Donnervogel

find out where the intro mission lurks and delete them (the missions that get loaded in the background of the menu when you load desert island). EDIT: And if that czech republic comment was aimed at me, I could surley start a nice big political debate, but I don't want to turn this into a locked topic. I just told you you might think about your "press releases" to be written a bit more neutral. If you don't want to, you don't have to of course. You have freedom of speech and opinions.

If you read it again you might want to put your attention on the whole sentence and not only the secound part. I didn't say I hate it because of that. It just turns me off a bit, being czech citizen I don't agree with what is written there for obvious reasons. See it as constructive criticism. I tell you that some people might not like that aspect while one still can have fun playing the game because I'm sure the units are superb.

wtf omfg plz omg 189347894549zu7 Gb/ms !!!11 Now to something serious. I'm looking forward to those addons. They look really nice. But I'm a bit uhmm "turned off" by the stuff about "Liberating" Europe and such... well I know perspectives might be different but I'd appreciated an a bit more objective approach.

try explaining that here in the netherlands. Try reading up on the works of the so called hero of right wing politics theo van gogh. I for one did not mourn his death. Offcourse there are limits of good taste in these things but I remain of the opinion that people like neo nazi's will remain minorities because of the radicalisme of their opinion. Noone agrees with them. These people disqualify themselves for social acceptance through their thoughts ... to act like most people in the german language area are only gives them more attention. They will put their foot in their mouth eventually and to stiffle their opinion through undemocratic manors only serves to make you look bad. Those laws exist in the Netherlands too. However when nobody claims them some persons can easily get trough with illegal behaviour. Not every law requires the police/justice system to get involved without accusation. Also your logic is quite flawed. In extreme situations people tend to adapt extreme views. That's one of the reasons why the nazis came to power. And that can easily happen again. Even with the nazis but not only with them. Not all the Germans that supported the Nazis wanted to exterminate Jews and impose a world domination. Infact I belive it was only a minority. Still a majority voted for the party. Simply because the situation was extreme and people wanted calm, security and jobs. And the nazis provided them. Easy as that. The ideology of a party doesn't have to be carried by a majority for a majority to vote for them. (On a sidenote: I vote socialist myself. But I find their ideology ridiculous. nevertheless I vote for them. Because I want some counter power to the right wing populists and the socialists are the only ones that seriously counter them in Switzerland. And as long as neither the right wing not the left wing gets a total majority I like it that way. Because they absorb each other. Due to the swiss system that doesn't lead to an absolutely blocked parliament though.) Also the thing about giving them attention. Uhm. Do you also think one should not punish pocket thiefs because that gives them more attention? Uhmm... let's put it this way. I respect the law and I pay taxes and therefore I can also demand that the state makes sure that others respect the law too. Right? I don't want anybody to punish misguided fanatics because of what they are. But as soon as they do stuff that isn't allowed they must get punished for it. If I leave them alone doing their illegal stuff more and more people will feel betrayed and that would not leadto a more stable situation either.

It is not a civil liberty to discriminate other people inside the borders of any western european democracy. It is also not a civil liberty to incite discrimination of other people inside the borders of any western european democracy. You can express your opinion. Nobody takes that right away from you. Nevertheless the thing you express might be illegal. You won't get punished for expressing your opinion but for doing other illegal things. It is a harsh fact that freedom of speech is not equal to "you can say whatever you want without considering the consequences" EDIT: example You may publicly express that you find person B an asshole. That's your right. That person however can sue you for it under certain circumstances and demand compensation because of "character assasination". That's the persons right too. In other words. Freedom of speach doesn't suspend other existing laws.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal. Maybe where you come from and I understand why. Not in any way insulting. "The war" is in the past and lets by all means keep it there, but it is part of our past. I can see why certain legislation came into being. But you can't fight tiranny with tirannies tools. Erm, wake up buddy. The Neo nazis want to bring "the war" back - as you call it. Besides the war in only 60 years ago. There is no reason why it could't happen again. Especially if we don't take those groups serious that want to smash our democracy. Good example. The French overthrew a monarchy in 1848 because they were fed up with one person ruling the whole country. So they imposed a Republic. 1852 They were an Empire again. Uhmm... people forget quite fast. But someone with a goal doesn't.

But remember that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and also not the only right/law there is. One thing that ususally is granted together with freedom of speech is some discrimination protection. That means the Nazis are free to speek as long as they don't violate other laws. So if they speak in a way that would encourage their followers to discriminate foreigners for example they are not on safe ground with their freedom of speech. It's ususally hard to tell when the limit is passed but one thing is clear. Even though you are free to express your opinions you still have to respect other laws. And that's why I say such groups or idividuals must be monitored and when they go one step to far they shall be punished. Because another thing is also clear. They have goals that are not compatible with the law in most countries. Their intetion is to do bad to the existing organisation. So they shall not be thrated friendly. Only legal.

Another picture of Finnish peackeeping forces harassing civillians. Finnish peacekeeping Forces guarding a Truck.

uhmm well DXDLL is no addon in the normal sense. It doesn't depend on your OFP configs and such. It's a standalone thing everyone can use when and where he wants. And if you think winter mission are impossible to play with it just hit app key + p to turn off postprocessing and the winter looks like without DXDLL. Besides I never have problems with DXDLL and winter missions.

Yeah Denoir basicly those are my points too. BUT the EU has certain (although rather small) advantages of having Switzerland in closer cooperation (money laundering prevention, etc.) so it should NOT get involved in our referendum in such a stupid way. Because they only destroy chances that we will agree to those things. Because they just confirmed the bullshit the right wing populists are saying to some people with that stupid move. Of course it is blackmailing. I walyway say that. It's stupid for us as long as we're not member of the EU because there is no way we can avoid trading/diplomacy with the EU: We're surrounded by the EU. We depend on their actions. And as long as we're not member we have to accept their rules to a certain extend without having influence on it. Because if they want they can easily destroy our economy. But in order to get a factual debate going on about the threaties we need to prevent such fear tactics. Because fear is an instinct and people will always prefer instincts over reason when they're uncertain. So that was just a bullshit move from the EU to destroy the basis for a reasonable discussion about that referendum. I mean the EU could have had some advantages basicly for free if they just had let this referendum happen without such a stupid move of theirs. We have experience in handling referendums and so far we always managed to have a factual debate without fear tactics taking over too much. I agree we should do as the threaty sais but as I told you before. Here we have our referendums and we know how to handle them. But when foreign powers try to influence our vote it renders the whole thing pointless. Because foreign influence always leads to strong counter reaction. Now the debate is not about "do we extend the liberty of movement on all 25 members?" but about "do you want to become a EU colony?". See what the problem is? How is yes camp supposed to win? I only hope we can turn this hysteria off before September. IMHO referendums are a magnificent thing but they're a matter of internal politics. Foreign powers shall not try to influence this. Becuase then the things go wrong.

Back to Switzerland and the Schengen/Dublin referendum. I have to say thanks many time to the EU foreign affairs secretary (Benita Ferrero-Waldner?) for making it very unlikely that any Schengen/Dublin takes effect. Even though she said what I suspected (Schnegen/Dublin will only take effect if we also approve the threaty that extends person freedom of movement on all 25 EU members) she said it in a way that toally plays into the hands of the right wing propagandists. Here it's totally easy for the anti EU fraction to display it as if the EU is blackmailing us. Which is of course seen as foreign intervention into internal affairs. But that's what we absolutly needed to prevent. Because everyone knows how any nation reacts when it feels it's sovereignty gets bypassed. Anyway. Now I see no chance for the secound referendum to be approved. Too many people now think to "see" that the EU is patronising us and that - off course - leads to toally nationalistic and anti EU sentiment. I don't see how we should win that referendum now because now we have no ground for factual discussion. Now it's only about frightening the people so they say no. Oh god... that's what happens when people that have no idea how to handle referendums intervene into such affairs.

it's the Iraqi justice that leads the trial against Saddam and it's there to show that Iraqis are now civilised and democratic and don't just execute people like Saddam did ;)

Well in regart to their legal status those troops remain Pakistani troops and commanded by Pakistan. The problem that can appear with such situation is that Musharaf actually has higher commanding power over those troops than the UN security council. I've never heard of that problem arising so far though. But there's a big legal problem with those troops. Because it's not the UN's troops but it's a kind of service that Pakistan provides for the UN. then leave the EU (for that it'll be handy to have the constitution because it provides legal means for that.) I hope so.

@Denoir Interesting. I wasn't very well informed about Yugoslavia. Well still I claim a federation can work as a "peace keeper". Maybe there need to be other things too to stay peaceful but I think the risk of war in western europe is greater if there was no EU. @Bordoy Uhm. That question is quite silly. My point is the EU army should fight nobody ideally. It should be a defense force. And maybe the EU could have some sort of Task Force for Peace Keeping missions or Reconstruction Teams and so on. No that's one point to increase EU security. No member should be allowed to wage any "private" wars without the EU approving it. I know there are too many people disagreeing on that point but that just my opinion ;) The thing is in that the UK would not be able to fight a war on it's own. Because it wouldn't get a full scale army on it's own. It only privides men to the army. The army then decides what those men do. What roles they have and so on. Also the EU would mange all the heavy equippment like APCs, Tanks, Choppers and so on. This will also help to make all equippment compatible to each other and it would save lot's of money because there would be only one Air Force, One Navy, One Army, etc. Not 25 of each ;) And no it's not like the UN. It would be a real army and hopefully a powerful one. But because it's manged federally it's not going to be easy to deploy those troops somewhere else. They should be a Defence Force. I have no interest in having the EU at war anywhere iof it isn't forced upon the EU. Besides. The UN is not a military organisation. Basicly the UN has no Army at all. It has troops of member states operating under UN mandate. And it also finances (at least partially) what the troops do in those cases. And it has a few military members that work for the UN. But those troops are mostly only people that observe situaitions or protect UN facillities.

@Denoir Well that's one reason why I opt for common EU military rather than national ones. Because then the danger of one nations having a strong standalone military that it could use to enforce whatever it wants would be minimal. Because if you make it right you can have national contingents measured in manpower. But the equippment would be managed on EU level. That way you could prevent that one nation has a military that is capable of operating without the others. So every military would depend on the other militaries. It's the same way in Switzerland. And since we have it that way we had no armed internal confilcts like in the past. ;) But I know such a proposal is very unpopular so it just a dream of mine. But even in Yugoslavia the shit started when the "Union" broke appart. The point is. As long as all the nations are in the EU and don't try to leave it they will also use the EU institutions to complain/archieve their goals. And the EU institution luckly are peaceful ones.

Well principly Denoir is right there. How long is it ago that we stopped slaughtering each other in western europe? 1000 years? no! 100 years? no! only 60 years. Or even less if you want to count the conflicts in Ireland. And 60 years are nothing. That's a quite short period. And if you look back to see which institution made a peaceful place out of western europe it has to to with all the stuff that made us colaborate. And the EU and everything that was before is definitly something that is promoting peaceful means and hindering government to solve their problems with their military. (Also the common "enemy in the east" and the US support were important aspects) I just don't think people got any more reasonable than they were in the past. If the EU would fall appart it is very likely that we will start threatening each other again with military means sooner or later. The EU is a road to peace in Europe IMHO and it would be a catastrophy if it fails. That however does not mean that the current EU must go on. If people demand a different EU they shall have a different EU. But the priciple of european colaboration is very important and must be kept alive. And not only for reason of peace and war. But also to increase our competiveness in the globalised world. Because that's the only way we can keep our very high social standarts - if that's possible at all.

Yeah well it's even more overrated for us. Since we're not part of the EU costoms union we can still make controls on the border. Anyway. For me personally it has no effect because I have a Czech passport and that's an EU passport now. ;) I also have the Swiss passport. So I can use whichever is more profitable for me ;)

On a sidenote. It seems to be pretty clear now that the Swiss population accepted the Schengen and Dublin threaties. Now they say it's gonna be 53% yes. However it's not yet clear if it all takes effect. Schnegen/Dubin is one part of our bilateral threaties packet 2 that we have negotioated with the EU. But there is another point. I don't know the english expression. In german it's "Personenfreizügigkeit" literarily: person freedom (of movement). That's another thing that is heavily criticised by right wing populists and I guess it's less likely that that law will pass. Now it's unclear if Schengen/Dublin will take effect without the other agreement. Because towards the EU it's all part of one packet of agreements that should take effect together. Also the Schengen/Dublin agreement with Switzerland is not yet ratified in the EU ;) Let's see. I'm happy so far. EDIT: Now it's defintive. 54.6% yes to Schengen/Dublin and 58% yes for same sex partnership registration (aka "same sex marriage")

Maybe he feared you have come to rob him, I mean I can imagine you guys entering with rifle replicas and camoflage ;)

Sure http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/GrantSwank50530.htm http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=21765 It's probably bollocks, lol. In the first link the article is listed under the category "Opinions Editorial". So IMHO the authencity and the conclusions drawn from this article may be quite flawed.

Bordoy can you please provide a source for that article. I want to know if it's something serious or again some populistic fact twisting ;)

The EU actually has sevral programs that try to archieve exactly that. I understand that the you may or may not like the EU economical/social policies but one should not forget that the EU has many other programs running too and that not everything that comes from the EU is the devil's work ;)

That's not very much ;) In Switzerland it's about 75%. But that's because the Areas where federal rules are imposed (economy, traffic, social security and public services) make a large part of the legislation. But still every canton has it's own touch in those things. because the cantons can extend those rules. So social security is not exactly the same in every canton, taxes are very different in the different cantons and so on. It's just that the bulk of the laws concerning economy that are imposwed on federal level almost make 45% of all laws ;)

Bastler. I provided you two links. the secound is stating the differences to the Nice threaty. Those things are far from perfect and I agree it's not enough but it's much better than the Nice threaty. It's a step forward. Sure the Comission has the legislative power. But that's the same in the Nice threaty only that the Parliament can't say ANYTHING at all about those decissions. In the constitution the power of the parliement gets extended, not perfectioned. That's my point. Also it's not true that the EU constitution limits social systems upwards. It limits it downwards. It doesn't forbid any member state to have a betetr social system. It only wants to implement a minimal standart. This standart should be available in all member states. If single states decide they can and want to have more services they surley can do that. Even though the preamble is full of nice sounding intentions it doesn't change the fact that this is not to become the new german constitution. It is a constitutional threaty of course. But you need to see the difference between your national level and the supranational level of the EU constitution. I live in a federation of states where this system is applied since more or less 200 years. It's clear that you need some common standarts across the whole federation. But it doesn't change the fact that each member state is sovereign and can decide it's own laws/constitutions in his territory as long as they don't contradict with the federal law/constitution. What does this mean? An imaginary example: When they say "across the Union ervery citizen has the right to be socially supported bla bla exept in Poland where nobody has the right to be supported" it doesn't forbid Poland to introduce a social security for it's people. It just means Poles don't have a granted right for social support on the level of the Union. But if the national constitution includes a right for social security they do have this right. On the other hand it would give the Polish government the possiblity to take that right away again. Because in that case it's not contradicting to EU law to deny social security to Poles. Edit: As you can see the constitution does even literaly state the importance of the national law. It also uses terms like "recognises and respects" for the Brits that fear the constitution would make a communistc state out of the UK otherwise. Those terms do not enforce things. (although the Union law and IIRC some other articles set some minimal standarts)

Hmmn... I haven't noticed those aspects of the politicians here in The Netherlands... or may be I'm too blind. Taht's the point. You don't notice it because they don't tell you it's the EU that made it but they just say "yay we have 2% growth - our reform are successful" or something similar.