Jump to content
Placebo

European Politics Thread.

Recommended Posts

Sorry denoir, i don't get it.

U said voting means puttind sheet of paper into box or whatever is used to count single vote

And voting is process from this sheet to the elector's oath. Counting is part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grizzlie-

Quote[/b] ]Sorry denoir, i don't get it.

U said voting means puttind sheet of paper into box or whatever is used to count single vote

And voting is process from this sheet to the elector's oath. Counting is part of it.

What he said. I think.

I dont see what is to be gained anyway by seeking to justify the possible infringements of liberty of Kuchmas regime by arguing whether rigged elections are 'genuine' but

Quote[/b] ]universal and equal suffrage
seems pretty clear to me. Electoral fraud is a violation of the spirit of the UN declaration of human rights even if lawyers could argue about the letter.

I have no sympathy for moral ambivalence or wilful passivity in the face of violations of human rights. You appear to agree:

Quote[/b] ]In my opinion the only time when we should interfere politically is when human rights violations are taking place. Otherwise it's none of our business how other countries run their workshop.
so your belief that any interference in this case is wrong seems incongruous with your acceptance of internationally agreed standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unless you maintain that government assisted electoral fraud is not a violation of human rights or reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Ok, I'll have to alter what I said a bit. Human rights is to general.

I'd say no active interference unless grave violation of human rights are taking place. I'm talking about genocide etc

I do not think for instance that the EU should involve itself in for instance Iranian internal affairs - although they have by our thinking an unfair and oppressive regime. I do not think that we should involve ourselves in US internal affairs - although they for instance have the death penalty which is barbaric by our standards.

Bottom line is that unless there is a direct and immediate humanitarian disaster taking place, that we should let societies develop in their own pace. I believe that artificial change through intervention can do much more damage.

Other countries' external affairs are of course a different matter since it affects us and the rest of the world. Internal matters however should IMO be respected as internal, even if we do not agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

We here talk "Nice of evil beginning"...

And remember doctor's rule - better prevent sickness than heal

I think there is something in it smile_o.gif

u can call me bastard with too good memory, but i still remember that Europe did nothing to stop nazis. I think we should learn something from history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, Britain declared war on them and the Soviet Union suffered 13.600.000 casualties fighting Nazis. The U.S "did nothing" until the last possible minute cause they wanrted the soviet union to lose as many troops as possible for they entered the war, but Japan made that decison for them. The spanish civil war was a war against fascism, but in the 30's most of the world considered Hitler preferable to communism, he had prominent supporters in the U.S, and the U.K before the war.

Most of the European countires were in no position to even think about stopping Nazi germany, Britain wasnt invaded because its an island and had an empire at the time.

Besides theres very little the West can do in the Ukraine, its Russias back yard just like central america was for the U.S in the 80's, and they may tolerate their man being forced out peacfully, but I dont see any alternative to acting as an observer on this, even if the incumbent governemnt used troops/police/supporters to viloently crack down on the opposition the Russians would never tolerate european or UN peacekeepers on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but i still remember that Europe did nothing to stop nazis. I think we should learn something from history.

After we chased Mussolini back into the Adriatic Sea, Hitler decided to come down to Greece to save his lapdog from total embarrassment. It took Hitler a month to capture Greece. This, in turn, delayed Operation Barbarossa by a month. Which is why the German troops were just outside of Moscow when the winter started, not inside or just past it.

Percentage wise, we suffered the highest decimation of civilian population in Europe, this was a very costly one month, which turned the tide against Hitler.

It was also during that time when Churchill discovered the truth - Greeks don't fight like heroes, Heroes fight like Greeks.

EDIT: Plus, Europe wasn't a country back then. It was a choice of either going down heroically, or trying to evade destruction by playing along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i haven't said clearly. I meant did nothing BEFORE war.

European democracies was stepping back allowing evil grow, till they was attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the war, most countries, the U.S included, regarded Nazi germany as a bulwark against communism and saw him as a potential ally in a war against communism. Look at the popularity of eugenics in britain and the U.S in the 30's and the organisations and people that supported it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they should have attacked a technologically superior force and start a bloody war in order to.. uhh.. prevent a bloody war? rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they should have attacked a technologically superior force and start a bloody war in order to.. uhh.. prevent a bloody war? rock.gif

What's bloodier? 5 million or 50 million?

We'll never know, will we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they should have attacked a technologically superior force and start a bloody war in order to.. uhh.. prevent a bloody war? rock.gif

What's bloodier? 5 million or 50 million?

We'll never know, will we?

It's easy to be judging others decision afterwards, the real atrocities began after the war started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they should have attacked a technologically superior force and start a bloody war in order to.. uhh.. prevent a bloody war? rock.gif

What's bloodier? 5 million or 50 million?

We'll never know, will we?

It's easy to be judging others decision afterwards, the real atrocities began after the war started.

Ah yes, the war wasn't a real atrocity. Just a war.

Go on........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they should have attacked a technologically superior force and start a bloody war in order to.. uhh.. prevent a bloody war? rock.gif

What's bloodier? 5 million or 50 million?

We'll never know, will we?

It's easy to be judging others decision afterwards, the real atrocities began after the war started.

Ah yes, the war wasn't a real atrocity. Just a war.

Go on........................

I think that eastern front was quite a bit more bloody than invasion of France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if Britain and France had attacked Germany in the late 30's without soviet or U.S assistance they surley would've lost, Hitler would've then been able to attack the Soviet union in isolation.  The U.S wouldnt have declared war on Germany in sympathy with Britain and France, and after that war was over, the U.S would have had no base to operate from in Europe. There are lots of what-ifs? but when the war started many countries could'nt even defend their own borders, what could they have contributed to a pre-emptive war aginst the Nazi's?

Besides, it ignores the fact that no one had any intention of attacking or stopping Nazi Germany, the U.S wasn't worried about Hitler, they were worried about Stalin just like europeans, because they were busy shafting there working classes and colonies so they had good reason to fear communism.

The Soviets suffered 13.5 millon casualties, bear in mind the military casualties for the soviet union would include women and children and I havent even included civilian casualties in that.

Germany coomitted the bulk of its troops and suffered most of its casualties on the Eastern Front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what times we r talking about. 1938 or 1940 makes big difference. Don't forget that during war nazis were using slave workers and resources from all occupied countries.

@kerosene

It is only my personal thought, but i think if UK and France have attacked nazis when germany have attacked Poland, there would be no need for USA help. Nazis were not prepared for long 2-fronts war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasnt just resources, it was a new set of tactics and superior technology that allowed them to plow over other countries.  

The British governemnt simply refused to accept that there might be a war with Germany uintil it happened,  It was either the guy who built the Spitfire or the guy who built the Hurricane, but one of them paid for the first production run out of his own pocket with no customer lined up because the government was more or less in denial, I think they bought them when the sudenland was invaded.

The Polish were still using horseback cavalry at the start of the war, and that is when britain declared war, they were slow in moving to actually attack, but it was the French had the Maginot line and I guess they felt like they wanted to use it. They probably thought the Germans would just exhust themselves on it.

We're really getting into hypothetical stuff now anyway, so theres no way to really say one way or the other, its interesting to think about though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germans had cavalry too :P

Even in 1941 while attacking Soviet Union, nazi army had over 600,000 horses and most troops were moving on feet.

Well, maybe, but resolvings of cases like situation in Ucraine now r hipotetical too. Everything can happen. For me it is interesting to find out if Europe is wiser than before, or still waiting till it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends what times we r talking about. 1938 or 1940 makes big difference.

Yeah, and 1938 or 2004 makes a much bigger difference. Comparison the Ukraine situation with the rise of Nazism is ridiculous as is this statement:

Quote[/b] ]For me it is interesting to find out if Europe is wiser than before, or still waiting till it is too late.

The situations, the time period and the context are not in any way comparable. The geostrategic situation in the world has also changed radically since then so the parallels are pointless there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard about results of sounding in Russia. Question was: "U prefer to have job, money ect, or Russia to become empire ?" Most answers was Russia to be empire.

Putin claimed to build new nuclear rockets.

And lot of russsians still treats Ucraine as russian territory.

Doesn't it light a little red light?

Well, situation has changed but noone can guarantee that woudn't change again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denior or somebody can inform me about Malmo, Sweden... rock.gif Fox News (sue me then) website posted a interesting article about the problems with some of the Arab immigrants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on where do you want to see the villain. How does this thing differ from the german newspapers blaming the jews in the 30´s?

Replace the word arab, with the word jew, and the word islam, with the word judaism, and voila,here we have a relic of the third reich.

The difference between US and Europe is that war was fought in Europe, and most of the european citys are in this day still bearing the scars of that terrible war, and people want to prevent such thing from happening in the future. Flaming a certain ethnic, or religious group doesnt solve anything, on the contrary, we see what was done in name of that in Germany back in the 30´s

As for Aftonbladet, iirc its a tabloid comperable to the sun in Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted about it a few pages back on this thread, most references on google seem to be from creepy far-right sights.  One claims that Malmos population is 70% muslim, yet their census states its foreign born citizens make up 24% of the population, the two largest groups are Yugoslavs and Poles, Bosnia-Hezgovina is number 3.  

The information I saw was old, but Malmo has about twice the average % of immigrants and twice the average unemployment in sweden, less than 3.5% of the population were non-christian in 1987.

Malmo statistics

http://www.malmo.se/see/work/17922/SG%202003%20En.pdf

Fox are jumping on a pretty dodgy bandwagon if they went by the information I saw from typing in "Malmo" and "crime" into Google.

One supplied by people who are questionable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Aftonbladet, iirc its a tabloid comperable to the sun in Britain.

What kind of a site is Sveriges Radio?

Super serious <s>state-owned</s> public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×