Sarkozy & France Poll - Page 5

dalem · 11-17-2007, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

I vote for Vermont -why not all of Northern New England? There's very little difference between New England and Europe: Liberals, Socialists, internationalists, terrorist sympathizers -they're practically kindred spirits

Northern New England is quite the opposite actually. Rugged individualism and minding one's own damned business is held in high regard.

-dale

ExNavyAmerican · 11-17-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Northern New England is quite the opposite actually. Rugged individualism and minding one's own damned business is held in high regard.

-dale

That's funny.

Three summers ago, some do-gooder called thr police on a friend of mine who left his kids (one of which was 12) in the car while he ran into the bank. Similar things have happened to me, and others. I grew up in Maine, and I know the the liberal mentality.

Unless you mean "northern" as in norther Maine, NH, and VT, nothing you said in your post is remotely true. NH, VT, and ME (what I meant by "northern") are the most useless states in the union.

dalem · 11-17-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

That's funny.

Three summers ago, some do-gooder called thr police on a friend of mine who left his kids (one of which was 12) in the car while he ran into the bank. Similar things have happened to me, and others. I grew up in Maine, and I know the the liberal mentality.

Unless you mean "northern" as in norther Maine, NH, and VT, nothing you said in your post is remotely true. NH, VT, and ME (what I meant by "northern") are the most useless states in the union.

That's different than my experience, so maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe it's simply a rural - city thing?

-dale

taygone · 11-17-2007, 13:07 PM

Yes
Sarkozy came forward and extended the olive branch and had such a great speech. I think the fact that he stepped up and said he wanted bury the hatchett first spoke volumes. After hearing Chavez being offended and threatning to hurt Spain's intrest in Argentina, I half expected Sarkozy to hold a grudge against America like how so many people held a grudge against France for Vietnam. Not too versed in the politco world, but hearing his speech on the dreaded Rush Limbaugh program, I was really impressed.

What if I'm lactose intolerant, do I still have to eat cheese?

Pablo Cortez · 11-17-2007, 16:23 PM

Thanks to Bluesman for the extended Eisenhower quote. Although I'm sure you posted it as some sort of refutation of my comment, it actually predicts the situation which has come to be in our national life.

The vicious circle of the military industrial complex begins with military procurement. Military careers and advancement are made more often by arranging contracts in the Pentagon than on the field of battle. Ambitious careerists in the services and defense contractors are the most notorious practitioners of the revolving door. The manufacturers hire retired officers and the officers then use their influence to win contracts for their new employers. Cost is no concern since the taxpayers are paying. so every imaginable bell and whistle is added to every weapons system even when there is little likelihood of its being useful in action. Divide every weapon into components built in as many different Congressional districts as possible, and local communities become hopelessly hooked on "defense"( the quotation marks are needed since these days most alleged defense is actually aggression) spending. Soon the whole nation is totally dependent on military spending, and elections invariably are blighted by phony national defense questions. The end result is the militarization of the economy and the political system---Ike's nightmare become reality.

To top off the whole sordid mess, much of the electorate is infected by the ignorant machismo illustrated by "dale". While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight, ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them, and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender. He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.

JohnFlint1985 · 11-17-2007, 17:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

Thanks to Bluesman for the extended Eisenhower quote. Although I'm sure you posted it as some sort of refutation of my comment, it actually predicts the situation which has come to be in our national life.

The vicious circle of the military industrial complex begins with military procurement. Military careers and advancement are made more often by arranging contracts in the Pentagon than on the field of battle. Ambitious careerists in the services and defense contractors are the most notorious practitioners of the revolving door. The manufacturers hire retired officers and the officers then use their influence to win contracts for their new employers. Cost is no concern since the taxpayers are paying. so every imaginable bell and whistle is added to every weapons system even when there is little likelihood of its being useful in action. Divide every weapon into components built in as many different Congressional districts as possible, and local communities become hopelessly hooked on "defense"( the quotation marks are needed since these days most alleged defense is actually aggression) spending. Soon the whole nation is totally dependent on military spending, and elections invariably are blighted by phony national defense questions. The end result is the militarization of the economy and the political system---Ike's nightmare become reality.

To top off the whole sordid mess, much of the electorate is infected by the ignorant machismo illustrated by "dale". While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight, ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them, and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender. He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.

Nevertheless - De Gaulle's legacy lives on. It became DE facto European ideology as of today. There are signs that things may start changing in that department, and I am very happy for it. But it will take a long time to correct this judgment that Europeans have about us. I always been an Atlanticist guy, but I really don't know how that will work with the attitudes of EU as we see it today.

JAD_333 · 11-17-2007, 23:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

Dwight Eisenhower (hardly a communist) in his farewell address warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex to traditional American values.

.

It also warned of the danger of not having a military-industrial complex.

Quote:

Nobody listened, and what he feared has not only replaced those values but has wrapped itself in the flag and defined itself as the only true patriotism.

And what would that be?

I am guessing, but it seems to me you take personal affront at imperfections in the process of maintaining military preparedness, and don't consider its overall success. You judge the complex by its achievement, not only at its occasions of greed, graft and influence peddling, which every part of the government and the private sector suffers. We don't condone it; we find it, fix it and try to guard against it. But you would have us do what..? Throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Bluesman · 11-19-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

Thanks to Bluesman for the extended Eisenhower quote.

You're more sincerely welcome than you are sincerely thankful, I'd bet.

Quote:

Although I'm sure you posted it as some sort of refutation of my comment, it actually predicts the situation which has come to be in our national life.

'Some sort' of refutation? A dam' well-written one, I'd say, and from an excellent source, a man well-equipped to judge what was meant by the speech in the first place.

As to it's prediction of what you seem to regard as the actual relationship of the military and defense industries to the government and the People, well, I'd say you'd be right, IF, as does not seem to be the case, you read what Ike meant, instead of what you seem to have interpreted. Because if you believe that the US has been turned into a second, grander Prussia - an army with a state - and that sinister forces that seek to feed their rapaciousness and greed by selling unneeded weapons, or that an outlaw military that has forgotten its oath seeks power through oppression is actually the situation we find ourselves in, then you're quite simply deluded.

I assure you that your alarm and timidity are quite unfounded, and that no sinister cabal of weapons pushers and generals imperils any of us.

But, then again, as a member of the looming menace myself, that's exactly what you'd expect me to say.

Quote:

The vicious circle of the military industrial complex begins with military procurement. Military careers and advancement are made more often by arranging contracts in the Pentagon than on the field of battle.

Presumably, you have some insight into how military careers are made and advanced. You're a veteran yourself, are you? And to what exalted rank did you climb before your conscience got the better of you, and you threw down the corrupt bargain you'd made in your iniquitous ambition?

Sorry for the over-the-top sarcasm, but I'd be willing to bet pink slips with you right now that you know dammit about what you're talking about. How many people do you know of that would speak to your point anecdotally, much less how much research have you done or even seen that would prove it empirically?

Don't you DARE insult the most selfless of public servants with a slander that you so casually toss off like you had some basis for a gross charge of war-profiteering or feather-bedding. ONE: you have no proof except for the incidents that come to light but rarely and for the reason that they're a scandal, and not business-as-usual, and TWO: you have no standing as being so morally superior that you get to slime better men than yourself that keep you safe to write such tripe with no fear.

Quote:

Ambitious careerists in the services and defense contractors are the most notorious practitioners of the revolving door.

See above, and take note: you're talking about ME now, and a great many of my friends and colleagues. What you choose to see as white collar criminals, I watch continue to serve their country for many years after they've left uniformed service. I acknowledge that you will see cases of what are essentially corrupt self-servers that feed at the DoD trough. But I emphatically claim that there is no other government agency, on ANY level, that has the layers of oversight and checks on potential fraud, waste and abuse than DoD. I'll lay you odds and give you points that any burrough in New York City, any parish in Louisiana, any major division of Federal welfare programs has a higher percentage of loss than Defense at large.

So belt up with that certitude and ****-sure statement, unless you're willing to cite me some figures that indicate something more significant and dangerous to the public weal than the already-known awareness that DoD has some bad people, too, like every other organization. That ain't news.

Quote:

The manufacturers hire retired officers and the officers then use their influence to win contracts for their new employers.

And who would YOU hire, Daddy Warbucks? If you're the CEO of Cogswell Cogs, and you beat Spacely Sprockets in the contract bid, who do YOU put on the payroll to assure that what the field soldier actually needs, he'll get, but a former field soldier?

When I left active duty, I became a consultant with one of the largest, and certainly the most ethical of defense contractors. I was, and still am, VERY proud that I met their extremely high standard, and that I was trusted enough to continue to serve the country. I was paid a LOT more, and, ironically, I cost the government less.

From my lowly position, I still had an extremely good view of how it all worked, and defense contractors live and die by the quality of the people they can attract and retain. When they bid a contract, they are declaring that they can do thus-and-so for the government, and before thast contract is let, each person's resume that will be working on that contract is examined. I just went through the entire process again myself, and it was INTENSE. Not a slam dunk AT ALL, and I had to justify each line on that resume with supporting documentation, and it took several re-visits by the government before they were satified. (And then after all of THAT, I declined that offer to get a GS-12 position at $20K less per year; go figger.

)

BOTTOM LINE: Those formerly-uniformed experts are STILL experts, and companies compete for tht expertise in order to provide to the government what it needs, and can get no other way.

Quote:

Cost is no concern since the taxpayers are paying.

You're talking out your ass here. It's a concern; it's the MAIN concern.

Quote:

so every imaginable bell and whistle is added to every weapons system even when there is little likelihood of its being useful in action.

Ah, so the contractor drives the specs, huh? Is that your concept, that the product is brought to the military with a slick brochuse and a fast-talkin' salesman, and the next thing ya know, the goverment owns a gross of left-handed metric fukk-sticks that they didn't even know they wanted, is THAT about right?

NO. What happens is, the government submits a requirement, the contractor bids as low as he thinks he needs to in order to get the work and keep the company solvent, and then the government begins changing the specs, as the requirements change.

(The original F-16 was supposed to be a MiG-21 beater: daylight/good weather, simple, cheap, etc. But then reality intruded, and the USAF and international customers figgered out the simple fact that NO fighter is EVER cheap, and the most expensive thing in the world is fighting a war with your side having the second-best air force.)

Costs go up, and before you know it, that mouse that the government originally asked for looks like an elephant by the time it's delivered: late, over-cost, and differently configured to the original mission.

Quote:

Divide every weapon into components built in as many different Congressional districts as possible, and local communities become hopelessly hooked on "defense"( the quotation marks are needed since these days most alleged defense is actually aggression) spending.

DANG; you were onto something with the first half, then blew it with that absurd ellipsis at the end.

You want to know when defense spending goes off the rails? When Congress gets ahold of it. And as they're actully SUPPOSED to be in charge of it, there's your problem, right there.

As for the notion that we're the Third Reich re-born, well, I don't think I need to make this extremely long post any longer by demolishing random idiocies like THAT. I'll just leave that one with a 'Go to hell, bolshie-boy'.

Quote:

Soon the whole nation is totally dependent on military spending, and elections invariably are blighted by phony national defense questions.

Entertain us; give some examples.

Quote:

The end result is the militarization of the economy and the political system---Ike's nightmare become reality.

I've already torched your foolish misinterpretation of what Ike said about the much-feared military-industrial complex.

Quote:

To top off the whole sordid mess, much of the electorate is infected by the ignorant machismo illustrated by "dale".

I'll take dalem's read before yours, any day. He's got WAY more on the ball than you do, sportsman.

But I think it's telling that you believe yourself to be among the enlightened few, not taken in by any of that chest-thumpin' nationalistic ignorance. Tell me, when did you become convinced that you knew every dam' thing?

Quote:

While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight,

...and how was France tricked into a commitment they should not have made, if she were not prepared to honor it? You've got it exactly backards: France put herself forward as the guarantor of the Armistice, but when the rubber met the road, they had not the spine, brains, balls, guts, heart or wit to enforce it when they could've, and allowed the Nazis to break every single one of the points, eventually leading to a Germany that she was, indeed, not prepared to fight.

And that was FRANCE'S fault, and the blame goes nowhere else.

Quote:

ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them,

Oh, they were included, and every single time they were, it was a net liability to the Allies. They quite literally were more trouble than they were worth, and may I point out that at least Italy only switched sides ONCE during the war, and the French, in the only category they could claim superiority in during the entire dam' war, beat that.

Quote:

and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender.

'Just' to obtain it, huh? Not worth all that much to YOU, then. Noted.

And do you REALLY want to start bringing up communism' crawl across Europe while simultaneously telling us the saga of French contributions to keeping the continent free? Dangerous ground for YOU, but terrain I'm MORE than willing to fight on. Your call.

Quote:

He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.

No, actually, I'd agree with dalem's characterization. He earned the title, and as likely as not, he'd be proud of it.

Does deGaulle equal 'France'? Not entirely, but the majority certainly identify with HIM. So, try to hold down your outrage, because he is a Great Man in French hearts to this day, and really, that says all that needs to be said about them, and dalem's comment.

Long post, but it sure was FUN!

gunnut · 11-19-2007, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight, ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them, and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender. He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.

Did you know the entire France was practically this hated "military industrial complex" during the inter-war period? France prepared 20 years for an attack by Germany. France was ready. France was more than ready to fight the Germans with or without the Brits.

You have to get your history straight. Revisionism doesn't work here.

Sacrifice Europe? Let me ask you one thing, what do you think of the casualty rate in Iraq right now? We lost 400,000 men in WW2. How many more are you willing to sacrifice to fight the Soviet Union? Do you support dropping the A-bombs in Japan? Because that's what probably would happen if we had fought the Soviets right after WW2.

Our men were tired. They didn't want to fight any more in a land far far away for nations that didn't exist any more. Settling with Stalin was the most humane thing to do at that point in time. We did eventually bring down the Soviet Union, thanks to your hated "military industrial complex."

Our military industrial complex did more to ensure the world's freedom than any of the hippie organizations concocted by the Euro leftists ever did.

**Parihaka** · 11-19-2007, 05:59 AM

Bluesman, you are become positively eloquent.

I take issue with this however
"Oh, they were included, and every single time they were, it was a net liability to the Allies."
Those pilots who made it across the channel and joined the RAF were a credit to their country's traditions.

**Parihaka** · 11-19-2007, 06:03 AM

As for France, it's interesting to re-read this piece Tarek posted 3 or so years ago

The fall of France

Quote:

Pierre Moscovici

French influence in Europe is declining, and President Jacques Chirac is largely to blame. He made the right choice before the Iraq war — America’s intervention was never justified and has yielded a terrible failure — and so found himself in sync with an emerging European, even global, opposition to the Bush administration. But he has failed to transform his position into one of ongoing leadership.

Chirac’s stature and experience should have allowed him to rally all of Europe before, during or after the crisis. But he never sought such a role. Faced with American unilateralism, he failed to promote realistic multilateral solutions. On the contrary, despite being right about Iraq, Chirac became isolated, an isolation that grew because he also failed to re-establish satisfactory relations with President Bush. Indeed, under Chirac, France appears increasingly arrogant, a nation convinced of the righteousness of its views and the universality of its model — the very charges so often levelled against George W Bush’s America.

Chirac compounded his errors over Iraq in his approach to the new European Commission. On the old commission headed by Romano Prodi, France was powerfully represented, with Pascal Lamy holding the trade portfolio. Lamy is widely acknowledged for his skill, his intellect, and his strong personality. Maintaining France’s weight within the European Union should have led Chirac to re-confirm Lamy when José Manuel Barroso took over as President of the Commission.

But, in Chirac’s eyes, Lamy possessed two fatal flaws: he is a socialist, and he favours reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Chirac, Georges Pompidou’s agriculture minister in the 1970s, wants to keep the CAP as it is. So Chirac replaced Lamy with Jacques Barrot, an honourable and experienced politician, but one with little knowledge of EU affairs and no language other than French.

No surprise, then, that Barrot was given a minor role on a new European Commission that is liberal and Atlanticist, quite out of sync with French positions. Barrot received the transportation portfolio, a minor post far below the type of position — competition or domestic affairs — that Chirac demanded. True, Barroso offered Barrot the symbolic title of commission vice-president, but this is a mere consolation prize that doesn’t fool anyone.

Chirac’s very character works against French influence in Europe. He seems to belong to an era when France considered Europe a “French formal garden”. He is nostalgic for the 1960s and the Gaullist ideology that shaped both France and himself.

These biases matter because they do not jibe with the enlarged Europe of today. France was a core part of Europe when the Union had only six members and reflected the primary goal of Franco-German reconciliation. The fall of the Berlin Wall changed all that. Of course, the French vision still plays a major part in today’s Europe of 25 members; our “exceptionality” — be it cultural or political — remains important, even if it is less well regarded. But French ideas are not necessarily central to a Europe no longer driven by the Franco-German engine.

Given this change in European dynamics, France should have looked for new ways to assert influence. Instead, Chirac demeaned and sometimes humiliated his European partners, gradually rallying everyone against him. No one should be surprised that so contemptuous a French attitude, one utterly disdainful of the Union’s Solidarity Pact and competition regulations, provoked a reaction detrimental to France.

That contempt is also manifested in France’s nominees to serve on the Commission. Unlike, for example, Great Britain, France rarely nominates young and talented persons capable of shaping the EU’s future.

Of course, this decline must not be overestimated. France remains a major European country: it is a founder of the Union, one of the world’s richest nations, and holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It defends, with its nuclear power, an autonomous and important foreign and defence policy. France represents values, a culture, and a history that grant it a durable global audience. It matters and will continue to matter in the European Council and the European Parliament.

Moreover, France needs to avoid the temptation to overcompensate for the diminishing role of the Franco-German tandem, which may no longer be sufficient to power the Union, but nonetheless remains necessary. In this respect, the composition of the Barroso Commission worries me: the role given to my friend, the German Social Democrat Günter Verheugen, is no more enviable than that given to Barrot. A Commission that keeps France and Germany at bay and entrusts its major posts to representatives of “small countries,” to more liberal actors, and partisans of the American intervention in Iraq, will not be successful. This is why I cannot trust such a Commission.

France will also have to reform its European strategy if it is to regain influence. I wish France could adopt a more humble attitude, show more respect for its partners and the EU’s institutions, and view Europe as more than an extension of its own philosophy. Here I have no confidence in Jacques Chirac. Thankfully, his reign won’t last forever.

The decline of French influence in Europe is undeniable, but it is neither fatal nor desirable. It must be stopped. But this won’t be achieved by invoking past glory. For the rising generation of French political leaders, the essential task is to spur France to lead a reunited Europe by working within it. —DT-PS

Pierre Moscovici is a former European Affairs minister for France and the current Vice-President of the European Parliament

crooks · 11-19-2007, 08:49 AM

Very interesting snippet, thanks Pari (and Tarek for posting it originally)

.

The decline of France's importance in European affairs is visable every day, Germany under Merkel isn't content to be the lackey anymore, and the new members (as well as a couple of the old 'uns) are losing faith in the Union's ability to work, or that it can work but it requires to much effort.

IMHO the EU is going to change gradually over the next 10-20 years, those who want out will leave, and either form a new, smaller union, or simply work together to garner trade agreements out of the ROE without any formal alignment - we've reached a breaking point, something's got to give (I want Ireland to stay in the union, but only if the EU's say in our affairs is drastically REDUCED, not increased).

The only real barriers for countries leaving right now is the possible collapse of Schengen if it happened, CAP still benefits many and EU transfers which many otherwise Euroskeptic countries (particularly in E Europe) benefit from.

Bluesman · 11-19-2007, 13:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Bluesman, you are become positively eloquent.

I take issue with this however
"Oh, they were included, and every single time they were, it was a net liability to the Allies."
Those pilots who made it across the channel and joined the RAF were a credit to their country's traditions.

Oh, I absolutely agree, and let me clarify what I meant.

There is NOTHING wrong with any individual Frenchman's valor. They're NOT cowards one-by-one, but as a PEOPLE, as a NATION, they are simply worthless allies, and negligable enemies. I read somewhere a priceless and accurate phrase to describe them: 'our Gallic burden'. How very apt. They make themselves obnoxious to their allies at every opportunity. I sincerely hope that Sarkozy discards this decades-long tradition.

Dreadnought · 11-19-2007, 13:39 PM

[quote=Feanor;425594]Really? I was under the impression that most still hated you guys

Really, Well maybe if the government took away our basic rights and refused certain states to vote in national elections because of their origins and maybe perhaps "adjusted" our constitution so our leader will stay in power (even if in the background) would you like us more then since we would be close to where your home is now?

dalem · 11-19-2007, 14:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

To top off the whole sordid mess, much of the electorate is infected by the ignorant machismo illustrated by "dale". While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight, ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them, and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender. He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.

All I said is that de Gaulle was a f*ckface and I listed a few reasons why I think so. It may be wrong, but I fail to see how it could possibly be labeled as "ignorant machismo". Nor did I equate all of France with him. Seems to me you're reading stuff into my post that I didn't type.

-dale

View Poll Results: Has Sarkozy improved your perception of France
Yes	38	73.08%
No	14	26.92%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

11-19-2007, 05:59 AM	#70 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,336 Country:	Bluesman, you are become positively eloquent. I take issue with this however "Oh, they were included, and every single time they were, it was a net liability to the Allies." Those pilots who made it across the channel and joined the RAF were a credit to their country's traditions. __________________ In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

11-19-2007, 08:49 AM	#72 (permalink)
crooks Green, White 'n Orange *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-17-06 Location: Blarney, County Cork, Ireland Posts: 1,291 Country:	Very interesting snippet, thanks Pari (and Tarek for posting it originally) . The decline of France's importance in European affairs is visable every day, Germany under Merkel isn't content to be the lackey anymore, and the new members (as well as a couple of the old 'uns) are losing faith in the Union's ability to work, or that it can work but it requires to much effort. IMHO the EU is going to change gradually over the next 10-20 years, those who want out will leave, and either form a new, smaller union, or simply work together to garner trade agreements out of the ROE without any formal alignment - we've reached a breaking point, something's got to give (I want Ireland to stay in the union, but only if the EU's say in our affairs is drastically REDUCED, not increased). The only real barriers for countries leaving right now is the possible collapse of Schengen if it happened, CAP still benefits many and EU transfers which many otherwise Euroskeptic countries (particularly in E Europe) benefit from. __________________ 'Liberty - it is newly strung and shall be heard.' - Motto of the United Irishmen.

11-19-2007, 13:39 PM	#74 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,242 Country:	[quote=Feanor;425594]Really? I was under the impression that most still hated you guys Really, Well maybe if the government took away our basic rights and refused certain states to vote in national elections because of their origins and maybe perhaps "adjusted" our constitution so our leader will stay in power (even if in the background) would you like us more then since we would be close to where your home is now? __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

11-17-2007, 13:07 PM	#64 (permalink)
taygone Regular Join Date: 06-20-07 Location: Texas Posts: 106 Country:	Yes Sarkozy came forward and extended the olive branch and had such a great speech. I think the fact that he stepped up and said he wanted bury the hatchett first spoke volumes. After hearing Chavez being offended and threatning to hurt Spain's intrest in Argentina, I half expected Sarkozy to hold a grudge against America like how so many people held a grudge against France for Vietnam. Not too versed in the politco world, but hearing his speech on the dreaded Rush Limbaugh program, I was really impressed. What if I'm lactose intolerant, do I still have to eat cheese?

11-17-2007, 16:23 PM	#65 (permalink)
Pablo Cortez Banished Join Date: 09-03-07 Location: Ruritania Posts: 36 Country:	Thanks to Bluesman for the extended Eisenhower quote. Although I'm sure you posted it as some sort of refutation of my comment, it actually predicts the situation which has come to be in our national life. The vicious circle of the military industrial complex begins with military procurement. Military careers and advancement are made more often by arranging contracts in the Pentagon than on the field of battle. Ambitious careerists in the services and defense contractors are the most notorious practitioners of the revolving door. The manufacturers hire retired officers and the officers then use their influence to win contracts for their new employers. Cost is no concern since the taxpayers are paying. so every imaginable bell and whistle is added to every weapons system even when there is little likelihood of its being useful in action. Divide every weapon into components built in as many different Congressional districts as possible, and local communities become hopelessly hooked on "defense"( the quotation marks are needed since these days most alleged defense is actually aggression) spending. Soon the whole nation is totally dependent on military spending, and elections invariably are blighted by phony national defense questions. The end result is the militarization of the economy and the political system---Ike's nightmare become reality. To top off the whole sordid mess, much of the electorate is infected by the ignorant machismo illustrated by "dale". While no fan of DeGaulle, he came to his way of thinking because of what he perceived as Anglo-Saxon machinations that had first pushed a reluctant France into a war she wasn't ready to fight, ignored efforts by his Free French because it was easier to ignore than to include them, and a willingness to sacrifice much of Europe to Stalin just to obtain an unconditional surrender. He was a pain-in-the-neck, but to dismiss him as a f***face and equate all France with him is the kind of foolish adolescent trash talk that makes diplomacy all but impossible.