Posted on 01/10/2005 4:02:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
"The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo."
Hysterically funny nonsense!
Can I explain to my American friends that socialism in Europe, especially the UK, is a different concept to the one Americans think of. There is no real socialists in power.
Tony Blair calls himself a socialist, when he is no such thing. He is hardly an enemy of America now is he?
Be Cool!
4 posted on 01/10/2005 4:14:58 PM PST by John_Wheatley
NONSENSE! Because Blair joins Bush, Blair does not automatically become a Libertarian Margret Thatcher.
(The same as Stalin did not become a freedom-loving lamb because he cooperated with the Western Allies.)
most of the european intelligenzia in power belong to the "protest generation" from the 60s.
it's all the same: call it socialism-light or call it socialism/marxism/dialecticism/hegelianism/communism/islamosocialism ...
In case you didn't see it ... here's the article I mentioned to you.
Don't you mean large national parliaments? That is, if the goal of the EU is not to completely erode national sovereignty of its constituent states...
Your analogy of Illinois and California is utterly stupid.
Illinois and California were never independent nations.
The establishment of regional councils to usurp the authority of the local government is a tried and true technique used by the soviet union for governmental takeover of a country without a shooting war.
"Competitors, yeah sure, we compete against each other for business etc. but not a "threat" to us militarily."
Unfortunately, the language coming out of various French ministers is anything but friendly.
My opinion is also shared by certain people in the British Government who see the EU as imposing on their sovereignty and they question the future motives of the French & Germans. Lord Privy Seal Peter Hain took acute umbrage at a French finance ministers public comment that the purpose of the EU "is the economic and military displacement of the United States".
Even Colin Powell took umbrage at that unfriendly comment.
Considering the minister was not rebuked or censured for the comment then, in diplomatic terms, he has clearly stated the position of the French Government.
Which is unfriendly to the US.
"I think most Europeans have not read up, or feel that the creation of a gigantic trading bloc is more important than the fundamental rights of man"
And there are huge advantages to a gigantic trading block. It is the other things that go with the constitution (if adopted) that would cause me concern. Heck, I would at least read it so I could know what I was voting on. To be frank, gutting through the 300+ pages of the proposed EU constitution was painful. It was clearly written by lawyers for lawyers in that confusing legal-ese that they write in. I didn't understand a lot of it, but I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket.
But it was clear to even a dummy like me was that Brussels would assume a tremendous amount of power in the new state with the individual states able to address only those things that Brussels chose not to (Stated specifically). Quite a change from the current set-up.
None of the Europeans on this thread will answer my question, "Have you read the proposed EU constitution?" and I will take it that NONE of them have. This has been my experience talking to folks in Italy, Germany, England, and Scotland. At best, these people were only able to repeat things they heard from politicians, read in a magazine or newspaper, or heard on (state funded) TV.
Clearly the document is not meant to be accessable to average people. One thing reading it did do, was leave me thankful for the amazing US constitution where rights are inalienable and understandable to everyone.
"California were never independent nations."
The Bear Flag Republic was a briefly independent entity that resulted from the Revolt of 1846. The Republic was diplomatically recognized by US forces and a duly authorized plenopotentiary representative of the Russian Tsar so it is considered to have been a 'real' independent country as it was properly recognized by a disinterested third party power. Oddly, the Mexican Governor Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo favored annexation to the United States over the anti-American white settlers who wanted slavery to be legal in California. Vallejo alligned his interests with the USA and made possible a bloodless takeover of California by John C. Fremont who raised the Stars & Stripes in place of the Bear Flag.
Vallejo was later granted a pension by the State Legislature for his vision and loyalty to the United States.
The historical fact of how the Californios supported annexation to the USA also makes a lie of the myth that the USA 'stole' California from Mexico. The Californios (mostly of Spanish descent) wanted no part of the corrupt government in Mexico City and Vallejo actually raised a standing army in Sonoma to defend against the predations of the Mexican Army when it would raid farms for supplies and etc.
So, albeit briefly, California was an independent country.
The Bear Flag is now our state flag and that gives California the appropriate distinction of being the only state in the Union with a Red Star on its flag.
Cheers.
The sturm clouds gather over Europe, again. A Chill Wind is blowing. They can read the skies but they can't see what is happening all around them. There will be war again. I hope that as we see the EU crumble and fall and lash out in all directions we will return from the brink.
I do not need to wear a uniform to kill fellow Europeans. (THE most important reason)
That attitude is not new! The Oxford Union, a political club of Oxford University, issued a resolution in 1932 that stated: "..this House will not die for King or Country". A fat lot of good that did the students and faculty, or the pacifists that died by the bombs that fell during the "Blitz". As well, the unions at the time, did not want to train craftsmen in trades that would help Britain rearm should it become necessary. The unions were afraid that it might create an excess of skilled labor with a commensurate lowering of wages and subsequent reduction of union power. Of course, looking back upon those days, perhaps Nazi slave labor would have been preferable. At least the Nazi's would keep you alive and secure (if not comfortable). Which seems to be your particular, paramount, concern.
All of the EU nations belonged to the now defunct League of Nations. Fat lot of good it did them then, as well.
Will your grandchildren, or great grandchildren speak Walloon, Flemish, Arabic, Farsi or Pakistani and worship Allah, all because great-grand-dad worshipped security?
I already do and so do my kids. However, we are not compeled to do so by the United Nations, (at least not yet and we'd like to keep it that way), but only by personal desire and economic advantage. Not unlike an Englishmen speaking French, German and/or Italian to increase the sales territory of his company or the utility of his trade. The operative words here are "compelled" and "personal desire". If you think that it will be the "Gringo", (of which I am one, despite the latin handle "elbucko") then you know very little of the demographic dynamics actually taking place here in the Southwestern United States. It is actually the Spanish speaker that is learning English, more than the English speaker is learning Spanish. In the fullness of time, Mexico will be a state of the US. Not in my lifetime, but probably in my kids.
England, on the other hand has a different problem, it's not really "European" in culture. I have been fortunate to have spent considerable time in the UK and find it more like America than either Austrailia, New Zealand, or Ottowa and Quebec Canada. A decorated RAF Group Captain, of fighter pilot renown, once told me that the biggest mistake that England made after WWII was not to petitition the US Congress for the UK to become the 49th state. He wasn't kidding. He had trained to fly fighters in Oklahoma, USA in 1940-41. He had travelled extensively in the Us and found it more like English culture than other English speaking countries. He said he did not want to be a European, even though the geographical proximity dictated such. In a semi-prayer, he intoned that the Almighty would be generous, indeed, if He would move the British Isles about 3,000 miles to the So. West.
I could go for that, if the UK would let the socialists off in Europe, before moving the island west.
By the way, I am not one of those Americans, that you seem so concerned about, that worry about whether the world likes us or not. I am one of those Americans that dosen't care at all what the world thinks. Even Europe.
In 1932 Germany had no air force, no armor, no significant naval forces, and no one in the world imagined they could ever be a threat again after the evisceration of Germany by the Versailles Treaty.
Seven years later they rolled across Europe defeating the French and British in a scant few weeks.
Now we'll have a united Europe with a Constitution that guarantees no personal rights whatsoever, no checks, no balances. The EU Parliament, on a vote, can award dictatorial powers to another Hitler.
I'd personally prefer to see the EU as a global partner but Europe has a pretty bad track record of being trustworthy.
The French see the EU as a superpower to challenge the US as an economic and military superpower and they make no secret of this.
Just the same as the Japanese plans for Pearl Harbor were no secret starting in 1923.
People warned about Japan and no one listened.
The EU is being conceived as a counterpoint to the USA - not as some sort of egalitarian paradise for Euroweenies.
Therefore, they will always be but one election away from a dictatorship.
Vallejo is considered a "founding father" for some Californians.
"Vallejo is considered a "founding father" for some Californians."
I personally consider him to be California's first Patriotic American. The man knew that the USA was the best country in the world for California to associate with and he was right. The man is a hero in my household.
By the way, when America invaded "Canada", Canada was not Canada, but part of the then, British Empire". Canada was not a sovereign nation at the time, nor was it the Canada that is known today because France still owned Quebec. Your postulations using inaccurate history are about as accurate as your prognostications regarding the EU.
The US does not need to worry about Canada invading the US because Canada has no military to speak of. They don't need one and neither does much of the Western world, including NATO and EU countries, because the USA is willing to use its military on their behalf. That is why you can afford socialism, you don't need to defend yourselves because you know the US will.
The real worry America has regarding Canada, the UK and the EU is that these countries won't regard radical Islam with the caution that it deserves. You people didn't think the Nazi's were serious until they dropped a bomb on St Pauls.
Can you learn to say; "Allah be Praised"?
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.