European Politics Thread.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Wouldn't be surprised if Soros was or is part of the company I really doubt the national governments you just cited gave their endorsement, probably more likely that they are just using their men in those countries Still rakes of typical backstage politics

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Soros is a leading figure on the Council of Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, and Human Rights Watch (HRW). In 1994, after a meeting with his philosophical guru, Sir Karl Popper, Soros ordered his companies to start investing in Central and Eastern European communications. The Federal Radio Television Administration of the Czech Republic accepted his offer to take over and fund the archives of Radio Free Europe. Soros moved the archives to Prague and spent over $15 million on their maintenance. 2 A Soros foundation now runs CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty jointly with the U.S. and RFE/RL, which has expanded into the Caucasus and Asia. 3 Soros is the founder and funder of the Open Society Institute. He created and maintains the International Crisis Group (ICG) which, among other things, has been active in the Balkans since the destruction of Yugoslavia. Soros works openly with the United States Institute of Peace-an overt arm of the CIA.

Radio Free Europe is a CIA operation. He is funding it. There you go, he's CIA

Source: http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d1207hc.htm

If you check out the companies themselves, you will find the same ties.

[Baphomet 0]

Extremist pizza delivery guy targeted Amsterdam red light district for attack.

This pisses me off. People come into your country and then start trying to change things because they don't like it? What's next? Him poisoning pizzas because someone likes sausage on theirs? I'm glad they caught the bastard, but crazy ungrateful immigrants should be deported. If you can't appreciate that you're living in a country where you're not starving or trying to keep from being killed, suck it up and deal with it.

I think my country really needs to tighten it's immigration laws so things like this won't happen. Either that or I'm going to have to buy a gun.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The four foundations involved included three funded by the U.S. government: The National Endowment for Democracy, which gets its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which gets money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation, part of a network of charities funded by billionaire George Soros that gets money from the State Department. Other countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

 

Could you provide a link please, because I really doubt Norwegian authoroties would do anything so stupid all the time we are heavily involved in business, environmental issues and trade with Russia!

I could be wrong of course, but if so also very surprised!

The only info about the International Renaissance Foundation is old and did not include who funded them (ex. Soros).

Couldn't find anything of interest there. Could you give me a link to your text pls?

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=110348 -AP

Quote[/b] ]Radio Free Europe is a CIA operation. He is funding it. There you go, he's CIA

I would not say he is a CIA man because of what he said about President Bush during the election and etc...  Reading further in the article, it seems they do not like HRW... Also, BIAS SOURCE!!!!! Now the FBI think I'm a far lefty...  

[Grizzlie 0]

Hands out of Radio Free Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With BBC it was ONLY one source of information in communistic countries.

If u haven't been living in communistic country u can't understand what does it mean.

And if US woudn't interfere waiting for UN, half of Europe would be still part of russian empire.

UN is not panaceum, it is outdated medicine for cold taking when u have cancer.

[denoir 0]

And if US woudn't interfere waiting for UN, half of Europe would be still part of russian empire.

UN is not panaceum, it is outdated medicine for cold taking when u have cancer.

Are you attempting historical revisionism or are you just ignorant of history?

If it wasn't for the UN, the US and the Soviet Union would have blown each other to pieces, and most likely Europe along with them. During the nastiest part of the cold war, the US and the Soviets did not talk to each other directly. The UN provided a forum for discussion and diplomacy - and which more than on one occasion prevented a nuclear war.

Quote[/b] ]If u haven't been living in communistic country u can't understand what does it mean.

It means that you were force-fed Soivet propaganda instead of American propaganda. That's why eastern-Europe is far more pro-American. You hated the Soviets so much that you got the impression that the other side was much better.

[Grizzlie 0]

I can only say: "point of sitting changes point of view".

[Leveler 0]

Despite risking to derail the thread, ill add this on the point of racism discussed a few pages before: After studying undergraduate biochemistry for four years in Scotland I can tell you this ; racism and bigotry are the result of low intelligence, average education and a massive inferiority complex. If the people themselves are like that, then there is no hope for change by ANY political party that wants to be reelected.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Newspaper De Telegraaf described him as a "radical Moroccan pizza courier"

This made me laugh, conjured an image of Bin Laden on a motorbike

Quote[/b] ]Hands out of Radio Free Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With BBC it was ONLY one source of information in communistic countries.

If u haven't been living in communistic country u can't understand what does it mean.

And if US woudn't interfere waiting for UN, half of Europe would be still part of russian empire.

UN is not panaceum, it is outdated medicine for cold taking when u have cancer.

Source of information? Radio Free Europe is a CIA operation, it had the aim to undo everything communist.I am not quite sure what it does now, but its still CIA owned and still spouting off CIA approved rubbish. It or its sister stations were involved in countless of coups in South America as well.

Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

Or can't.....

Hey the UK still got that CIA funded Echelon monstrosity in Menwith hill England ,not something the EU is particulary content with.

Yeah CIA's involvement in South America is lengendary ,lost of scandals and cover up's there.The recent ousting attempt of Chavez probably supported by the CIA was kinda rediculous ,sure Chavez is somewhat left wing (some people actually like that ,but in USA left or liberal is almost synonym to pot smoking hippy communist) ,however the Guy that the opposition tried to put into power was really really awfull ,Some puppet of the millitary junta and oliargy.

You had to see the inauguration of that temporary president Carmona ,one of the most remarkable thing's i ever saw ,basicly he was sitting before a room of his supporters been called president as chavez was ousted temporarely ,and he like began disbanding social and political liberty's ,and everytime he disbanded something the room was cheering.

Something along the lines of...

Carmona: I declare herby all voting right's revoked

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: i declare herby all social program's scrapped

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: no more state funded healthcare

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

(varmona is getting more enthusiastic and begins to shout out any disbadiment of right while luaging pleasintly)

Carmona: no more state funded education

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: no more state funded unemployement funds

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: no more state funded pensions

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: no more free trade unions

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: State media only

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: no more free trials or laywers

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: police with Ak's and dog's on every street corner

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: more taxes on the poor

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: less taxes on the rich

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

Carmona: More millitary

room: cheers yaaay and enthusiasticly claps

And soforth ,the room is excalted ,champagne is brought in ,people are cheering and drinking.

2 day's later theyll be chased away and banished to other country's by a reaction of the people and trade unions.

[denoir 0]

Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

Freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

Which I'm sure you agree is a good thing to have even if all press and all speech isn't to our liking

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

Freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

Which I'm sure you agree is a good thing to have even if all press and all speech isn't to our liking

Freedom of speech to individuals - I wholeheartedly agree.

However, foreign nations have no right to have a voice in a different country.

Or do you disagree?

[brgnorway 0]

A difficult question but I have to agree! Are not other nations voices supposed to be channeled through embassies and consulates?

[DarkLight 0]

....sure Chavez is somewhat left wing (some people actually like that ,but in USA left or liberal is almost synonym to pot smoking hippy communist)...

I don't see the problem...

Quote[/b] ]However, foreign nations have no right to have a voice in a different country.

Or do you disagree?

I agree

but isn't it VERY ironic to say stuff like that these days?

[DarkLight 0]

Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

Freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

Which I'm sure you agree is a good thing to have even if all press and all speech isn't to our liking

It's a good thing but don't you think that freedom of speech also means that you should have some responsibility? It's not because we have freedom of speech that we can just scream whatever our tiny brains want.

I think freedom of speech is something very important. If you are a racist, then i'll be glad to discuss racism with you. Sure i won't agree at all and i might get a bit pissed off once in a while but that's just me. I'll still allow you to have your opinion. As long as you allow me to have my opinion.

However...

Take the Vlaams Blok (or Vlaams Belang as they are called now), they are belgian politicians that basically have racist views against immigrants. I totally disagree with stuff like this. Sure, you can be a racist. But bringing it into politics just isn't a good thing if you ask me.

Don't you think that freedom of speech also means that you need to think before you talk? You need to think in a mature way of the consequences of what you are about to say.

Sure freedom of speech is one of our values, but we also have values that can be blown to pieces by someone who thinks he's a bit too free...

There's a difference between brainwashing people and freedom of speech if you ask me. Very hard to say where one thing stops and another starts. I think that's a dangerous thing...

Freedom of speech? Yes of course...

But that doesn't mean that you can just do/say whatever you want while thinking that there are no consequences connected to it.

Well...

that's my opinion...

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]

....sure Chavez is somewhat left wing (some people actually like that ,but in USA left or liberal is almost synonym to pot smoking hippy communist)...

I don't see the problem...

Heh ,neither do i ,but Most American's do. From an establishment point of view in the USA pot is very wrong.In some European country's ,like our own Belgium ,pot is not viewed as much of a problem really ,and politician's can freely express it if they ever smoked pot ,in the USA that could kill youre carreer ,besides the USA pumps Billion's of dollars in anti-narcotics ,even pot use is or sales is punished fairly harsh ,atleast to European norm's.

Hippy's in the typical conception of a pacifist in the USA ,if youre not "patriotic" enough to go along with the mass when war comes around (even for dumb reasons) ,and all hipy's usually are on drug's ,so a pacifist is on drug's.It's a inheritance of the vietnam war ,where the pacifist movement collided with the hippy movement ,afcourse pacifists and hippy's share ideals but a pacifist is not by norm a hippy.

Mind you American's might call me short sighted here by making such generalizations,but i remark that when Bush declared war on Iraq in an patriotic move over 98% percent of the people support that decission at that point ,mostly because of a cultural feeling that one in the USA "got to support the boys" ,not doing so would be perceived as treachery to the nation and the patriotic ideals ,in hindsight due to the progression of the war these matters may lay differently now with the comman USA citizin ,however at that point of the declearation of war these people that actually protested against the war were widely critisized by the people even insulted and declared parasites.

That particular episode made me think back at the Mcarthy period where everyone with the slightest leftist ideals was called a communist and often persecuted for it ,something that was very contractial to the normal US ideals and wich may have polarized the USA up to this point in a far right society ,a ociety so overal right that a comman centre or centre left politician to European norm's is perceived as a far left politician in the USA.

And then a far left politician is obviously a Communist (withought sub-classes) in their usual perception ,so all the synonim's that are compatible with liberal are also synonims with communist ,or otherwise a liberal = a communist ,something that is incorrect by a mile ,however there seems to be a clear phobie on lthe liberal ideoligy within a large share of the USA poppulation.

In the last USA presidnetial ellection Bush often called his opponent a liberal and by thus also a far left politician ,he noted a lot that Kerry was on the far left of the political spectrum. (or also that he had "extremist" idea's ,also a word with a bad reputation)

Not withstanding that to european norm's Kerry was more like right into the centre of the spectrum and Bush actually on the far right.

There is also the conception in general among a lot of USA citizin that anything left is quassi communist ,while their are many different side's of the left spectrum ,like Green's (wich are usually far from anything communist) ,socialists (wich are usually centre left or left) ,and the communist subclasses like marxism ,trotskism ,leninism ,maoism etc. ,each having often different charasteristic's. (maoism as ex. emphasizes more on the farmer classes while marxism/leninism on the craftsmen (industrial worker) classes)

So when chavez is reaching out to the poor class (80% of the Venezuelan poppulation) and nationalizes the vital oil industry ,then that's perceived by the USA as a communist move ,while European's would clasify it as socialist or liberal.

I know ,it's a bit much for a one line remark and not much Ot ,but i thought it had some value.

[DarkLight 0]

I know ,it's a bit much for a one line remark and not much Ot ,but i thought it had some value.

'Course it has value. It's very strange that there's so much difference between Europe and America.

Sure i can understand the pot part

But everything else.... i dunno... just hard to understand

[denoir 0]

Just another propaganda machine. I am disgusted that the EU doesn't want to shut it down.

Freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

Which I'm sure you agree is a good thing to have even if all press and all speech isn't to our liking

Freedom of speech to individuals - I wholeheartedly agree.

However, foreign nations have no right to have a voice in a different country.

Or do you disagree?

Yes, very much so. I'm far more worried about a state deciding what people should be allowed to hear or to say than about those that use that right.

Given a full and free information flow, I believe that the individuals can make up their own mind. And from an entirely practical point of view, I think it is much better that people, organizations and countries loudly speak their mind so that everybody knows what they want and what they stand for - than that they operate in the background, outside of public scrutiny.

[red oct 2]

Mind you American's might call me short sighted here by making such generalizations,but i remark that when Bush declared war on Iraq in an patriotic move over 98% percent of the people support that decission at that point ,mostly because of a cultural feeling that one in the USA "got to support the boys" ,not doing so would be perceived as treachery to the nation and the patriotic ideals ,in hindsight due to the progression of the war these matters may lay differently now with the comman USA citizin ,however at that point of the declearation of war these people that actually protested against the war were widely critisized by the people even insulted and declared parasites.

supporting the troops wasn't the reason at all. and it wasn't being patriotic either. reason why everybody supported the war was because it was a post 9/11 enviroment and it made quite easy for Bush to sell his bullshit stories about Saddam having nuclear weapons, selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, supporting Al qaida, and involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]supporting the troops wasn't the reason at all. and it wasn't being patriotic either. reason why everybody supported the war was because it was a post 9/11 enviroment and it made quite easy for Bush to sell his bullshit stories about Saddam having nuclear weapons, selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, supporting Al qaida, and involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

No ,wrong ,because support for the war was much lower in the period that the case was made for war ,support for the war only rised upto 98% from maybe 50 or 60% when the decleration of war happened ,those mass that changed their oppinion on that point of the DOW didn't do it because of the case.

[denoir 0]

Turkey gets a green light from the EP [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

French President Jacques Chirac has said that Turkey could join the European Union - if it complies in full with entry requirements.

He spoke after the European Parliament voted to approve the start of accession talks when EU leaders meet Turkish counterparts in Brussels this week. Mr Chirac warned that any of the EU's 25 members could veto Turkish entry and France reserved "the last word".

However, he stressed that the EU would benefit from having Turkey aboard.

"Does Europe, and particularly France, have an interest in Turkey joining it?" he asked in a live interview on French TV.

"My answer is... 'Yes, if Turkey totally meets the conditions we impose on any candidate for our union'."

'Meaningful'

In their non-binding vote, passed by 407 votes to 262, MEPs called on EU leaders to open entry talks with Turkey "without undue delay".

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the vote as "very meaningful" but warned that his country would walk away if confronted by any "unacceptable conditions".

Mr Chirac suggested that partial membership for Turkey, as suggested by some of his own supporters in France, was not an option.

"To ask a country like Turkey, a great country with a rich and long history, to make a considerable effort to reach a risky or partial result is not reasonable," he said.

If Ankara met all its accession obligations, he continued, it should not be turned away at the last moment.

"We will take a very heavy responsibility for history if, faced with a people who tell us 'We have adopted all your values, all your rules, all your objectives' ,we tell them, 'Eh, no thanks'," the French leader said.

'Red lines'

The MEPs' resolution also called for close monitoring of Turkey's progress in improving human rights, religious freedom and women's rights and said talks should be suspended at any time if Ankara wavers in these areas.

Amendments suggesting Turkey should be offered a special partnership instead of full membership, or that it should be rejected altogether, were defeated. The BBC's Chris Morris says the number of votes against the motion reflects considerable misgivings in parts of Europe about starting membership talks with such a large, poor and overwhelmingly Muslim country.

Earlier on Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul set out four "red lines" his country would not cross:

[*]Negotiations must have Turkey's complete membership as the final aim

[*]Turkey must not be forced to extend diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Cyprus

[*]The decision to start talks must not be conditional on subsequent decisions by EU leaders

[*]There should be no special conditions imposed permanently on Turkey.

That was the friendly pat on the back. Later today the commission will voice its opinion and it will most likely be very negative towards Turkey. The final deal will probably land somewhere inbetween - yes to membership in principle, but not any time soon.

While I'm for a Turkish membership in principle, I think that not rushing it is a good idea. First of all, while Turkey has radically changed to accomodate EU requirements, it still has a long way to go. This comes especially in the domain of embracing the changes they have legislated about. Even if you change your laws radically, things need time to become established and fully practiced. That Turkey isn't ready was clearly shown earlier this year when their parliament almost passed a law making adultery a crime. It would have passed, had it not been for a veto from the administration.

The second part of it has to do with the EU. For various (IMO mostly xenophobic) reasons there is a lot of opposition in various member states to taking in Turkey. Although, I disagree with that opposition, it is currently a fact of nature. I don't think that in its current state the EU would fare very well with an internal fight over something this important. I think we need to first evaluate and see the effects of the first expansion. That we need to grow more secure in Europe as an institution before we start experimenting.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I don't think the EU can work when one EU member does not recognise the existence of another EU member.

Now that Cyprus is part of the EU, couldn't they cause a ruckus in the EP and demand that foreign troops be removed from her soil, so they can work out their internal problems with Turkish Cypriots by themselves, without interference from Ankara or Athens, but only help from Brussels?

[denoir 0]

I don't think the EU can work when one EU member does not recognise the existence of another EU member.

Of course not. There is no question about it that Turkey will have to deal with the Cyprus question to EU's satisfaction before joining.

Personally, I think it was a big, big mistake to take in Cyprus, without having solved the problems with Turkey. It was a clear violation of the Copenhagen criterias (one of which dictates that no EU candidate country may have any border disputes).

The only reason that Cyprus was accepted was to appease the British. Again, a big mistake IMO. These rules should be absolute and equal for all candidates - not tailored to fit current and temporary political trends.

[denoir 0]

Contrary to my earlier speculation, the commission gave a full go-ahead to Turkey's membership talks. Barosso just ended a press conference and both the council and the commission voted unanimously for the start of membership talks. The prelimiary date for the talks to begin is early October 2005.

When these talks will be concluded and when Turkey will actually join is a different matter. Current estimates seem to be in the range of 10-15 years.

Well, I'm very happy for Turkey and especially for the EU. I think Turkey joining is truly in the spirit of the EU and that it will serve to validade the whole project.

It's not entirely without risk. By the time Turkey joins up, it will most likely be the largest member state of the EU - which will seriously take the balance of power for a spin. It's difficult to predict where it will lead, but I'm hoping we have mostly gotten over the nation-state type of thinking. If we truly have, then it shouldn't be a problem.

[Apollo 0]

I am also all for the joining of Turkey ,when the time is right afcourse ,but in the spirit of the EU it's an obvious next step.

I think there is still a lot of nationalism in the EU and people thinking from the viewpoint of their own country ,but it is slowly deminnishing though.The younger generations are usually more pro Europe and less regionalistic minded than the older generations ,i think in the end Europe was never expected to be fast evolution ,but still a graduat one.