Why there will never be a US of E[urope]

[John Dunn]

This is so lame...
Shroeder cancels Rome Vacation due to Itailian pol insults :roll:
I couldn't help but think: " Oh nooo!!! not this again - will we have to go over there ONE MORE TIME???!!!"

[Andres Gonzalez]

Oh nooo!!! not this again ...

[Richard Hawkes]

A common enemy is needed to bring the European countries together, otherwise we'll end up having another war and wipe ourselves out. If that happens the US could colonize Europe - the New New World Or not.

[Frank Silbermann]

Richard Hawkes:
"A common enemy is needed to bring the European countries together, ..."
It would seem that the U.S.A. has been chosen for that role, no?

" ... otherwise we'll end up having another war and wipe ourselves out."
I don't think so. To have a war you need soldiers, and the most recent generation of Europeans mostly forgot to have children. What are you gonna do, send 55 year old men to fight? Basically, Europe is in a state of slow suicide.
Europe might eventually have a war over whether the Sunnis or the Shiites shall rule -- but that's fifty years into the future.

"If that happens the US could colonize Europe - the New New World. Or not."
America from 1775 to 1875 was imperialistic the way Russia was -- trying to extend its contiguous land mass across our continent. But except for the idiotic Spanish-American war a hundred years ago, we've never cared much for having oveseas possessions. Usually, all we've wanted from foreign countries is trade, friendship, and cooperation in the defense against malignant evil powers (e.g. Nazis, Marxists, violent jahidists).

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
A common enemy is needed to bring the European countries together, otherwise we'll end up having another war and wipe ourselves out. If that happens the US could colonize Europe - the New New World Or not.

In that context, the goal of France and freunds to create a United Europe based on opposition to the US makes some sense, however misguided it may be.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I don't think so. To have a war you need soldiers, and the most recent generation of Europeans mostly forgot to have children. What are you gonna do, send 55 year old men to fight? Basically, Europe is in a state of slow suicide.

Europe has a secret clone army.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Europe has a secret clone army.

Actually it's a secret clown army.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

France and freunds

not bad, but correct plural is freunde
I want to know, what you guys would say, if for example, Schrouml;der would say the US representative in UN sould "play a role as a concentration camp supervisor in a german movie".
Even if Berlusconi have supported your gov in the gulf war does not mean that he shares your views on democracy, free press and independence of justice.
Signore Berlusconi shows a continuing dis-respect for laws, freedom of press and democratic principles. One mayor idea behind European Union from the founding days in the 50ties is to have some supra-national control that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again. So the current trouble in context of italian presidency shows that European Union is working very well.
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Jason Menard]

Regarding Berlusconi's comments, I don't condone them and I don't think they were called for. I also think Germany should receive an appology. I just thought it was a little like the pot calling the kettle black when the German government reacted with indignation.
want to know, what you guys would say, if for example, Schrouml;der would say the US representative in UN sould "play a role as a concentration camp supervisor in a german movie".
When German justice minister Herta D�ubler-Gmelin likened Bush to Hitler, we had quite a bit to say on that matter, although I believe we kept relatively silent about Schroeder's vitriolic anti-American election campaign.
One mayor idea behind European Union from the founding days in the 50ties is to have some supra-national control that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again. So the current trouble in context of italian presidency shows that European Union is working very well.
I'm not sure I understand you on this point. Are you saying that the EU should be interfering with the internal political squabbles of its member countries? I guess if Europeans are willing to subjugate their sovereignty to others (primarily the Franco-German-Belgium bloc, under the guise of pan-Europeanism of course), then that's their own business. But if I were a citizen of one of the other EU countries I think I might be very nervous.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Actually it's a secret clown army.
You can hear them coming from the sounds of squeaky shoes and gazoos. However no army can defeat their ink-squirting lapel flowers.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: I guess if Europeans are willing to subjugate their sovereignty to others (primarily the Franco-German-Belgium bloc, under the guise of pan-Europeanism of course), then that's their own business. But if I were a citizen of one of the other EU countries I think I might be very nervous.
Wasn't what Axel is talking about "that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again" one of the reasons behind invasion into Iraq? Or the whole point is that only the USA has the morale or whatever other right to subjugate sovereignty of others?

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Regarding Berlusconi's comments, I don't condone them and I don't think they were called for. I also think Germany should receive an appology. I just thought it was a little like the pot calling the kettle black when the German government reacted with indignation.

First Berlusconi apologized. Schroeder accepted that. Next day Berlusconi said, it was no apology but he just wanted to point out, that the others were not capable to understand his great humour. After that Schroeder canceled his holidays in Italy.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

When German justice minister Herta D�ubler-Gmelin likened Bush to Hitler, we had quite a bit to say on that matter, although I believe we kept relatively silent about Schroeder's vitriolic anti-American election campaign.

This was the end of Herta Daeubler Gmelins political career. Schroeder's campaign was partly anti-american and personally I did not like it, but many here did.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I'm not sure I understand you on this point. Are you saying that the EU should be interfering with the internal political squabbles of its member countries? I guess if Europeans are willing to subjugate their sovereignty to others (primarily the Franco-German-Belgium bloc, under the guise of pan-Europeanism of course), then that's their own business. But if I were a citizen of one of the other EU countries I think I might be very nervous.

This issue is complex. Actually the founding fathers of the EU (and the german Adenauer gov. first of all) explicitedly called for giving over their own national souvereignity to supra-national bodies. This as a mean to make war impossible for the future. The EU now is so highly integrated, that every nation has to accept interference from Brussels (mergers of companies, subventions are prohibited in Brusseles, the national law has to adopt to the EU-law, etc.). Big issue for Germany at the moment, is that if the central bank would lower the interest rate even more, would be good for Germany, but it won't happen, cause it would cause inflation in Spain.
There is a tradition to interfere against governments who are starting to fade away from democratic standards. For example there was huge opposition from EU against the partly fascist government of Haider in Austria (some members publically said things pro-Hitler and we can't accept that). The Berlusconi-gov partly does leave basic democratic principles, too. Some people even critizice that the reaction of EU against Berlusconi is too soft, especially in comparision with that against Haider. People I know from Austria told me that they felt supported by the EU against insane tendencies in their own country during that time. I read the same in lots of comments of Italians now.
And even if you like the idea of an axis Paris-Berlin as "plain evil", it does not exist. There is a deep mistrust in german society against France: We are in for paying, working and voting whereas the french will do the sexy planing and strategying . The french politicians allways suffered from a little superiority complex. In the end they want to do everything alone. I think that Americans are a little french in this respect.
If in the EU small nations are subjugated then why the heck everybody wants to join
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[qb]Actually it's a secret clown army.
You can hear them coming from the sounds of squeaky shoes and gazoos. However no army can defeat their ink-squirting lapel flowers.[/QB]

If in the 1770ties some of our generals wouldn't have helped to teach your forefathers some basic principles of warfare, today you would be a british province like Wales.
[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
If in the 1770ties some of our generals wouldn't have helped to teach your forefathers some basic principles of warfare, today you would be a british province like Wales.

Well, both sides in the American Revolution used Prussian mercenaries. We also had help from the French, and many of our own generals were former British army officers.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Wasn't what Axel is talking about "that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again" one of the reasons behind invasion into Iraq?

No, because in Hussein's case it already did repeat itself. It's just that only a few nations actually had the will to do anything about it. But regarding Italy (you will remember it's the subject of this thread) I suppose I might have missed it, but was Italy threatening to build a Fourth Reich or something that would require other nation's to meddle in her internal politics? Have they started rounding up Sicilians and placing them in cnocentration camps or something?

[Axel Janssen]

Berlusconi has lot of tv chanels. He is a little like Fox Italy. Even if you like Fox, Jason, what would you think if the owner of Fox would be American president and after 2 years the statal TV would be like Fox. And there are no other bigger tv chanels in Italy. So there would be Fox only?
Berlusconi has a lot of pending processes (including ties with mafia). He lets parliament pass custom-made laws which exempt him from any persecution.
The only power which stops him now and then are the judges. And he calls them bunch of left-radicals.
His politics have something in common with Mussolini or Hitler: destroying checks and balances and centralizing all power in his hand.
not everything from the right is good.

[John Dunn]

My main point of starting this thread was this:
:roll:
I just thought what if they had an EU and one 'State' governor didn't want to go to another state b/c he 'insulted' him??? Jeez that happens all the time over here. We don't apologize about it. Don't we call folks from Texas 'Rednecks' and folks from down South HillBillies. and etc, etc. GET OVER IT!!!
I wonder how long it would take for the EU to have their first civil war??? (That's never happened...)
Let's face it, the folks in Europe just can't get along. Well except Switzerland and Luxemburg.

[Jason Menard]

Axel,
I'm not standing up for Berlusconi or even disagreeing with any of your points. But this is a problem that is for the Italians to handle as they see fit. This what elections are for in stable free democracies. Elections express the will of the citizens and the state structure is in place to resolve any anomolies (for example in the US at least, the separation of powers between the Legislature, Judicial, and Executive branches of government) that might occur.
What I was simply trying to say is that I find it scary that citizens of sovereign nations are not only willing to subjugate their sovereignty to something like the EU, but also that the EU (as you suggested) might be willing to assert itself into the politics of its member nations. In effect what this could lead to is not governments that represent the best interests of their citizens, but governments that represent the best interests of other governments.

[Axel Janssen]

Jason,
Europeans and Americans have different perspectives on supra-nationality.
This really has to do with historic experience.
EU has a positive influence in fostering democracy in the member states. Here we have examples were the mayority of quite a few of the societies of member states supported un-democratic, oppressive governments in the last century (especially in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Greece).
I guess, you agree with me that political systems are not something binary (right or wrong), but more organic and complex, formed by history. EU-pressure against wide-scale anti-democratic developments makes perfect sense in Europe.
... The first chancelor of the Federal Republic of Germany, K. Adenauer, called this "West-Bindung" (bind our society to the western european societies with much better democratic experience). And it worked quite well.
O.k., as he was realist, the other idea behind "West-Bindung" was that after-war Germany would have had a very shaky standpoint, if it tried to pursuit its interests alone. This was easier in supra-national bodies like EU and NATO.
But both ideas were and are vital.

[John Dunn]

Europeans and Americans have different perspectives on supra-nationality.
Yes I totally agree. I have many close good-time friends from Europe, (Ireland, Britian, Germany, Switzerland, France). I am probably the only one that supported GWB and had my fill of arguing against all the Europeans. Thanks to MD, I am much better at noticing their use of fallacies to defend their points and usually get to stop them in their tracks a few times.
From what I can gather, my circle of friends, (who btw are well-educated, and up-to-date on current events), are against the notion of ANY country attacking another without world permission. But that is not how they felt at the time of the WTC bombing. They don't seem to care much about what doesn't concern them. (i.e. Bosnia, Taliban, Israel). I tend to wonder if the size of their countries leads to a more 'self-serving' attitude? For example, I'm pretty far from the California/Mexican border in European distance terms but that is an issue folks talk about every now and then because it affects our country. I guess if California was a different country I could totally just not care. If Californians had a really different culture and different language maybe it would add to the apathy.
I think that al Queda needs to hit Europe hard before we really get them to go after terrorism. I think that inevitably there will be some serious terrorism in either Britian, France or Germany. It seems to me that Europe may have the same apathy that Americans have for the Russian/Chechnya terrorism, when it comes to al Queda.
I must say I kind of miss the old Cold-War days. It was much nicer being loved. Perhaps we are witnessing a true power struggle in the World. An inevitable on at that too. I bet if al Queda were to totally disappear tomorrow that the U.S. would have a serious political issue with Europe on their hands. Russia disappeared and France took the spot. I think France will end up with the biggest problems in Europe soon due to their Muslim population. I am interested in how the new 'Scold War' will play out.

[Frank Silbermann]

Axel Janssen: "Even if Berlusconi have supported your gov in the gulf war does not mean that he shares your views on democracy, free press and independence of justice."
That's a good point, but I doubt that _any_ major European leader shares our views on democracy, free press and independence of justice to any greater extent.

Axel:
"One mayor idea behind European Union from the founding days in the 50ties is to have some supra-national control that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again."
Of course, in the early 1940s Europe _was_ united under a single government -- Hitler's. (Well, he did allow some autonomy to his allies in Spain, Italy, Hungary and Rumania.) So you might just be creating a new "single point of failure."
I think that only a few Americans oppose increasing the U.N.'s power on philosophical grounds. I think most oppose giving up any more sovereignty to the U.N. because they see countries such as Libya, Cuba and Syria nominated to serve on panels charged with protecting "human rights" -- and they see the way Israel is scapegoated (much as Jews were in the early days of Nazism). In fact, the U.N.'s declaration of human rights sounds a lot more like that of the Soviet constitution that America's. (I, personally, don't trust anyone whose solution to crime is victim disarmament.)

Mapraputa Is: "... wasn't `that catastrophes like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco will never repeat itself again' one of the reasons behind invasion into Iraq?"
I think there's a big difference between invading the sovereignty of a country that has already been taken over by evil people, versus denying the sovereignty of nations because of what sort of people _might_ gain power in the future. After all, evil people _might_ gain control of the larger government instead.
When people compare Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the American invasion of Iraq, it's sort of like asking, "If we want to teach people that kidnapping is wrong, then what kind of example are we setting when our police abduct and imprison kidnappers and other criminals? Isn't that also like kidnapping?"

Axel Janssen: "There is a tradition to interfere against governments who are starting to fade away from democratic standards. For example there was huge opposition from EU against the partly fascist government of Haider in Austria (some members publically said things pro-Hitler and we can't accept that). The Berlusconi-gov partly does leave basic democratic principles, too."
What bothers me is the double-standard -- in that nobody is denouncing political movements that diverge from democratic freedom in the leftward direction. There's not a whole lot of difference between shouting "Death to the Jews!" and "Death to the capitalist pigs!" There's not a whole lot of difference between people who reject freedom of religion and people who reject the right to private property (without which dissenting churches cannot be funded).
There's not a whole lot of difference between holding a woman down so your friend can rape her, versus holding her arms as a stranger rapes her to prevent her from attempting to gouge his eyes out. (Does anyone _really_ deserve to be permanently blinded as a punishment for _any_ crime? No, but she's not trying to gouge his eyes out to punish him -- she's doing it to stop the rape, which _she_ does not deserve.) Nor is it much different from passing gun control laws _intended_ to prevent such a woman from _shooting_ a would-be rapist.
Europeans shun a politician over mere hints that maybe he sympathises a little bit with fascism, yet they say nothing about politicians who openly _admit_ to being Marxists! (National and international socialists are more alike than different, in my opinion. But then, this is one of the profound disagreements between most Americans and most Europeans.)

[John Dunn]

FS: Nor is it much different from passing gun control laws _intended_ to prevent such a woman from _shooting_ a would-be rapist.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Gun control laws are NEVER passed with an intent to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists. We do know that woman that own guns more often than not have those same 'protective' guns used against them.

[Michael Morris]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
FS: Nor is it much different from passing gun control laws _intended_ to prevent such a woman from _shooting_ a would-be rapist.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Gun control laws are NEVER passed with an intent to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists. We do know that woman that own guns more often than not have those same 'protective' guns used against them.

I don't agree with total gun control but I do think that anyone who is determined to carry a gun should have adequate mandatory training. The problem with women (and probably most men) is that they've never been taught the "Liddy rule" of G. Gordon Liddy fame. It states that never point a gun at anyone who does not deserve to die, and when you do point a gun at someone kill them. You should never bluff with a gun or think that you can just scare off a would be attacker, that's where women carrying guns get into trouble.

[John Dunn]

You should never bluff with a gun or think that you can just scare off a would be attacker, that's where women carrying guns get into trouble. I do agree with this, but I think a large amount of the women killed by their own guns do so by the result of their man. So I ~think~ just having in their homes is enough to cause them harm. (Very sad fact...)

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by John Dunn:

I think that al Queda needs to hit Europe hard before we really get them to go after terrorism. I think that inevitably there will be some serious terrorism in either Britian, France or Germany. It seems to me that Europe may have the same apathy that Americans have for the Russian/Chechnya terrorism, when it comes to al Queda.

Er, we're quite used to dealing with terrorism in the UK already thanks. It doesn't just mean invading other countries ( although in the case of Afghanistan I don't think you had much choice. ), in fact you could say that started our terrorism problem...

[John Dunn]

in fact you could say that started our terrorism problem...
Well how many people have died after the invasion of Afganistan due to terrorism and how many people before the invasion? Do you really expect anyone in this forum to believe that statement?
The U.S. didn't really get serious about terrorism until after the WTC went down AND it had been bombed once before!! I believe - with much regret - that Europe will need a catastrophe either there OR again over here before Chirac and others just get more aggressive against terrorism.

[Frank Silbermann]

FS: Nor is it much different from passing gun control laws _intended_ to prevent such a woman from _shooting_ a would-be rapist.
John Dunn: This is a bit of a fallacy. Gun control laws are NEVER passed with an intent to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists.
On the contrary. In Canada it is actually illegal to use even a legally-owned firearm in self-defense. In England, it is illegal even to use a fake gun to bluff against a criminal.
John Dunn: We do know that woman that own guns more often than not have those same 'protective' guns used against them.
No, we do not "know" anything of the sort. In fact, it is quite rare for a gun to be taken from a defender and used against her. (That's not to say that women aren't sometimes killed by their psycho-spouse using his _own_ gun. But that doesn't apply to normal women with normal husbands, and all the more reason for women with stalking psycho ex-spouses to carry. If she's worried he'll take it away from her, she should glue razor blades to the muzzle, and carry a five-shot snubby so she can empty it into his chest before he gets his hands on it.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
in fact you could say that started our terrorism problem...
Well how many people have died after the invasion of Afganistan due to terrorism and how many people before the invasion? Do you really expect anyone in this forum to believe that statement?
The U.S. didn't really get serious about terrorism until after the WTC went down AND it had been bombed once before!! I believe - with much regret - that Europe will need a catastrophe either there OR again over here before Chirac and others just get more aggressive against terrorism.

I never said that the Afghanistan war started terrorism, and in that particular case I'm sure less people died ( certainly less westerners anyhow ) because the war took place than would have otherwise. Personally I was surprised that Bush was as reserved in his response as he was.
Personally I think Iraq is a whole different case.

[Steve Wink]

And I think if the UK, Ireland, Spain and Italy could teach the US about terrorism is not to let it dominate your lives, or make you less of a democracy, otherwise the terrorists have half won. And its worth learning from others because it took us decades to learn it ourselves...

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
If in the 1770ties some of our generals wouldn't have helped to teach your forefathers some basic principles of warfare, today you would be a british province like Wales.

Of course, most of those Europeans are pretty old now and in no shape to help your armies figure out which end of the gun the bullets come out of.
Actually, that isn't quite fair since the German armies have managed to start wars that killed 75 million people or so within the last 100 years.

[Axel Janssen]

Thomas: It was a joke.

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

Europeans shun a politician over mere hints that maybe he sympathises a little bit with fascism, yet they say nothing about politicians who openly _admit_ to being Marxists! (National and international socialists are more alike than different, in my opinion. But then, this is one of the profound disagreements between most Americans and most Europeans.)

I think, that lots of americans use as much stereotypes about europeans in these discussions as the anti-americans about americans here.
Please. Which european politician west of Belarus in power is marxist?
Not one. Our communist parties are getting less than 5% in elections and all the socialdemocratic or socialist parties are openly anti-marxist since the 1950ties and even before.
[ July 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Er, we're quite used to dealing with terrorism in the UK already thanks. It doesn't just mean invading other countries ( although in the case of Afghanistan I don't think you had much choice. ), in fact you could say that started our terrorism problem...

Comparing the experience of the IRA, as terrible as they are, to Al-Qaeda seems a bit of a false analogy imho. The groups have different aims, different motivations, different techniques, and different scope.
(Since 1970, IRA terrorism has been responsible for the deaths of 78 people in England.)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Steve Wink:
And I think if the UK, Ireland, Spain and Italy could teach the US about terrorism is not to let it dominate your lives, or make you less of a democracy, otherwise the terrorists have half won. And its worth learning from others because it took us decades to learn it ourselves...

You are talking foreign terrorism versus domestic terrorism. It is not the same thing. It cannot be handled in the same way, even if we were willing to wait decades. As stated in my previous message: different motivations, different aims, different techniques, different scope.

[Frank Silbermann]

Axel Janessen: "Please. Which european politician west of Belarus in power is marxist?
Not one. Our communist parties are getting less than 5% in elections and all the socialdemocratic or socialist parties are openly anti-marxist since the 1950ties and even before."
I've read that there are at least three Marxist (Trotskyite) political parties in France. Together, they got more votes than Jean LePen. The Greens are big in Germany, and their rhetoric borrows heavily from Marxist ideas.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

I've read that there are at least three Marxist (Trotskyite) political parties in France. Together, they got more votes than Jean LePen. The Greens are big in Germany, and their rhetoric borrows heavily from Marxist ideas.

We have at 10 or more marxist parties in Germany (they are great in branching ). But only the successor of the ex-leading party of eastern Germany SED gets more than 0.1 percent of the votes (less than 4.5 percent).
The green party is anti-marxistic.
They are pro environmental protection, more pacifistic than others, and pro things like gay marriage.
By no means marxist. In lots of economical questions they are more conservative than the socialdemocrats.
They started as a protest party in the 80ties, but now they are establishment.
[ July 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You are talking foreign terrorism versus domestic terrorism. It is not the same thing. It cannot be handled in the same way, even if we were willing to wait decades. As stated in my previous message: different motivations, different aims, different techniques, different scope.

Jason,
just for historical correctness, not to argue if US-politics is right or wrong:
The euro-terrorism allways was highly international, too. The groups had strong links between each other and with arabic groups, too. In the 70ties and early 80ties lots of them were trained in palestine and libian training camps.
The high point of german terrorism was when some palestinian terrorists hyjacked a plane of german tourists from Mallorca to Mogadishu. Their only goal was to press german government to set RAF-leaders free. It ended with a succesful liberation of the hyjacked by a special unit of our army (GSG9). Don't know if GSG9 wore clown shoes.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
The euro-terrorism allways was highly international, too. The groups had strong links between each other and with arabic groups, too. In the 70ties and early 80ties lots of them were trained in palestine and libian training camps.

I'm not saying international terrorism did not ever take place, as of course it did. Americans or Israelis were very often the targets. However he very specifically mentioned the UK/Ireland, Spain, and Italy. I take that as references to the IRA et al, the Basque terrorists, and the Red Brigades (although Italy was also the target of a couple of airport shootings as well). My point is that overall the flavor is domestic, regardless of whether or not the different groups occasionally interact.
The Basque separatists are not seeking the end of Israel. The IRA is not seeking the death of all infidels. These groups have very specific domestic goals that they are seeking to achieve. The US has had its share of domestic terrorism as well, but I personally don't see many parallels between a Timothy McVeign or SLA and someone like Bin Laden.
I happen to find it a bit condescending and overly preachy when somebody is trying to say that we should get a grip, and we could in fact learn a lot from them, because of the 78 people in their country who have been killed by terrorists in the last 30 years. I suppose if that much was learned, then these guys wouldn't be transitting European airports with such ease. My point is, and you aren't guilty of this Axel afaik, is that this popular attitude from many across the pond is highly misplaced.

The high point of german terrorism was when some palestinian terrorists hyjacked a plane of german tourists from Mallorca to Mogadishu.

I would have thought the killings of the Israeli athletes during the Olympics might be at the top of the list. This was the incident that necessitated the creation of GSG9.
[ July 14, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[John Dunn]

This was hard to follow so let me dissect:
FS: There's not a whole lot of difference between holding a woman down so your friend can rape her, versus holding her arms as a stranger rapes her to prevent her from attempting to gouge his eyes out. Okay. First one you know the other rapist, second you don't. In the second case the woman is actively trying to fight back. Ok. Not ~much~ of a difference, in both cases two people are raping a woman.
(Does anyone _really_ deserve to be permanently blinded as a punishment for _any_ crime? No, Where is the correlation?? No one ~deserves~ to be blinded, but GET REAL!! If a guy gets blinded while raping a woman, he's shit outta luck in my book! I seriously doubt most reasonable courts would bother with that one. I personally know someone who shot and killed a would-be robber with the robber's gun, after the robber shot my friend in the leg and he was never charged with any crime. So unless the courts were acting unfairly, which they sometimes do, then I don't believe this at all.
but she's not trying to gouge his eyes out to punish him -- she's doing it to stop the rape, which _she_ does not deserve.) No, no one deserves rape. But how can you say what her intentions are during rape. I'd say a lot of women - not all - would love to hurt back during rape.
Nor is it much different from passing gun control laws _intended_ to prevent such a woman from _shooting_ a would-be rapist. Okay, so now we're talking about guns. ??? I had to read this about a million times to get the correlation. So your saying passing gun contol laws intended to prevent such a woman (as the one above, I presume), from shooting her attackers is not much different than holding her down during rape. I find this to be incorrect and a fallacy. First off, it is different. In the first you are ACTIVELY engaging in a rape. The second you are passing a law to passively make it difficult to fight back.
Slavery WAS different than the Jim Crow Laws, although both were very bad. The fallacy is that you are comparing legislatures that enact increased gun control to an accomplice holding a woman down during a rape?? Which legislature is specifically citing that they'd like to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists by increasing gun-control??

---------------------------

John Dunn: This is a bit of a fallacy. Gun control laws are NEVER passed with an intent to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists.
FS: On the contrary.
Are you saying that Gun control laws are ALWAYS passed with an intent to prevent women from shooting would-be rapist?? If so, where???
In Canada it is actually illegal to use even a legally-owned firearm in self-defense. In England, it is illegal even to use a fake gun to bluff against a criminal.

Again another fallacy. Canada and England do not specifically pass laws to prevent women from shooting would-be rapists, as you said, which is QUITE DIFFERENT from passing a law using a legally-owned firearm in self-defense as the former is specifically aimed at only women being raped.

Btw, what the heck does this have to do with a united Europe?? Sorry but it sounds like a NRA backed politician that brings gun control into every single argument that is put before him.
In fairness, I checked the web and did find sites that had studies that said rape went to completion less if a women had a gun or weapon. I am still skeptical of these studies, b/c from what I can tell these sites were mainly pro-gun sites. I also found a number of rape prevention sites that specifically stated NOT to carry a gun, as it increased your likelyhood of it being used against you.
I needed to read up on rape after a very close friend was raped and every book I read told folks NOT to get guns. I would tend to want to listen to a rape-prevention site over a NRA backed site. Obviously its not an absolute, as a female in the police dept. or military service, would be more capable of using a gun but I doubt that all the women I know would be better off with a gun. IMHO, If you are not totally trained and willing to use a gun, you should not have it.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I happen to find it a bit condescending and overly preachy when somebody is trying to say that we should get a grip, and we could in fact learn a lot from them, because of the 78 people in their country who have been killed by terrorists in the last 30 years. I suppose if that much was learned, then these guys wouldn't be transitting European airports with such ease.
Its just as condescending to talk about who has suffered more don't you think? How can one even quantify it? Number of deaths? Economic collapse? A constantly paranoid or increasingly legislated population? I wouldn't know where to start. Additionally the notion that the US government has a moral right to act more aggressively (at home and abroad) because 2800 people died in one attack, (and the holier_than_thou attitude I sometimes see associated with it) is also highly misplaced IMO.
When one looks at US (and worldwide) stats for death, terrorism hardly registers yet the budgetary and political response in the US has been massively disproportionate. If the role of government is to protect its people by decreasing their chances of unnatural death and helping them live freely and prosperously then a large part of US military and homeland security budgets could have been much better spent on home improvements.
I know this sounds insensitive but after the loss of life, its the public and political reactions to terrorism that cause the most damage (a goal of terrorism). An insensitive, speculative and irresponsible media plays its part too because it fuels the public's fear of statistically improbable acts of terror and sidelines issues more dangerous to public safety. When some people imply "get a grip" maybe they're just saying "take a step back and put it into perspective for the sake of everyone" hard as that must be afer 9/11.
Originally posted by John Dunn:
The U.S. didn't really get serious about terrorism until after the WTC went down AND it had been bombed once before!! I believe - with much regret - that Europe will need a catastrophe either there OR again over here before Chirac and others just get more aggressive against terrorism.
Just because some countries are willing and/or able to overthrow the regime of other countries, it doesn't follow that non-participating countries take terrorism any less seriously.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
I know this sounds insensitive but after the loss of life, its the public and political reactions to terrorism that cause the most damage (a goal of terrorism). An insensitive, speculative and irresponsible media plays its part too because it fuels the public's fear of statistically improbable acts of terror and sidelines issues more dangerous to public safety. .

"The Iraq-Terrorist connection is one critical lynch pin in the justification to fight the good war against terrorists by invading Iraq to cut off its supply of weapons of mass destruction. The Seventh Alarm, by explicitly raising the specter of terrorists using WMD against us, served as the ultimate rationale to the American public for the invasion of Iraq. It countered the validity of the massive anti-war demonstrations in the United States and around the world as irrelevant to the imminent threats to national security posed by terrorists armed with these death-dealing weapons sold or given to them by Saddam Hussein. The majority of American citizens somehow continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, despite the absence of any supporting information. That is enough to fuel fires of revenge against him, but adding this new danger of his alleged continuing terrorist alliances is sufficient to call for deposing the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, by all means-including the all-out war against Iraq, certain to erupt very soon, and certain to kill untold number of innocent citizens there.
Now several weeks after the Feb. 7th Seventh Alarm, the Attorney General rejected the suggestion of the Head of Homeland Security to lower the Orange high alert because of alleged new terrorist information from yet again "credible sources." Thus the American public is to be maintained on its high level of anxiety, sustaining its pre-traumatic stress syndrome, so that we keep in mind the image of Saddam, our collective enemy, whose face we know all too well. We invade Iraq, kill Saddam, put our military general in charge of that Arab nation, and Americans can sleep in peace with that threat to our national security eliminated-or so their story goes.
But terrorists remain faceless, elusive, still able to 'run and hide,' and to commit their unspeakable horrors in the absence of Saddam. But what if we do not find him in Iraq, and what if we do not uncover his cache of weapons of mass destruction, which he likely shipped to a sympathetic neighboring country? Then how will the administration justify the deaths of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers? And is it more or less likely that terrorist attacks will occur in retaliation against America for its invasion and colonial occupation of an Arab nation? "
The Political Psychology of Terrorist Alarms
Philip G. Zimbardo, Ph. D.
(3 01 03)
[ July 15, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]