Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2116126 > unrolled thread

America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 09:23 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 09:43 -0700
      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 10:07 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:37 -0700
      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-31 11:06 -0500
        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-01 10:07 +1000
      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0700
        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:46 -0700
          Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:29 -0700
            Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:18 -0700
              Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:05 -0700
                Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 14:44 -0700
              Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 10:53 +1000
                Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:31 -0700
                  Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:04 -0700
                    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 16:55 -0700
                      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 17:02 -0700
                        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 17:40 -0700
                          Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:34 -0700
                Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-03 03:57 -0700
                  Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-04 10:38 +1000
              Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu> - 2016-06-02 15:30 +0000
                Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-03 03:43 -0700
                  Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu> - 2016-06-03 10:58 +0000
                    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-03 04:10 -0700
                      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu> - 2016-06-03 12:20 +0000
                      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:23 -0700
                        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:49 -0700
                          Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:24 -0700
                      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:27 -0700
                        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:57 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:16 -0700
      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:42 -0700
        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:51 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:53 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:39 -0700
    Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:41 -0700
      Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:43 -0700
        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:58 -0700
          Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:30 -0700
        Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:25 -0700
          Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 04:31 -0700
            Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 04:50 -0700
              Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 04:59 -0700
            Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 16:49 -0700
              Re: America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" <thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 19:50 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#2116126 — America was sneaky in expanding NATO into Eastern Europe

Here's the evidence:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.

It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Life's cheap, profits are sacred" 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116128

We need to quit poking Russia in the eye with a stick. We have enough enemies and they are particularly dangerous ones.

One of the many brilliant policies of President Trump. Quit making them an enemy just because they are genuine social conservatives (unlike the Republicants just faking it.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116139

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:43:04 PM UTC-4, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> We need to quit poking Russia in the eye with a stick. We have enough enemies and they are particularly dangerous ones.
> 
> One of the many brilliant policies of President Trump. Quit making them an enemy just because they are genuine social conservatives (unlike the Republicants just faking it.)

Is he president already? 

Obama made a friend out of Castro and an enemy out of Putin. 😐 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116725

On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> Here's the evidence:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
> 
> But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.
> 
> It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
> 
> http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
> 

Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its mind to reclaiming its empire.

And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116737

On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
>> Here's the evidence:
>> 
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
>> 
>> But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for 
>> "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, 
>> whichever comes first.
>> 
>> It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
>> 
>> http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
>> 
>
>Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly 
>that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they 
>assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its 
>mind to reclaiming its empire.
>
>And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.

When the former soviet republics got their independence, Russia and
NATO agreed that they would not be part of NATO - but NATO reneged on
this.

The excuse was that it was negotiated with the soviets, not their
successors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117063

On 01/06/2016 02:06, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
>>> Here's the evidence:
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
>>>
>>> But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for
>>> "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII,
>>> whichever comes first.
>>>
>>> It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
>>>
>>> http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
>>>
>>
>> Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly
>> that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they
>> assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its
>> mind to reclaiming its empire.
>>
>> And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.
>
> When the former soviet republics got their independence, Russia and
> NATO agreed that they would not be part of NATO - but NATO reneged on
> this.
>
> The excuse was that it was negotiated with the soviets, not their
> successors.
>

And of course there are many ways to evade this commitment without 
breaking it.  Associate membership is not full membership, nor are 
individually negotiated defence agreements for specific issues (like 
early warning systems).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2116925

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:37:49 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > Here's the evidence:
> > 
> > http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
> > 
> > But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.
> > 
> > It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
> > 
> > http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
> > 
> 
> Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its mind to reclaiming its empire.
> 
> And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.

So in order not to be absorbed by one empire they go with another empire, even participating in other adventures around the world. Then the second empire will sit back and do nothing.

Somebody's getting cheated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117284

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 21:49:50 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:37:49 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > > Here's the evidence:
> > > 
> > > http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
> > > 
> > > But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.
> > > 
> > > It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
> > > 
> > > http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
> > > 
> > 
> > Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its mind to reclaiming its empire.
> > 
> > And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.
> 
> So in order not to be absorbed by one empire they go with another empire, even participating in other adventures around the world. Then the second empire will sit back and do nothing.
> 
> Somebody's getting cheated.

When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to decide which gang you join.

There's still no such thing as the "international community", it's more like the "international wolf-pack".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117316

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 21:49:50 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:37:49 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > > > Here's the evidence:
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
> > > > 
> > > > But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.
> > > > 
> > > > It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
> > > > 
> > > > http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its mind to reclaiming its empire.
> > > 
> > > And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.
> > 
> > So in order not to be absorbed by one empire they go with another empire, even participating in other adventures around the world. Then the second empire will sit back and do nothing.
> > 
> > Somebody's getting cheated.
> 
> When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to decide which gang you join.
> 
> There's still no such thing as the "international community", it's more like the "international wolf-pack".

That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117333

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 21:49:50 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:37:49 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 30 May 2016 17:23:49 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > > > > Here's the evidence:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > But that's something you don't hear everyday. They blame Russia for "expansion," while preparing for the crumbling of Russia or WWIII, whichever comes first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It reminds me of a story of a certain frog and a scorpion:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, the problem is that the ex-Soviet block countries think exactly that about Russia, and so really want NATO membership because they assume, perhaps rightly, that Russia under the likes of Putin will turn its mind to reclaiming its empire.
> > > > 
> > > > And that NATO membership is about the only thing that might prevent that.
> > > 
> > > So in order not to be absorbed by one empire they go with another empire, even participating in other adventures around the world. Then the second empire will sit back and do nothing.
> > > 
> > > Somebody's getting cheated.
> > 
> > When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to decide which gang you join.
> > 
> > There's still no such thing as the "international community", it's more like the "international wolf-pack".
> 
> That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.

Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to creating a genuine international community other than an Empire, which tends to be the property of a single country with all other nations just subjects.

It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open society which most of us consider essential. Plenty of people complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people, and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of the council of ministers.

National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their heads.

Remember the Ukranians _voted_ for a president who had announced as part of his pitch that he would do a trade deal with the EU. Trouble started when he reneged on that pledge, probably under Russian pressure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117405

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
> 
> Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to creating a genuine international community other than an Empire, which tends to be the property of a single country with all other nations just subjects.

It is not an empire, but rather part of an empire, the greatest empire ever loosely known as the West. And it needs expansion as any other empire.
> 
> It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open society which most of us cons
ider essential. Plenty of people complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people, and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of the council of ministers.
> 
> National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their heads.
> 
> Remember the Ukranians _voted_ for a president who had announced as part of his pitch that he would do a trade deal with the EU. Trouble started when he reneged on that pledge, probably under Russian pressure.

Does it sound estrange in a politician to break his promises? Whoever said "No nation building"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117631

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 12:05:25 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > > That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
> > 
> > Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to creating a genuine international community other than an Empire, which tends to be the property of a single country with all other nations just subjects.
> 
> It is not an empire, but rather part of an empire, the greatest empire ever loosely known as the West. And it needs expansion as any other empire.
> > 
> > It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open society which most of us cons
> ider essential. Plenty of people complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people, and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of the council of ministers.
> > 
> > National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their heads.
> > 
> > Remember the Ukranians _voted_ for a president who had announced as part of his pitch that he would do a trade deal with the EU. Trouble started when he reneged on that pledge, probably under Russian pressure.
> 
> Does it sound estrange in a politician to break his promises? Whoever said "No nation building"?

The law of the jungle: Might makes right.

A gorilla would recommend that law.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117744

On 01/06/2016 23:18, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> Humble Philosopher  wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
>> wrote:


>>>
>>> When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic
>>> option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to
>>> decide which gang you join.
>>>
>>> There's still no such thing as the "international community",
>>> it's more like the "international wolf-pack".
>>
>> That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their
>> land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
>
> Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to
> creating a genuine international community other than an Empire,
> which tends to be the property of a single country with all other
> nations just subjects.

If so, it's a sorry excuse for a solution.

For a start, once you go down that route the only logical place is "ever 
closer union" -- federation, in other words.  This imperative puts paid 
to the idea of an "international community".

Secondly, many of the difficulties experienced by the EU is the simple 
fact that it is still structured along notions of a community, giving 
ever larger numbers of nation equal say and requiring either huge 
majorities or even unanimity for major policy decisions.  This is quite 
unworkable in the long run.  There need to be leaders.  Currently, this 
is Germany ... but they are, for historical reasons, quite reluctant to 
take on the role and flex their muscles as it is needful.


>
> It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the
> prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry
> pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open
> society which most of us consider essential. Plenty of people
> complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to
> understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people,
> and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who
> have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is
> the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of
> the council of ministers.

I would beg to differ.  We are at a stage where the majority of 
legislation passed by national governments is merely the implementation 
of decisions and directives emanating from Brussels.

There is also the issue that nations are pressured towards certain 
standards of the rule of law ... but that they are admitted without 
having achieved them.  Once in, this pressure to conform largely falls 
away.  Human rights?  Ask a gypsy in Rumania or Hungary.  Freedom of the 
press?  Ask a Hungarian journalist.  Government accountability and 
transparency?  Let's talk about Greece.


>
> National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route
> for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their
> heads.

Governments and their people are persuaded to join by the prospect of 
easy access to the fleshpots of the EU.  Once in, they discover that 
they are expected to hand over large portions of their sovereignty and 
self-determination.  This is what a fair proportion of the EU 
electorates object to.

Nor is this helped by a nasty habit of national governments to join up 
without bothering to fully explain not only the benefits but also the 
costs of membership.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2117876

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 23:18, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> > Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
> >> wrote:
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic
> >>> option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to
> >>> decide which gang you join.
> >>>
> >>> There's still no such thing as the "international community",
> >>> it's more like the "international wolf-pack".
> >>
> >> That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their
> >> land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
> >
> > Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to
> > creating a genuine international community other than an Empire,
> > which tends to be the property of a single country with all other
> > nations just subjects.
> 
> If so, it's a sorry excuse for a solution.
> 
> For a start, once you go down that route the only logical place is "ever 
> closer union" -- federation, in other words.  This imperative puts paid 
> to the idea of an "international community".
> 
> Secondly, many of the difficulties experienced by the EU is the simple 
> fact that it is still structured along notions of a community, giving 
> ever larger numbers of nation equal say and requiring either huge 
> majorities or even unanimity for major policy decisions.  This is quite 
> unworkable in the long run.  There need to be leaders.  Currently, this 
> is Germany ... but they are, for historical reasons, quite reluctant to 
> take on the role and flex their muscles as it is needful.
> 
> 
> >
> > It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the
> > prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry
> > pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open
> > society which most of us consider essential. Plenty of people
> > complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to
> > understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people,
> > and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who
> > have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is
> > the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of
> > the council of ministers.
> 
> I would beg to differ.  We are at a stage where the majority of 
> legislation passed by national governments is merely the implementation 
> of decisions and directives emanating from Brussels.
> 
> There is also the issue that nations are pressured towards certain 
> standards of the rule of law ... but that they are admitted without 
> having achieved them.  Once in, this pressure to conform largely falls 
> away.  Human rights?  Ask a gypsy in Rumania or Hungary.  Freedom of the 
> press?  Ask a Hungarian journalist.  Government accountability and 
> transparency?  Let's talk about Greece.
> 
> 
> >
> > National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route
> > for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their
> > heads.
> 
> Governments and their people are persuaded to join by the prospect of 
> easy access to the fleshpots of the EU.  Once in, they discover that 
> they are expected to hand over large portions of their sovereignty and 
> self-determination.  This is what a fair proportion of the EU 
> electorates object to.
> 
> Nor is this helped by a nasty habit of national governments to join up 
> without bothering to fully explain not only the benefits but also the 
> costs of membership.

All empires seem to implode after expanding past a certain point. Their ideals are corrupted along the way. The UK may choose to leave and would be a hard blow to the EU. And America dictates their foreign policy, so there are many uncertainties and dark clouds on the horizon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118143

The fall of civilizations is from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer until the whole thing gets totally rotten and the barbarians show up at the gate.

Rome started with citizen farmers picking up their sword in times of war and ended with a couple guys owning all the farms and foreign mercenaries in the army. And then the barbarians showed up at the gate.

A lot like now. The barbarians are at the gate, and we can't seem to deal with it. 

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:31:45 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> > On 01/06/2016 23:18, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> > > Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
> > >> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic
> > >>> option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to
> > >>> decide which gang you join.
> > >>>
> > >>> There's still no such thing as the "international community",
> > >>> it's more like the "international wolf-pack".
> > >>
> > >> That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their
> > >> land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
> > >
> > > Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to
> > > creating a genuine international community other than an Empire,
> > > which tends to be the property of a single country with all other
> > > nations just subjects.
> > 
> > If so, it's a sorry excuse for a solution.
> > 
> > For a start, once you go down that route the only logical place is "ever 
> > closer union" -- federation, in other words.  This imperative puts paid 
> > to the idea of an "international community".
> > 
> > Secondly, many of the difficulties experienced by the EU is the simple 
> > fact that it is still structured along notions of a community, giving 
> > ever larger numbers of nation equal say and requiring either huge 
> > majorities or even unanimity for major policy decisions.  This is quite 
> > unworkable in the long run.  There need to be leaders.  Currently, this 
> > is Germany ... but they are, for historical reasons, quite reluctant to 
> > take on the role and flex their muscles as it is needful.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the
> > > prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry
> > > pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open
> > > society which most of us consider essential. Plenty of people
> > > complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to
> > > understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people,
> > > and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who
> > > have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is
> > > the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of
> > > the council of ministers.
> > 
> > I would beg to differ.  We are at a stage where the majority of 
> > legislation passed by national governments is merely the implementation 
> > of decisions and directives emanating from Brussels.
> > 
> > There is also the issue that nations are pressured towards certain 
> > standards of the rule of law ... but that they are admitted without 
> > having achieved them.  Once in, this pressure to conform largely falls 
> > away.  Human rights?  Ask a gypsy in Rumania or Hungary.  Freedom of the 
> > press?  Ask a Hungarian journalist.  Government accountability and 
> > transparency?  Let's talk about Greece.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > National governments simply wouldn't join if the EU was another route
> > > for the people of their nations to override them, to go over their
> > > heads.
> > 
> > Governments and their people are persuaded to join by the prospect of 
> > easy access to the fleshpots of the EU.  Once in, they discover that 
> > they are expected to hand over large portions of their sovereignty and 
> > self-determination.  This is what a fair proportion of the EU 
> > electorates object to.
> > 
> > Nor is this helped by a nasty habit of national governments to join up 
> > without bothering to fully explain not only the benefits but also the 
> > costs of membership.
> 
> All empires seem to implode after expanding past a certain point. Their ideals are corrupted along the way. The UK may choose to leave and would be a hard blow to the EU. And America dictates their foreign policy, so there are many uncertainties and dark clouds on the horizon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118432

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-4, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> The fall of civilizations is from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer until the whole thing gets totally rotten and the barbarians show up at the gate.
> 
> Rome started with citizen farmers picking up their sword in times of war and ended with a couple guys owning all the farms and foreign mercenaries in the army. And then the barbarians showed up at the gate.
> 
> A lot like now. The barbarians are at the gate, and we can't seem to deal with it. 

Trump seems to have a simple yet naive solution: Build a wall.

Too high a wall and they'll crawl under.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118439

All axiomatic systems are incomplete. No one solution will keep them out. But as Israel has demonstrated in spades, walls do work.


On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-4, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> > The fall of civilizations is from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer until the whole thing gets totally rotten and the barbarians show up at the gate.
> > 
> > Rome started with citizen farmers picking up their sword in times of war and ended with a couple guys owning all the farms and foreign mercenaries in the army. And then the barbarians showed up at the gate.
> > 
> > A lot like now. The barbarians are at the gate, and we can't seem to deal with it. 
> 
> Trump seems to have a simple yet naive solution: Build a wall.
> 
> Too high a wall and they'll crawl under.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118462

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:02:37 PM UTC-4, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> All axiomatic systems are incomplete. No one solution will keep them out. But as Israel has demonstrated in spades, walls do work.

It did in East Berlin too. Well, sort of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118914

As long as it was standing, it did.

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:02:37 PM UTC-4, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> > All axiomatic systems are incomplete. No one solution will keep them out. But as Israel has demonstrated in spades, walls do work.
> 
> It did in East Berlin too. Well, sort of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2118695

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 01:53:17 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 23:18, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:29:04 UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
> > Humble Philosopher  wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McMahon
> >> wrote:
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> When you're a small country, there really isn't any realistic
> >>> option of complete independence. The best you can hope is to
> >>> decide which gang you join.
> >>>
> >>> There's still no such thing as the "international community",
> >>> it's more like the "international wolf-pack".
> >>
> >> That's the very reason the EU has lost its sense of morality. Their
> >> land grab of Ukraine sounds like a coup.
> >
> > Flawed as it is, I think the EU represents the only credible route to
> > creating a genuine international community other than an Empire,
> > which tends to be the property of a single country with all other
> > nations just subjects.
> 
> If so, it's a sorry excuse for a solution.

Got a better idea.

> 
> For a start, once you go down that route the only logical place is "ever 
> closer union" -- federation, in other words.  This imperative puts paid 
> to the idea of an "international community".
> 

It's not really any different from the compromises individuals make in being part of a civilisation. In any society there are pressures towards enforced conformity in some kind of balance with the drive to individuality and personal interests.

> Secondly, many of the difficulties experienced by the EU is the simple 
> fact that it is still structured along notions of a community, giving 
> ever larger numbers of nation equal say and requiring either huge 
> majorities or even unanimity for major policy decisions.  This is quite 
> unworkable in the long run.  There need to be leaders.  Currently, this 
> is Germany ... but they are, for historical reasons, quite reluctant to 
> take on the role and flex their muscles as it is needful.
> 

In all organisations de-facto leaders emerge, but the kind of power they exert varies.

> 
> >
> > It doesn't need to force any nation to join, they join for the
> > prospect of economic benefits. The prospect of possible entry
> > pressure nations towards standards of rule of law, democracy and open
> > society which most of us consider essential. Plenty of people
> > complain of a lack of democracy within the EU, but you need to
> > understand it's a society composed of nations, more than of people,
> > and its the national governments (in the council of ministers) who
> > have the ultimate decision making authority. The hated commission is
> > the civil service, ultimately they must implement the decisions of
> > the council of ministers.
> 
> I would beg to differ.  We are at a stage where the majority of 
> legislation passed by national governments is merely the implementation 
> of decisions and directives emanating from Brussels.
> 
> There is also the issue that nations are pressured towards certain 
> standards of the rule of law ... but that they are admitted without 
> having achieved them.  Once in, this pressure to conform largely falls 
> away.  Human rights?  Ask a gypsy in Rumania or Hungary.  Freedom of the 
> press?  Ask a Hungarian journalist.  Government accountability and 
> transparency?  Let's talk about Greece.
> 

And individuals cheat on social rules. But, for the most part, peer pressure pushes them back in line.

As a last resort there's the ECHR.

Look. I'm not saying the EU is perfect, I'm saying that pan=national organisations of this kind are the best bet to create a genuine international community.

Without them, you are in the wolf pack, and a world of competing nations with WMDs is like a wolf-pack with guns. Doomed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web