quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You're going to have to give me some links on this one. I can't remember a single instance where the American media blamed the war on the Iraqi people. Saddam and his government yes, the American government yes, but the everyday people of either country no. If you can show me that the American media somehow did try to blame the Iraqi people, I'd love to see it.

you are right Neo, but between you and me, when the US attacks Iraq to take down the regigme, its the Iraqi people who suffers from it.

look even today, there's no power nor running water in most of urban Iraq.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=151225

Of course it will be rough for the people of a country who just had their leadership overthrown and bombs dropped on their cities. However, if even half of the stuff in that link is true, I think they're well on the way to getting back to where they were, and hopefully achieving things not possible under Saddam.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Therefore we are not looking at a representation of democratic ideals and statutes, so much so as the big boys ala France, Germany, U.K will get their voices heard the loudest while the rest of the nations must tow in line with their agendas as deemed fit by them. Rember Mr. Chirac telling the Eastern Europeans that they missed a great opportunity to keep quiet when they signed a letter in support of America. If Europe wants to be led by France and Germany that is their position, I am in America. However where does the line between national interest and this allegiance to a European state exist. How can the voice of Malta, Estonia, Latvia and Luxembourg be heard against those of the larger nations. This concept of an E.U. represents to me idealism at its best once the realm of (politics) is entered into, however I realise that nationalism in Europe failed to bring security in the past, but rather wars. My problem with the concept of a Core Europe is that the democratic ideals of inclusion, representation and consensus on all important issues seem to be driven by French and German desires, unless you want to include Belgium and Luxembourg. A consensus must be reached with Poland and Spain. I can see no nation in Europe short of those that have proposed the concept of a Core Europe that would support such an idea. Maybe Europeans on this board can enlighten me as to the sentiments in their respective nations. Ireland is the next president of the European Union and Bertie Ahern has already said that he saw no way that Core Europe served the interest of Europe as a whole, that is the key it serves the interest of a few nations, not all current and future members with expansion coming soon.

Well, at this state you have 4 options.

1) The current model. Every country has the right of veto, and the amounts of votes a country has are equal for all countries. With 25 members, and more to follow soon, it will be impossible to reach any decision since they all have to agree. This will most certainly turn EU into nothing more than a loose monetary association whose power is about the same as that of the European Council (negligible), and will cause the countries which desire a stronger union to make the Core Europe concept a reality.

2) The model where the right of veto is abandoned, but the countries still have about equal amount of votes. Aside from the obvious unsatisfaction of larger members, this also ensures an electorial-like system, one for which the US has been often criticized.

3) A fully democratic model, where nations give up their sovereignity to the EU central body and where every inhabitant's votes is worth the same. Not likely due to the national pride of governments, as well as because of the vast differences of regions.

4) A mixed model, one where countries don't have vetoes anymore, and where the votes of Germany and Malta are not quite equal, but are tilted a bit in favor of the smaller countries. This would ensure the further tightening of the union, while at the same time it would not upset neither small nor big members too much.

Currently, the option 4) might infact be the best model in my opinion (wait to see occrider be happy and say "told you so" ) considering all the problems EU is facing.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey guess what you Europeans???? Welcome to the problems of founding a federalist union of "states"!!! The next time you bitch at concepts such as electoral colleges, the constant conflict between state rights vs. federal rights, and party divisions between whether more power should go locally to the states or centrally to the government, merely look at the nonexistence of an EU superstate (much less a constitution) as for why things are the way they are here.

Yes, I see your point. But just because your union are more tightly integrated than ours, why should we not be allowed to comment on the flaws in yours?
And, to me you are comparing apples and oranges: The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU, and you have only had some 2-300 years of getting angry with each other, whereas we have had thousand of years doing that.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Would anyone be surprised by this, its the age old adage at play. The French seem to have an infatuation with being seen as a great and central power in dealing with America. This is just a reflection of overall social P.O.Vs as far as I am concerned. Anyone who believes this is off base I have two words for you, Core Europe, if you kept up with the latest news from Europe as I do ask France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and oh Germany. Everyone knows their goal is the creation of a European Superstate, and then we wonder why Poland wants to make sure its voice is heard in any decision making in the E.U. I am puzzled as to why the masses of this great bastion of democratic principles (E.U.) isn't upset when they hear the concept of a Core Europe put forth by Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. Apparently dissenting voices have begun to be shown in violent ways. 4 letter bombs sent to members of the E.U. Parliament including Signor Romano Prodi.

Well, I'm a European and I loathe the french foreign politics (and despise some of their domestic ones at that). Furthermore, I cannot wait to see a center right government in Germany - both Schroeder and Chirac seem to be way to caught up in pleasing their spin-doctors than presenting an honest vision of the future.
Before writing this post I took a moment to reflect on the people I know and what their position on this is, and I can honestly say that no matter if they are pro/anti Israel/US/EU, they all hate the French government and its arrogant approach to unification of EU states. Even our prime minister, who chaired the negotiations leading to the enlargement of the EU, has publicly disagreed with the 2-speed Europe ideas of France and Germany.
The reasons why I dislike the superstate idea is mainly that the biggest proponent of it, France, are a centralistic country (and has been for ages) and consequently sees itself as a natural leader of such a superstate. As a member of a culture very different to that of France, I fear that my interests would be down-prioritized. Not until Britain, which resembles Denmark to a much higher degree, devotes itself to the superstate will I endorse its creation.

Drug_Tito: I agree that option 4 (why only four, btw?) is the best one, and I think most politicians in the EU agree as well. The problem is, however, to determine the exact ratio of weight of votes between countries.

Who cares, every country is entitled to their opinion to the predicted outcome of a war. France is no exception...soo boo hoo.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis Who cares, every country is entitled to their opinion to the predicted outcome of a war. France is no exception...soo boo hoo.

Hey if you have nothing bad to say about the French don't say it at all!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Yes, I see your point. But just because your union are more tightly integrated than ours, why should we not be allowed to comment on the flaws in yours? And, to me you are comparing apples and oranges: The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU, and you have only had some 2-300 years of getting angry with each other, whereas we have had thousand of years doing that.

I was speaking tongue in cheek ... as I often do

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU

thats why the EU cant work imo. Cultures are so different , plus language isnt the same in every country as it is in the US.
But i dont think if it happens that France & Germany will automaticly be the boss of the EU in terms of political decision cuz if the constitution is well done then we would have a representation for the states in a senate (number of senators are equal in each states) & a people representation in a congress that doesnt represent France or Germany or another country but a political opinion (which can be the same in different states) as in the US.
The power of large countries might in this way only be an economical power (California vs Alabama for example). You cant say in the US that the most powerful state is driving the whole union isnt it?
Anyway this cant work in the EU cuz of there is no european patriotic feeling that mainly due to the different languages imo.

sorry for not speaking so well English

___________________