Europe's Anti-American Obsession

Tr0n said:
The UN is still useless.

:p
Click to expand...

HA! see? I'm not alone! :D And Cons Himself, Indeed, I think your'e right. we are looking at some kinda lean years. we aren't geting into the green anytime soon. As I said, You seem to know economics really well. I'm way more a history and politics guy.
 
The way I see it, the UN's really the only thing keeping the little order we have in the world. If the UN weren't around, there'd probably a lot more genocies, USA probably would've done a lot more in the Middle East (whether it be positive or negative), tons of things could've happened without them.
 
how do they keep order? you've seen what happend in the balkans, sudan, africa, and generaly the world over, becouse the UN did NOTHING but cower in the corner, preaching diplomacy where it would do nothing. like I said, rowanda, is a clasic exaple of how the europeans screwed a country and left, abandoning their responibilitys and leaveing the people to die.
 
well if the UN would of listened to Romeo Dallaire (the UN cheif in Rwanda, also a canadian) who had seen the coming genocide like a speeding train alot of the bloodshed would of been stopped, this isn't just the UN's fault though, it's every nation that was a part of the UN.

American was still hurting from Somalia, had help prevent any aiding getting to Rwanda, they ommited the word "genocide" from there speaches and similar actions (aka. not admitting it was infact genocide but something "not so bad") and some african countries that had gotten fed up and asked to use 50 APCs the began bargaining trying to get upwards of 15 million for leasing them.

thats all I can remember off hand from the project I did one Rwanda a couple days ago, a shame when people start worrying more about dollar signs than genocide.
 
bobthecombineguy said:
how do they keep order? you've seen what happend in the balkans, sudan, africa, and generaly the world over, becouse the UN did NOTHING but cower in the corner, preaching diplomacy where it would do nothing. like I said, rowanda, is a clasic exaple of how the europeans screwed a country and left, abandoning their responibilitys and leaveing the people to die.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can agree with that, but still...I know they did something. I just can't quite put my finger on it.
 
Indeed? Thats what everyone says. Just admit it. The UN has no Purpose. If you think of one, I bet I can whack its face in. :D

Edit: PvtBones, I know the US screwed up, but you have to admit, the UN had a much larger part in the disaster.
 
Kofi Annan just came back from the Sudan. I dont think George Bush has been there to see for himself what is going on.

And the UN is only the sum of its parts - its members. If the members arent willing to do anything, then the UN wont be either.

In the end I think the UN has failed on Security simply because the powerful countries:

USA
Russia
UK
France
China

They just basically cant be bothered to go around sorting out the world's problems. There's nothing the UN as an institution can really do about that because it doesnt have its own dedicated Armed Force.

Where the UN has been successful however is in its more humanitarian role. The UN has a wealth, an absolute wealth of experts on many crisis areas: Famine, Natural Disasters, Peacekeeping and Diplomacy. These are resources that are put to good use.

For example, after the Tsunami disaster last year the UN sent in its Disaster Response Team - these are people with years of on the ground experience in these matters. The UN as a body to deal with these kind of problems is excellent - the UN World Food Programme has been dealing with famines across the world for years now.

The Rich countries contribute to the UN budget because they know that it does have competence in these areas and can be trusted to spend the money wisely, and probably more effectively than a government with 1000 other domestic issues to worry about at the same time.
 
The UN needs reform. That doesn't mean to say its useless, it administers countless international programs.
 
I think some people think the UN is useless because it isn't as good as making war as the US is...
 
exactly. whilst liberating kosovo and afghanistan were good things - the UN does other good things too. more on the humanitarian side though, than the libreation side of things.
 
I wouldn't say the UN is completely useless. But as of now in what it was originally created for, it's severely crippled and toothless.

I'd like to see the UN reformed to have less of an emphasis on it's own coalition constructing ability and the security council, and have more of it focused on humanitarian issues/groups like the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It's best shown in, previously stated in this thread, the UN's lacking on recent genocides like Rwanda and it's slowness on Sudan. It's also best shown in the great things it did to help out Tsunami affected areas. If it could be focused more on what it's effective at, that'd be great.
 
MjM said:
Interesting, a real eye opener. The French are dodgy, i mean their Sercret service bombed a ship in the Auckland Harbour, killing a photographer, in 1985.
Click to expand...

that was the Rainbow warrior ...a Greenpeace ship that had for years been harrassing the french government for their nuke tests. The french government tothis day still protect the identities of the SS operatives that killed the greenpeace activist
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I wouldn't say the UN is completely useless. But as of now in what it was originally created for, it's severely crippled and toothless.

I'd like to see the UN reformed to have less of an emphasis on it's own coalition constructing ability and the security council, and have more of it focused on humanitarian issues/groups like the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It's best shown in, previously stated in this thread, the UN's lacking on recent genocides like Rwanda and it's slowness on Sudan. It's also best shown in the great things it did to help out Tsunami affected areas. If it could be focused more on what it's effective at, that'd be great.
Click to expand...

Kinda sad that it turned into a contest to see who could give the most money. But I agree that the UN should not be about the military side of things and should focus on humanitarian projects. Atleast, I would if the UN didin't suck at that too. They have managed to screw up so high a number of humanitarian missons, its retarded.

All the aid money gets sucked up by the burocrats or corrupt goverments, and they just keep dumping more money in, even when it feeds that wich the are trying to stop.
 
the UN is actually very good at humanitarian missions. They have some of the best and most experienced people in the world for that kind of thing.
 
Cons Himself said:
er ok, so when was slavery repealed in the USA?

nuff said really - the US has more guilt than any other country when it comes to racism. espcially in the south.
Click to expand...
Actually Britain along with many other European countries have done equally stupid things in the past. Britain is very guilty of slave trading as well.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/S/slavetrade/main.html

Britain also did a lot of stupid things while in India as well. Then of course we count the crusades and other things that European countries did in its history and we see that Europe isn't exactly innocent when compared to the US.
 
Quite true, Europe has been far from clean as history goes. Still, it's been around a whole lot longer than the US.
 
we also did a lot of good things in india and got rid of slavery before the usa.

and you can stop talking about the crusades right there. that was a different time altogether. armies of mongols and arabs were pushing at europes borders from the east - so yeah , european countries sent armies to the mid east to stop them spreading into europe.


thank god they did.
 
a lot of foreigners also get mixed up what the UK/britain/england actually is.

England isnt the whole island, its a part of it.

Scotland, England and Wales make up Great Britain

Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom.

Eminem once said:

where is england? is it in London?
Click to expand...
:hmph:
 
the whole United Kingdom thing is just BS. say it out loud to yourself. it doesnt even mean anything. Our country has been colonised by white europeans for thousands of years and has been called Britain for just as long. Britain is the name for our country.

you dont hear the germans calling Germany the United Federal Lande do you. and you dont call a British person a 'United Kingdomer'. its just some dumbass victorian invention that doesnt mean diddly squat since Northern Ireland shouldnt even be under British rule anyway.
 
Cons Himself said:
we also did a lot of good things in india and got rid of slavery before the usa.

and you can stop talking about the crusades right there. that was a different time altogether. armies of mongols and arabs were pushing at europes borders from the east - so yeah , european countries sent armies to the mid east to stop them spreading into europe.


thank god they did.
Click to expand...
We could also say the same about the US. It was a different time altogether.

I would also like to point out that the crusades weren't all about defending Europe itself from invaders. Much of it was going on the offensive and attacking other places. Also Mongols never really reached most of Europe before they collapsed from within.
 
Article is from the year 2003 (When the american soldiers where liberators), and a bad headline, It's about France and the US, little about the rest of Europe.
 
The United States' obsession with an anti-anti-american attitude from the french?
 
Cons Himself said:
the whole United Kingdom thing is just BS. say it out loud to yourself. it doesnt even mean anything. Our country has been colonised by white europeans for thousands of years and has been called Britain for just as long. Britain is the name for our country.

you dont hear the germans calling Germany the United Federal Lande do you. and you dont call a British person a 'United Kingdomer'. its just some dumbass victorian invention that doesnt mean diddly squat since Northern Ireland shouldnt even be under British rule anyway.
Click to expand...

A number of the Northern Irish people will disagree with you.

EDIT: Also, the term United Kingdom is used because Northern Ireland isn't a part of Britain but it's the part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nortern Ireland.That said, some Northern Irish people called themselves British. There isn't really anything else you could use to refer to the Country.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
:rolleyes: Stereotypes exemplified in the article at their best.
Click to expand...
Isnt it ironic that you just exemplified the stereotype of americans not getting irony :LOL:
 
Chav said:
I hate the french sooooo hard. The language alone needs to be forbidden everywhere!
Click to expand...

I hope you're ****in' kidding me, saying that in english. Non-phonological languages sound like absolute shit to just about everyone else (the vast majority). I'd be extremely surprised if you knew the least thing about French speaking.

You also are a poser. You wouldn't "hate the french" if it was not "cool".
 
I don't see what the big deal with french is anyway, it's not a hard language to learn. Some of the sounds are difficult for a non-romance tongue perhaps but's it's a fairly logical language. Perhaps a little more difficult thna german I think but not exactly difficult as second languages go.

Still, while I find the french people to be quite warm and welcoming, they only seemed to be when you made an effort with the language. When I was in Germany it was more a case of "thank-you very much for trying to speak our language but don't sweat it, have a seat and here's a drink." To the majority of non-frenchman the french people are known for their arrogance, rudeness and whatever else that european poll said. Whether or not this reputation is deserved is a matter of opinion but a whole lot of people seem to share it.

As for anti-american sentiments, some of them agree with, and some not. I do hope that their elected leader is not representative of the people themselves, but America's actions during my lifetime lead me to see her as self-righteous, self-serving (can't hold this against them though), hippocritical (not good when put together with that last one), rude, pompous, self-righteous and generally quite ignorant to what anyone else wants. Capatilsm is all well and good, but the sort of self-oriented attitude that can produce is not an admirable quality in a country. France may be considered quite unaccomodating, but at least they have been known to compromise once in a while. The US just seems to co-operate when it bloody suits them; they want all the perks of the UN and the UNSC but they seem unwilling to chip in when it's their turn to follow the majority. It worries me to think where that country is headed, and angers me to see increasing signs of my country pointing in that direction too.
 
The Mullinator said:
We could also say the same about the US. It was a different time altogether.

I would also like to point out that the crusades weren't all about defending Europe itself from invaders. Much of it was going on the offensive and attacking other places. Also Mongols never really reached most of Europe before they collapsed from within.
Click to expand...

I dont know about you but I see a slight difference between 100 years ago and near 1000 years ago.
And yes the crusades started when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem. After that it was mainly a war to keep the Mongols out of Europe. And when you say they never reached most of Europe - dont forget that modern day Turkey - Asia Minor - was populated by white European people (under the Greek/Byzantine sphere of influence).
Not only did they conquer the whole Eastern half of the old Roman Empire - Byzantium, but they also reached the gates of Vienna! They then ruled until from the 15th to 19th century - not such a short time really. If it wasnt for Christian armies repelling them, they probably would have conquered all of Europe!
 
trizzm said:
I hope you're ****in' kidding me, saying that in english. Non-phonological languages sound like absolute shit to just about everyone else (the vast majority). I'd be extremely surprised if you knew the least thing about French speaking.

You also are a poser. You wouldn't "hate the french" if it was not "cool".
Click to expand...


I think I've posted this somewhere before, but it bears repeating:

In 1066 A.D., the land of my ancestors (Great Britain), was invaded by Norman French under William, Duke of Normandy (aka William the Conqueror). After the Battle of Hastings, William and his French cronies took over England and subjugated my Anglo-Saxon ancestors. The Anglo-Saxons were considered barbaric and brutish by the French as was their language. A couple words you may be familiar with are "shit," and "piss." This is why the "correct" (French) words for these functions are now "excrement" and "urine," and "shit" and "piss" are bad words, barbaric words, what have you. When I use those bad words, I'm celebrating my heritage. Do I have a reason to hate the French? Oh yes. I believe I deserve reparations as well, for over 900 years of repression which is still evident in the attitudes and traditions of today. :cheese: :naughty: :p
 
As my limited understanding goes, the Normans weren't truly French at all, but Scandanavians who had been occupying Normandy for some time...? I might be wrong.
 
I thought they were Franks in Northern France. Around 500AD hordes of eastern starving barbarians poured into the Western Empire - Ostrogoths settled in Italy, Visigoths in Spain and the Franks in Gaul....Angles in Britain and Jutes in Denmark.

The Ostrogoths were destroyed by the Eastern Emperor Justinian some time around 550 when he reclaimed Rome for the Empire. The others survived I think and were Christianised, eventually forming the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne.
 
everyone hates everyone for not being perfect.

c'est la vie.
 
Actually, there was some dispute as to whether William was the actual successor to the throne rather than Harold. Edward the Confessor had allegedly promised the throne to William, and Harold had allegedly promised William he would support this claim. If I recall correctly, there was some sort of blood kinship between the two families, but I may be wrong. And yes, Norman is a corruption of Norseman which was a reference to the Scandinavians who had invaded the region centuries before. Further, the Anglo-Saxons were also descended from the "Norsemen." However, the ruling class in Normandy were actually descended from Britons who invaded about 150 years prior to 1066. It is not unlikely that the "Brito-Normans," intermingled with the French, adopted their language and eventually became, for all intents and purposes, French. Certainly the Anglo-Saxons of Britain considered them to be so, and French became the official language of the British government for centuries thereafter.
 
In all actuality, we are all more closely related than we might think. Is it possible for anyone to say they are 100% Anglo-Saxon, 100% Irish, 100% Briton, 100% French? Any modern day Englishman might possibly have Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, French and Scandinavian blood coursing through his veins.
 
yes, there are broad differences though:

Nordic White Europeans (Scandos + Germanic)
Central White Europeans (Slavic)
Mediterranean White Europeans (Spaniards, Italians, Greeks etc)

for example
 
Quite true, however if one subscribes to the theory that we are all descended from a couple folks from South Africa, then what I said holds true. :E
 
yes but from those first few humans, we evolved into diff sub-species depending on where those first nomads settled.

thats why diff sub species have diff physical characteristics. broadly speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
America's Education System Is Fine
Replies
31
Views
2K
Escaep
Escaep
V-Man339
ACTA active in 6 months
Replies
4
Views
1K
V-Man339
V-Man339
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
CptStern
Operation Northwood: the US government plan to bomb american targets in 1962
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Pesmerga
Pesmerga
Sulkdodds
The Future of America!
Replies
25
Views
1K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top