Printable View
i would be pleased to read your writings on the finer points of cultural differences, especially given we have just witnessed Tribesman state they do not exist, and can therefore have no possible bearing on whether the group can invest trust in the leader............Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:)
Gentlemen,
I would appreciate a little more discussion and somewhat fewer personal attacks, please.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Learn that your arguement is bollox.Quote:
learn to read (and to spell),
Come on Furunculus give us your version of values, culture, social norms, world view and morals that are British and see how many of the British posters on this forum have different versions.
Wrong approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Give us your version of British values, culture, social norms, world view and morals and see ow many people from other countries adhere to them. Most of the western world hs become thoroughy middle-class in almost every respect.
I am a great fan of home exchanges. I have exchanged homes with Germans, Italians, Frenchmen and Poles. In every case, my counterparts had the same basic values that I have, and this applied to every neighbourhood where I came to live temporarily as well. Very instructive.
every nation has a broad world view that is shaped by their history.
the prudish brits recoil in horrified incomprehension that italy continues to vote berlusconi in as their leader.
the french maintain a deep suspicion of free booting anglo-saxon ways as well as 'their' foreign policy mechanisms (read: NATO).
the polish maintain a deep-seated fear of any neighbour that is bigger than them, which is why they respect defence alliances more than political alliances.
these few examples demonstrate different expectations, and obviously result from the shared history, culture and values of the peoples that exhibit these traits. it isn't rocket science.
i supported Britain's intervention in iraq, and i am glad Britain continues to provide military support to America, because i mostly agree with their view of the way the world should be, i doubt that any other large continental nations of old europe would show such willingness, and that is because they don't share so similar a world view. and that is fine, but don't expect me to rejoice at the prospect of governance from a group that strays further away from my own natural inclinations.
So you have just demnonstated that your world view which you claim British people share is completely at odds with the views of most Brits.
Well done:2thumbsup:
not at the time the war was launched:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=681:
http://insidecostarica.com/dailynews...l/03/index.htmQuote:
Outside of Great Britain, the prospect of war in Iraq draws substantial # in many cases overwhelming # opposition. Among other U.S. allies, publics reject participating in a military coalition against Iraq by much wider margins. The Spanish oppose joining an allied military action against Iraq by more than six-to-one (81%-13%). Fewer than a quarter of Italians and Poles (17%, 21%) favor their governments joining the U.S. and other nations in taking military action against Iraq.
In Germany roughly a quarter (27%) favor military action, unchanged since November. In France, where just a third of respondents favored military action against Iraq in November, support for that option has dropped to 20%.
Support for military action was gauged in two ways. In Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland # the so-called "coalition of the willing" # respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed their country joining other allies in taking military action against Iraq. In France, Russia, Germany and Turkey # whose governments have ruled out such participation # respondents were asked their opinion of "the U.S. and other allies" using force against Iraq.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=454Quote:
UK public backing for Iraq war drops below 50 percent
British public support for the ongoing war in Iraq has fallen for the first time below 50 percent since the conflict broke out on March 20, according to a poll published by the Daily Mirror newspaper Thursday.
The GMTV poll showed that currently only 48 percent of the polled said they support war, while fewer than one in seven of them said they believe in U.S. President George W. Bush.
However, 78 percent of the polled said they do not want British troops brought home until the war is over, no matter how long it takes.
On Wednesday, a Daily Telegraph poll said 54 percent of Britons favored military action. But 56 percent feared Britain and the United States might get bogged down in a lengthy conflict.
British public support for the war on Iraq began to drop on Sunday when a survey found that Britons who believed it was right to take military action against Iraq went down to 54 percent from 59 percent on March 27, but higher than 50 percent on March 20, the day the war started.
The decline in public backing underlined a growing feeling among Britons that the war is "nothing like people felt they were led to expect," local analysts said.
Quote:
In France and Britain, support for a war to overthrow Saddam is lukewarm, with about as many supporting as opposing. In Germany and Italy on the other hand, sentiment is decidedly opposed with only 34 percent favoring and 57-59 percent opposing. In the U.S., Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction is considered a very important reason for a military operation by 81 percent (up from 77 percent) compared with 83 percent for linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. In contrast, all four of the European publics surveyed felt that Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction was the more important reason for war with Iraq: 67 to 55 percent in Britain, 49 to 45 percent in Italy, 57 to 44 percent in Germany, and 54 to 47 percent in France.
Don't be silly, the preinvasion gallup poll for Britain (excluding NI) gave only 10% in favour of following the course that was taken.Quote:
not at the time the war was launched:
!0% is not a majority opinion
Some nice data you posted there , more Brits said america was the problem than Germans did , and then the French had only half the German figure saying America was the problem . Though both France and Germany had more people than Britain saying Bush was the problem .
the data also shows:
1) that at the point the war was launched, there was a majority
2) this was quite opposite to most other large nations on the continent
if you choose to ignore the fact that different peoples have different goals and different methods of achieveing those goals, fine, i do not.
The problem there is that you are applying a very broad brush, one could really say that you are stereotyping people from your own nation and other nations according to your own prejudices.Quote:
if you choose to ignore the fact that different peoples have different goals and different methods of achieveing those goals, fine, i do not.
fine, i accept that. it is a broad brush.
it is IMO relevant to consider this when i ask myself what Britain's place should be within federal EU, an argument i frame under the following questions:
1) Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now)
2) Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos)
Yes but then you take your personal views and call them british as though you represent the mythical typical Brit.Quote:
it is IMO relevant to consider this when i ask myself what Britain's place should be within federal EU, an argument i frame under the following questions
That steroetyping is no more relevant than someone saying a typical Brit is the loud rude and obnoxious sunburnt drunken puke monster who they have seen lots of in european resorts.
i used an example that applied to me, an example of a UK government following a pro US policy which i supported, you spun that particular example out into a broader topic.
and i am discussing my views in a thread about UK political representation at a european level that better reflects my views, and apparently the symapthies of many other Brits.
anyway, lets get back on topic; what new scare stories are there about conservative MEP's feeling up kids whilst dressed in Nazi uniform..................?
No you are dressing up your personal views as representative of 1000 years of shared culture , since everyone takes their share in different ways it is in no way representive.Quote:
i am discussing my views in a thread about UK political representation at a european level that better reflects my views, and apparently the symapthies of many other Brits.
Even lokk at your link , a few fruitbats who want to go back to a stasge where Britian was screwed and further bankrupting itself. More young Britons would probably be in favour of free festivals than attemting to head east of Aden with a maintained military presence.
You are a relic of imperialism, there is no other way to describe you.
Lovely! I predict one will find, on pretty much any subject, these slight variations in national preferences. For me, these numbers are a clear indication not of the inviability, but of the viability of European co-operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus 'Europe will never work'
Oh, Furunculus, you have such a monolithic views of nations. What's more, I think you project your own, slightly particularistic views on the whole of Britain. For or against the EU, I don't think you will find the UK turned into your imaginary 'Prussian' military machine anytime soon. Not all Britons agree to your militaristic view of the UK. I think you'll find that, say, improving waiting lists for healthcare is considered a more immediate concern to most Britons than paying five cents of taxes on every pound to fix some sort of non-existing defense crisis. To do what anyway? To go on a pan-Anglo crusade to colour the world pink again? People don't care about stuff like that anymore.
The EU is not all that totalitarian. You can still have your ashes, which nobody understands. And your Commonwealth games. And Britain will be slightly tilted more towards the US than most. And your pubs will continue to serve their horrid lukewarm beers. (Although...considering the rate at which they go bankrupt, perhaps not. I say stop wasting your time on obscure alarmist nationalist military sites and go save a pub, mate. That'll protect some real British traditions!)
there are a myriad of examples of 'national' inclination, three of which i gave above, for just one i suggest the prudish brits awed horror that italy continues to vote in, and approve of, berlusconi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
in that case i am a fruitbat too, for believing that the first duty of the sovereign nation state is the defence of the realm, and any government that apportions less than 5% of spending to Defence when we have spent the last fives years fighting two wars is grossly negligent of its duty to the British people. i have zero problems with the aims and ambitions of the UKNDA.
why, because i continue to believe in the nation state as the most viable form of representative governance, because i haven't fallen for the advanced cretinism that is transnational progressivism?
i don't think a federal eu is nonviable, in fact i agree the figures support the view that a federal state can be forged, but the figures certainly fail my self imposed test #2 Is it desirable? (will representative governance suffer due to the disconnect between demos and cratos).Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
how are my views monolithic and particularistic? because you do realise that i have no desire to colour the world pink again, via a pan-anglo crusade or otherwise. nor too do i want a prussian military machine, britain has never gone in for massive armies when it has been given a choice, and i certainly don't want one now. i simply think that allocating less than 5% of Gov't spending on Defence WHILST we are at war is a dereliction of duty on the part of our government. we already spend a fortune on health and welfare, that is what the British people want, but because we spend so little on Defence is precisely the reason why we can afford to properly provision the first duty of the nation state without having significant impact on other departments. i do care about that stuff, and after twenty years of neglect you may be surprised to find that the Armed Forces are becoming more of a public priority again.
Louis, i know it won't bring on the end-of-times, but again it falls foul of test #1 Is it necessary? (will Britain see a net benefit over and above that which it enjoys now).
the UKNDA does a job i believe in, that is necessary only because it has been neglected by government for twenty years, i will both go to the pub and continue to support what they do. when the UK subscribes to a peacetime minimum defence spend of 2.5% of GDP i will be a happy bunny, and not before.
if there is a "yes" answer to either test #1 or test #2, then there is a case to weigh up the negative answer in balance to the positive, however if the answer to both questions is "no" then why bother pursuing the matter further?
It still baffles me how little European countries spend on defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
What would happen if the Yankees did go home? Would Europe go back to its perpetual struggle to commit suicide, or would the increased defense costs force them to work together more?
well, it is obviously not everyone's priority and i don't presume to lecture other countries, but i believe it should be among Britain's priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
the NATO minimum is 2.0% of GDP, but not many NATO countries even bother with that much.
I'm not lecturing anyone but if there were no U.S. forces in Europe, European defense needs would dramatically increase. You're citing NATO standards. I'm talking about national standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Does the presence of US forces in Europe help or hinder the creation of a unified Europe?
Well, I expect we'd spend a lot less on invading sovereign countries and insulting each other via translators and tabloid newspapers is a lot cheaper than tanks. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I understand your intent and hope that is true. However, my stomach turns when I think of the preceding centuries. Not that any of us are without sin, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
i'm not suggesting you are, but nato countries could lecture other nato nations for not living up to their nato obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
who knows, who cares, it only matters to those to desire a unified europe.
People like me. Hopefully the union will occur slowly over the next 100 years or so. Too many people have tried to unify Europe with military force. Legislative force will fail as well. Integration, openness, and time will bring Europe together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
sounds like a good result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
successful nations adapt and evolve to the situation around them, and who knows, in a hundred years time my two tests may have different answers, but for britain now and the near future there is no point in subsuming into dysfunctional federal europe.
Got to be a part of the problem if you want to be a part of the solution.
sounds catchy, does it actually apply to geo-politics in the specific situation of the UK and the EU?
Which nations spend more than 5%?Quote:
in that case i am a fruitbat too, for believing that the first duty of the sovereign nation state is the defence of the realm, and any government that apportions less than 5% of spending to Defence when we have spent the last fives years fighting two wars is grossly negligent of its duty to the British people. i have zero problems with the aims and ambitions of the UKNDA.
much easier to find comparative figures for defence spending by percentage of GDP, because nations use different proportions of GDP on annual spending.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html
the UK is listed 70th, but that is based on 2005 figures when defence spending was around 2.4%, whereas in reality it is about 2.2% today, which given that government spending is ~44% of GDP means that defence represents ~5% of government spending.
So then which of those countries which make the magic number do you consider good examples for a soveriegn nation to immitate as its "first duty"?