Posted on 01/10/2005 4:02:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
He was a psycho, there is no disputing that. That being said, he was freely elected, and quite a few folks that that was just great. He behaved quite dictatorially, but he was elected.
It is an affiliated member unfortunately, after De Gaulle walked out and has as usual been it's normal obstructionist self..
Hmmmmm declaring war on France, that is too tempting for this board.
PS i'm from the UK.
Germany elected Hitler
Women not voting ? You did not specify the rules a democracy that only allows left handed blondes to vote is still a democracy and the franchise is limited in EVERY country.
I do think you are correct about Hitler being elected. So many people want to balme one man, "Hitler" however he had the support of his countrymen. They LOVED him. Sad, but honestly the world has evolved. It is not like it was in the 30's and 40's. We are in an information age, and I don't think eever again in a democratic country people would again go to war in order to "Conquer" which is what Hitler did. he wanted to Rule the world. I do not see any wars between "Western" nations. However didn't England have a little "do" in south America maybe 20 years ago. Some Island, wasn't it? I dont' even remember the name of the country. But was that country a democracy?
LOL...that is a matter of intrepretation. A lot of Germans wanted the Fatherland to go to war and recoup their lost dignity from the debacle of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler played them like a master, and they danced to his tune quite willingly.
Really gotta gotta quit now. I realize with my Login Name I am such an easy target in the Forum. Yes quite a temptation for you I can understand. I am mainly here at Free Republic because of Terri Schindler Schiavo. That poor woman in Florida that the husband keeps trying to starve to death (With the courts approval!). Sometime if you are not to busy do a key word search on TerriSchiavo or Schiavo. 'Night to all, it has been fun :))
The freedom to own firearms, for one. The freedom to protect an Englishman's 'castle' from dangerous intruders, for another.
My point is that Euro zealots, constantly push the idea that the EU has provided the peace since WW2.
Wheras in fact Nato was the primary cause, but of course Nato is not part of the project and has the US in it.
The EU is about far more than peace, it is a massive power grab, as the original article depicted and as such may yet cause massive instability, due to its undemocratic foundations and useless economic policies.
From Webster's dictionary
democracy
n 1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
Women are not required to vote. Hitler was elected to power. France had the revolutionary government and england had the House of commons. 1803-1815 ring bells ?
Oh .. one more war between democracies ...
The Falklands War should stick out like a sore thumb here.
UK versus Argentina
Now, you were saying ?
LOL It was the Falkland Islands in the '80's, and I do believe that Argentina was still being run by the junta at the time. Their third President, General Galtieri, was running the show. The Falkland's itself was a British colony, right?
We may not wage a war again for purposes of conquest, but there are plenty of other reasons that wars start, as you know.
Well, you may not consider it a debatable issue, but that's because Hitler was such a nasty excuse for a human being that no one wants to think that he was freely elected.
Don't forget, they're also a counter-weight to us ugly Americans! :)
Night! Nice talking with you.
22 cited wars in history
Go to the link to see. Too much formatting for me to print here.
Included are all the silly rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Draw your own conclusions.
Thanks!
1) Currently the EU *is* a political union. No, the EU does not, yet, have the power of say the American federal government. I find it hard to argue that such is anything other then a yet, however.
Anyway, if the EU were to remain an economic union which you've primarily argued for, again, there would be no need for the political integration of the last few years.
As for the value of such integration, I again point to Chinese history. The centralized state, starting with an large advantage over the divided states of the Netherlands, Portugal, England, and the rest, soon fell behind because such unification nullified the drive for improvement and competition...
Oh, what are your thoughts, by the by, of the EU forcing Estonia to restrict its successful economic experimentation (free market reforms primarily)?
2) How then, do you explain the lack of military conflict between any two democratic governments, European or not, during the same time frame? Others have pointed out how historically rare such conflicts are, but I brought up Rummel because he specifically quantitized the phenomenon over the last century.
Again, to look at Germany, after the Weimar government was forced upon the nation, it stayed at peace until Germany instead replaced the government with the non-representative National Socialist one.
If the EU, instead of the representative nature of the governments making it up, has been the primary safeguard of peace between those states, one would expect that there would be rampant warfare between other states, democratic or not, outside, of it, and more importantly, rampant warfare between WWII and either the origin of the EU, or some point more recent in its continuing solidification between these states. Neither of which are true.
Now, you bring up recent warfare in Europe, and I presume you mean Serbia's war with Bosnia and Croatia. To again see the validity of Rummel's hypothesis, let me ask you this, what was the form of government of Serbia at the time of the Bosnian conflict?
And let, us further take a step back. Suppose for a moment that Denmark ended all EU ties. Do you honestly believe that the people of Denmark would elect a leader, and support him, who decided to go to war with Sweden? Or Germany? Or Norway?
Now, as to Britain's previous integrations, the one with the Scots worked well indeed. I doubt that the Irish "integration" could be argued to have been nearly so successful, at least from the point of view of the Irish...
I've pointed out Germany's history in this regard at length, but one can look at France's "integration" with the Navarra, Spain's with Portugal and the Netherlands, and on and on, to see that the history of this process in Europe has been one of horrific consequences for the weaker parties involved.
In regards to Belgium, I'm refering to their recent banning of Vlaams Blok. Certainly, were America to ban the Democrat party on similar petty grounds, or the UK the Tories, there would be rather more focus on the outrage.
Your welcome
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.