European Foreign Policy Sucks!!

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Thanks from Taiwan.

Postby Visitor » 08 Nov 2002, 00:03

Geez!

The first post was a troll and the lack of response show that the Yankas are incapable of articulating their stance on anything beyond their "We are right!" cotton candy.

Who is it that said that the "well trained dog jumps when the master waves his stick," however, the REALLY well trained dog jumps even when there is no stick? But the average Yank thinks he's in control, poopi poo hoo!

I have yet to hear a Yank actually articulate their own foreign policy, never mind the EU's.



Any bitsy bitsy hate campaign works wonders in the end, so keep on thinking!
Visitor
 



Postby Flipper » 08 Nov 2002, 01:43

Anonymous wrote:Geez!

The first post was a troll and the lack of response show that the Yankas are incapable of articulating their stance on anything beyond their "We are right!" cotton candy.

Who is it that said that the "well trained dog jumps when the master waves his stick," however, the REALLY well trained dog jumps even when there is no stick? But the average Yank thinks he's in control, poopi poo hoo!

I have yet to hear a Yank actually articulate their own foreign policy, never mind the EU's.



Any bitsy bitsy hate campaign works wonders in the end, so keep on thinking!


lol. your response just proves my point. no mention at all of what "eu" foreign policy is. instead, you got the knee jerk "insult the yanks" reaction going. would that make you the dog and this thread the stick? ;)

did you not understand that your substanceless "criticize America and Americans" response was EXACTLY what I was making fun of in the first post? or did the "yank bashing" side of your brain cloud your reading comprehension skills?
Flipper
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
 
Posts: 1806
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 12 Dec 2001, 17:01
Location: SoCal



Postby jeepers » 08 Nov 2002, 01:46

tigerman wrote:
Europhile wrote:Has Europe let America down in this respect?


I think so.


Could you elaborate on that, please.
jeepers
 



Postby Closet Queen » 08 Nov 2002, 02:33

tigerman wrote:You don't consider the destruction of the two tallest skyscapers in NYC and a direct hit on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of four jet airplanes and the killing of nearly 3,000 people much of an "attack"?


Yes of course it was an attack. What I doubt is that it should be met by invoking UN Charter 5. This was terrorist act by an extremist group and not an attack by one country on another. I believe that is the "attack" that NATO safeguards. History has shown the UN to be an effective organisation, nevertheless, like its predecessor, some countries use it self servingly and hypocritically rather than abiding by its founding principles. While Article 5 might seem suitable to redress the WTC incident, daily unsactioned bombings of Iraq seem to fly in the face of Article 1.

...to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;


tigerman wrote:Are you really unaware that military action is in fact an exercise of foreign policy?


I'm well aware of that, but then that's not what I said. What I said was they are not synonymous - one cannot exist without another. Military action is, or should be, the last element of a foreign policy where diplomacy has failed. It should never be the first instrument.
"Honey, I've blown a guy just to get him outta my house."
Forumosan avatar
Closet Queen
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: 17 May 2001, 16:01
Location: Taipei



Postby Tigerman » 08 Nov 2002, 08:02

Soddom wrote:Yes of course it was an attack. What I doubt is that it should be met by invoking UN Charter 5. This was terrorist act by an extremist group and not an attack by one country on another. I believe that is the "attack" that NATO safeguards.


Article 5 states that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. There is no qualification or condition set as to whether the attack is from a traditional nation state, alliance or any other entity.

Soddom wrote:History has shown the UN to be an effective organisation


Please define "effective".

Soddom wrote:nevertheless, like its predecessor, some countries use it self servingly and hypocritically rather than abiding by its founding principles.


Some? Try all.

Soddom wrote:While Article 5 might seem suitable to redress the WTC incident, daily unsactioned bombings of Iraq seem to fly in the face of Article 1.


That's just it. Article 5 actually did nothing... its invocation was merely symbolic. It hardly has redressed the WTC/Pentagon/Pennsylvania attack. Most European nations, excluding several such as the UK and, surprisingly, Italy, have since done very little to assist the US. Rather, they continue to sit on their duffs and call for yet more endless discussion, all the while crying that the US is acting unilaterally. To those Europeans, there can never be enough talk and it is never time to act.

Soddom wrote:I'm well aware of that, but then that's not what I said. What I said was they are not synonymous - one cannot exist without another. Military action is, or should be, the last element of a foreign policy where diplomacy has failed. It should never be the first instrument.


Uh, the Iraqi regime has violated the UN peace agreement for over 11 years now. How can you even imagine that after 11 years of undermined sanctions, that the US is now resorting to force as a first option? Most of Europe has merely been critical of the UN sanctions while attempting to undermine the same. Europe gave former US president Jimmy Carter a Nobel Peace Prize, largely for his diplomatic achievement of getting the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear weapons program... of course, as soon as Jimmy Carter received his prize, the N. Koreans announced that they did indeed have the bomb, and bio-weapons too. In light of that, and of all that is known regarding Iraq's weapon program, Europe still believes that diplomatic efforts have not yet been exhausted. European policy: talk, even if it is useless; never resort to the use of force.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Postby Tigerman » 08 Nov 2002, 08:10

jeepers wrote:
tigerman wrote:
Europhile wrote:Has Europe let America down in this respect?


I think so.


Could you elaborate on that, please.


Sure, but I think it is obvious.

After assisting (substantially) in two European world wars, and protecting western Europe for 40+ years from Soviet expansion, Europe, with the notable and appreciated exceptions of the UK and Italy, has done its best to discourage US initiatives designed to protect the US from an enemy that has been attacking US interests and killing US citizens for over a decade.

I wouldn't characterize Europe's behavior as supportive of the US, would you?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Re: Thanks from Taiwan.

Postby Tigerman » 08 Nov 2002, 08:12

Anonymous wrote:Geez! I have yet to hear a Yank actually articulate their own foreign policy, never mind the EU's.


If the US has not clearly articulated its policy, then what exactly is it that Europe opposes?

Again, Europe has no foreign policy to articulate.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Postby hot_dini » 08 Nov 2002, 08:15

Soddom wrote:History has shown the UN to be an effective organisation


Eastern Europe (occupied by USSR 45 years)
Tibet (occupied by China 50+ years) genocide
Cambodia (genocide)
Rwanda (genocide)
Former Yugoslavia (genocide)

Korean War ("UN Forces" maintain status quo in Korea)

Yep, you're right. An effective organization. :roll:
hot_dini
 



Re: Thanks from Taiwan.

Postby hot_dini » 08 Nov 2002, 10:33

tigerman wrote:Again, Europe has no foreign policy to articulate.


WRONG!

European foreign policy:

"Whoah! We're going to Ibiza
Whoah! Back to the island
Whoah! We're going to Ibiza
Whoah! We're gonna have a party
Whoah! In the Mediterranean Sea"*

"Going to Ibiza" - The Vengaboys
http://www.lyricscafe.com/v/vengaboys/003.htm
hot_dini
 



Postby Europhile » 08 Nov 2002, 13:21

Al Qaida: "By attempting to strike a U.S. plane in Saudi Arabia and by bombing a Jewish synagogue in Tunisia, destroying two ships in Yemen, attacking the Fialka base in Kuwait, and bombing nightclubs and whorehouses in Indonesia, al Qaeda has shown it has no qualms about attacking inside Arab and Islamic lands."

The synagogue bombing took place in April and killed 19 people, most of them German tourists.

What was the German response to this? Anyone know? Rascal?
Europhile
 



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 visitors

Most of us spend our lives as if we had another one in the bank -- BEN IRWIN