dry. Not a chance of them ever being let in. Trading partner- fine. Full member- uh huh.

Explain your position. I don't see how Russian oil and gas (they have claims to even more of these in the Arctic, as do Norway and Denmark), will do anything but fuel the economy. Plus, we will be roughly 100 million members stronger, giving us a much larger workforce, much of which is educated, cheap labour. Russia would need time to prosper from membership, as would Europe, though I do not see Russia as a negative factor. Turkey, on the other hand, would be a problem.

Russia alone is that large :p In terms of population, we would be near 1 billion citizens with full integration of Russia, Eastern Europe and Norway. Not as much as China, but damn close.

This is absurd fantasy. France and Germany will never let Russia join the EU because its size will let it dominate in every sphere, particularly if almost all other European states are dependent on it for energy.

Explain your position. I don't see how Russian oil and gas (they have claims to even more of these in the Arctic, as do Norway and Denmark), will do anything but fuel the economy. Plus, we will be roughly 100 million members stronger, giving us a much larger workforce, much of which is educated, cheap labour. Russia would need time to prosper from membership, as would Europe, though I do not see Russia as a negative factor. Turkey, on the other hand, would be a problem.

Right you are

Explain your position. I don't see how Russian oil and gas (they have claims to even more of these in the Arctic, as do Norway and Denmark), will do anything but fuel the economy. Plus, we will be roughly 100 million members stronger, giving us a much larger workforce, much of which is educated, cheap labour. Russia would need time to prosper from membership, as would Europe, though I do not see Russia as a negative factor. Turkey, on the other hand, would be a problem.

Well no offence to any Russians on here... but the standard of living is not anywhere near the same as Europe. If they have such a vast reserve of natural fuels, why oh why are there shortages still every winter? The corruption in govt, the alarmingly increasing racism and the general population size would mean that to have any effect on the economy, the vast amount of the current EU budget (which lets face it, comes from France, Germany and Britain) would go straight into Russia.

They are no where near ready. The increasing concerns about increasingly autocratic rule, the tight squeezing of free press and domination of politics by a handful of individuals would indicate to the rest of Europe- No.

Bottom line: Its just too bloody big.

Well no offence to any Russians on here... but the standard of living is not anywhere near the same as Europe. If they have such a vast reserve of natural fuels, why oh why are there shortages still every winter? The corruption in govt, the alarmingly increasing racism and the general population size would mean that to have any effect on the economy, the vast amount of the current EU budget (which lets face it, comes from France, Germany and Britain) would go straight into Russia.

They are no where near ready. The increasing concerns about increasingly autocratic rule, the tight squeezing of free press and domination of politics by a handful of individuals would indicate to the rest of Europe- No.

Bottom line: Its just too bloody big.
I never stated that its integration would be anywhere in the near future. Perhaps in 50 years, perhaps in 10, perhaps in 100.

Maelog, you seem to forget how countries band together in the EU. Even if Russia did join, France and Germany, as well as many germanic nations in favour of Germany's policies, would outnumber Russia. Britain may even be persuaded to side with France and Germany to keep Russia in check. Alliances, the classical mode d' agir in Europe.

I never stated that its integration would be anywhere in the near future. Perhaps in 50 years, perhaps in 10, perhaps in 100.


Oh well, yeah. Nothing in the NEAR future. But when they get their sh*t together- cool. :D

Of course. This is why Europe must begin actively influencing Russia so as to ensure it is one day ready for entry.

... material benefits of the EU to me?

I am currently unable to see with any clarity what long-term good there is for member-states in terms of the centralisation of monetary and tax policy - nor do I see any basis either in current reality or future prosperity in greater expansion and federalisation.

I speak as one who is a citizen of an EU state, living in another EU state, who has actually had to go through more hoops to arrange residency than my brother did when he moved from the UK to the US - shome mishtake shurely???

I used to be a huge advocate of the EU - until I actually tried to do anything in business and personal terms within it, other than take a holiday in another member-state.

To my mind it simply appears to be a top-heavy, bureaucratic and money-eating organisation...

That is true, the EU needs reform. Luckily it has realised this.

Well, Europe ends at the Urals, the Atlantic, the North Sea, the Mediterrainain and the Sea of Marma. So anywhere in between is part of Europe. Any country with a foothold in those boundaries I'd say is fair game for EU expansion(cough cough Turkey, Russia).


I agree, altough E.U. coud also join in a cooperation (economically and/or politically) with non-geographical European countries that lay next to it, without implementing those countries in the Union.

It is needed, for us europeans to unite strongly so that one day the US of freakin A do not pose a threat anymore and stops telling us what to do.
For example: USA attacs anny nation with nuclear power because Atomic Bombs are somewhat forbidden and tells Europe to go and help them, whilst USA stocks their own A-Boms with us.
USA almost litterally steals the worlds oil so a tank of gas there is cheap, but refuses to sign Kyoto deal. Only USA has the truth in their hands, they almost state, but whilst the whole world does it their way the USA destroit the planet because they don't care what happes if they are dead.
I tell u this: once the world runs out of oil: USA will be the retardest land in the world because Asia and Europe are looking for alternatives to fossile energy. What will happen then is a USA violently trying to get hold of our solutions.

That is why EU must be strong and big, because one day someons e has to stop the ideots from the west.

Agreed.

I think Europe should stop to the east with Russia, and to the south east, not go beyond Turkey (excluding turkey from the EU).

I dont think there is any room for any any of the countries beyond those borders in Europe, nor do I consider them Europeans. Russia is a little different because they are west past the ural mountains europeans and east past the ural mountains asian. However, even though Russia is quasi Euro, I dont think they are interested with any inter Euro affiars or should be at that. I dont think Turkey should be in the EU because it has a HUGE muslim population and I dont see any way Europe could benefit from having an 150% increase in muslim population. That would be total suicide because, to the best of my understanding, European Union countries have free unregulated travel between them. I shudder to think about the day when muslim extreamists can simply travel around Europe unchecked and unstoppable.

Apart from the huge benifits of having Turkey in, such as proving that the West, or Europe at least, does not hate Arabs and the middle East?
Especially after all the reforms they instituted for entry, the EU would shoot the entire West in the foot if they refused them entry.

Russia is different, they are basically an fusion of Europe and Asia, and probably would not want to join.

At what cost? Admitting a very poor, very different (culturarly and ideologically) nation with a large population of Muslims would only cause friction within the EU. It would give rise to the Far Right, and would aggravate current issues within the EU. Its too large a nation, too poor a nation, too different a nation. Furthermore, this will discourage Russia and Norway from joining, as both dislike Turkey. If the USA is so interested in bridging Middle East and West, why doesn't it admit Israel or Turkey? The EU's citizenry is vastly opposed to Turkish entry, and we have had enough of being force-fed decisions from the bureaucrats.

Russia is far more European than Turkey. Its culture is very much European, in terms of religion, language, bloodlines, and way of life. If one is to accept Eastern European countries as a part of the EU, then its illogical to exclude Russia. Russia may not be ready for immediate membership, yet one day it will be.

Europe, Geographically, stops at the Ural mountains if you're going east, the Dardanelles (I think) straight with Turkey, and, of course, the Med.

But the EU should stop at Calais, and then do whatever it wants that doesn't include the UK. Just my take anyway.

Hmm the fact that Russia goes on until the end of Asia makes it difficult to end Europe's borders at the Urals. Geographically it may well be the case, yet once Russia is integrated the entire landmass it covers will be European.

Britain has the option to leave if it wants. Although that could have nasty economic implications.