World Politics

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

If Le Pen wins the Presidency she will likely be hamstrung by a lack of support in the French congress. Could be fun to watch...

Kinda like trump now..oh wait a minute, they are both from the 'grand' old party.. :lol:

 

[blutto]

....some historical background to the current Korean crisis....follows standard Merikan script...occupy furrin country...ally with the scummiest elements in the country...inevitably $h!t happens...bomb the country into the stone-age to maintain status quo and keep "friends" in power....claim exceptionally moral victory and make lots of movies portraying same....and oh yeah, exploit cheap labour and suck up all available resources...

Written reports at the time criticized Washington for “allowing” the Red Army into Korea but the fact was it was the other way around. The Soviets could easily have occupied the entirety of Korea but chose not to do so, instead opting for a negotiated settlement with the U.S. over the future of Korea. Theoretically the peninsula would be reunited after some agreement between the two victors at some future date.

However, the U.S. immediately began to favor those Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese in the exploitation of their own country and its people, largely the landed elites, and Washington began to arm the provisional government it set up to root out the peoples’ committees. For their part the Soviets supported the communist nationalist leader, Kim Il-Sung who had led the guerrilla army against Japan at great cost in lives.

In 1947 the United Nations authorized elections in Korea, but the election monitors were all American allies so the Soviets and communist Koreans refused to participate. By then the Cold War was in full swing, the critical alliance between Washington and Moscow that had defeated Nazi Germany had already been sundered. As would later also occur in Vietnam in 1956, the U.S. oversaw elections only in the south of Korea and only those candidates approved by Washington. Syngman Rhee became South Korea’s first president protected by the new American armed and trained Army of the Republic of Korea. This ROK was commanded by officers who had served the Japanese occupation including one who had been decorated by Emperor Hirohito himself and who had tried to track down and kill Kim Il Sung for the Japanese.

With Korea thus seemingly divided permanently both Russian and American troops withdrew in 1948 though they left “advisers” behind. On both sides of the new artificial border pressures mounted for a forcible reunification. The fact remained that much of rural southern Korea was still loyal to the peoples committees. This did not necessarily mean that they were committed communists but they were virulent nationalists who recognized the role that Kim’s forces had played against the Japanese. Rhee’s forces then began to systematically root out Kim’s supporters. Meanwhile the American advisers had constantly to keep Rhee’s forces from crossing the border to invade the north.

In 1948 guerrilla war broke out against the Rhee regime on the southern island of Cheju, the population of which ultimately rose in wholesale revolt. The suppression of the rebellion was guided by many American agents soon to become part of the Central Intelligence Agency and by military advisers. Eventually the entire population was removed to the coast and kept in guarded compounds and between 20,000 and 30,000 villagers died. Simultaneously elements of the ROK army refused to participate in this war against their own people and this mutiny was brutally suppressed by those ROK soldiers who would obey such orders. Over one thousand of the mutineers escaped to join Kim’s guerrillas in the mountains.

Though Washington claimed that these rebellions were fomented by the communists no evidence surfaced that the Soviets provided anything other than moral support. Most of the rebels captured or killed had Japanese or American weapons.

In North Korea the political system had evolved in response to decades of foreign occupation and war. Though it was always assumed to be a Soviet satellite, North Korea more nearly bears comparison to Tito’s Yugoslavia. The North Koreans were always able to balance the tensions between the Soviets and the Chinese to their own advantage. During the period when the Comintern exercised most influence over national communist parties not a single Korean communist served in any capacity and the number of Soviet advisers in the north was never high.

Nineteen forty-nine marked a watershed year. The Chinese Communist Revolution, the Soviet Atomic Bomb, the massive reorganization of the National Security State in the U.S. all occurred that year. In 1950 Washington issued its famous National Security Paper-68 (NSC-68) which outlined the agenda for a global anti-communist campaign, requiring the tripling of the American defense budget. Congress balked at this all-encompassing blueprint when in the deathless words of Secretary of State Dean Acheson “Thank God! Korea came along.” Only months before Acheson had made a speech in which he pointedly omitted Korea from America’s “Defense perimeter.”

The Korean War seemed to vindicate everything written and said about the” international communist conspiracy. In popular myth on June 25, 1950 the North Korean Army suddenly attacked without warning, overwhelming surprised ROK defenders. In fact the entire 38th Parallel had been progressively militarized and there had been numerous cross border incursions by both sides going back to 1949. On numerous occasions Syngman Rhee had to be restrained by American advisers from invading the north. The Korean civil war was all but inevitable. Given postwar American plans for access globally to resources, markets and cheaper labor power any form of national liberation, communist or liberal democratic, was to be opposed. Acheson and his second, Dean Rusk, told President Truman that “we must draw the line here!” Truman decided to request authorization for American intervention from the United Nations and bypassed Congress thereby leading to widespread opposition and, later, a return to Republican rule under Dwight Eisenhower..

......................

Among the remaining mysteries of the UN decision to undertake the American led military effort to reject North Korea from the south was the USSR’s failure to make use of its veto in the Security Council. The Soviet ambassador was ostensibly boycotting the meetings in protest of the UN’s refusal to seat the Chinese communists as China’s official delegation. According to Bruce Cumings though, evidence exists that Stalin ordered the Soviet ambassador to abstain. Why? The UN resolution authorizing war could have been prevented. At that moment the Sino-Soviet split was already in evidence and Stalin may have wished to weaken China, something which actually happened as a result of that nation’s subsequent entry into the war. Or he may have wished that cloaking the UN mission under the U.S. flag would have revealed the UN to be largely under the control of the United States, which indeed it was. What is known is that Stalin refused to allow Soviet combat troops and reduced shipments of arms to Kim’s forces. Later, however Soviet pilots would engage Americans in the air. The Chinese were quick to condemn the UN action as “American imperialism” and warned of dire consequences if China itself were threatened.

The war went badly at first for the U.S. despite numerical advantages in forces. Rout after rout followed with the ROK in full retreat. Meanwhile tens of thousands of southern guerrillas who had originated in peoples’ committees fought the Americans and the ROK. At one point the North Koreans were in control of Seoul and seemed about to drive American forces into the sea. At that point the commander- in-chief of all UN forces, General Douglas MacArthur, announced that he saw unique opportunities for the deployment of atomic weapons. This call was taken up by many in Congress.

Napalm was used extensively, completely and utterly destroying the northern capital of Pyongyang. By 1953 American pilots were returning to carriers and bases claiming there were no longer any significant targets in all of North Korea to bomb. In fact a very large percentage of the northern population was by then living in tunnels dug by hand underground. A British journalist wrote that the northern population was living “a troglodyte existence.”In the Spring of 1953 US warplanes hit five of the largest dams along the Yalu river completely inundating and killing Pyongyang’s harvest of rice. Air Force documents reveal calculated premeditation saying that “Attacks in May will be most effective psychologically because it was the end of the rice-transplanting season before the roots could become completely embedded.” Flash floods scooped out hundreds of square miles of vital food producing valleys and killed untold numbers of farmers.

At Nuremberg after WWII, Nazi officers who carried out similar attacks on the dikes of Holland, creating a mass famine in 1944, were tried as criminals and some were executed for their crimes.

I submit that it is the collective memory of all of what I’ve described that animates North Korea’s policies toward the US today which has nuclear weapons on constant alert and stations almost 30,000 forces at the ready. Remember, a state of war still exists and has since 1953

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/21/why-does-north-korea-want-nukes/

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

If Le Pen wins the Presidency she will likely be hamstrung by a lack of support in the French congress. Could be fun to watch...

Kinda like trump now..oh wait a minute, they are both from the 'grand' old party.. :lol:

....youse gotta sometimes be careful about drawing lines thru history to backstop $h!t....Lincoln was from the grand old party....are you saying he is like Trump and Le Pen....?.....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....how exceptional ?....truly exceptional !....actually just an exceptional snafu....and some of this $h!t you just can't make up....

According to science, the answer is a resounding "no".

Several years ago a group of American academics asked a simple and extremely rude question: Americans want to rescue Ukraine from Russian invasion — but can they find Ukraine on a map?

We know that war is God's way of teaching the US geography, but sometimes even God can't deliver

About one in six (16 percent) Americans correctly located Ukraine, clicking somewhere within its borders. Most thought that Ukraine was located somewhere in Europe or Asia, but the median respondent was about 1,800 miles off — roughly the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles — locating Ukraine somewhere in an area bordered by Portugal on the west, Sudan on the south, Kazakhstan on the east, and Finland on the north.

The further our respondents thought that Ukraine was from its actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily.

....and then we have the glorious leaders who represent the exceptional nation....

Of course, this is extremely unfair because the average American has no say in who the US bombs, or for what manufactured reasons.

Which is why the United States has selfless public servants such as Maxine Waters, who wants Putin to withdraw from Korea — or else.

....so the story so far...we have a mass of self-righteous people who are by and large exceptionally ignorant ....and the most ignorant are the most belligerent....and this mass of self-righteous people are in control of the largest stock of weapons the world has ever seen, a stock that could destroy all life on this planet several times over....

...fcuking great eh....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

.....more on the problems of falsifying history....the title says it all....

Ukraine, Korea, Syria, Iran… Falsifying History is Uncle Sam’s Way to War

If the Western public were fully informed of how the crises in Ukraine, Korea, Syria and Iran have been largely fomented by Western machinations then those conflicts would not continue as they are. Because the real causes of the conflicts would be widely exposed, showing Western government culpability, in particular Washington’s.

And then, if justice were to prevail, those Western politicians and news media outlets who have been responsible for obscuring, distorting and thereby fueling these conflicts would finally be held to account

.


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/04/22/ukraine-korea-syria-iran-falsifying-history-uncle-sam-way-war.html

Cheers

 

[BullsFan22]

I hope it's Le Pen vs Melenchon in the the run-off on May 7th. This would ensure that France will leave the EU. After Brexit, and a potential Frexit, the EU will continue its slow death. In fact, it will create a bigger ripple effect and other countries will follow suit. Non-establishment parties and candidates and Eurosceptics have grown in countries like Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, to name a few. People are starting to realize that the EU is not run well. It needs to be fixed, if not burned to the ground (metaphorically speaking).

Another thing is, like with Sanders and Trump in the US election, people are seeing just how ridiculous today's media has become and that establishment politics and media bias is destructive.

 

[Echoes]

It's Macron-Le Pen, which means Macron President. The most Europeist of them all. "The French are calves" rightly said De Gaulle.

By the way as I said neither Mélenchon nor Le Pen advocated for a Frexit. The only one who did was Asselineau but he probably got 1.5%. I overrated the French to be honest. They voted 98.5% for Remain. Amazing!

 

[aphronesis]

.....more on the problems of falsifying history....the title says it all....

Ukraine, Korea, Syria, Iran… Falsifying History is Uncle Sam’s Way to War

If the Western public were fully informed of how the crises in Ukraine, Korea, Syria and Iran have been largely fomented by Western machinations then those conflicts would not continue as they are. Because the real causes of the conflicts would be widely exposed, showing Western government culpability, in particular Washington’s.

And then, if justice were to prevail, those Western politicians and news media outlets who have been responsible for obscuring, distorting and thereby fueling these conflicts would finally be held to account

.


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/04/22/ukraine-korea-syria-iran-falsifying-history-uncle-sam-way-war.html

Cheers

Of course people continuing to believe in the concept of "justice" with plaintive sincerity doesn't stop such situations happening either.

 

[Brullnux]

I hope it's Le Pen vs Melenchon in the the run-off on May 7th. This would ensure that France will leave the EU. After Brexit, and a potential Frexit, the EU will continue its slow death. In fact, it will create a bigger ripple effect and other countries will follow suit. Non-establishment parties and candidates and Eurosceptics have grown in countries like Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, to name a few. People are starting to realize that the EU is not run well. It needs to be fixed, if not burned to the ground (metaphorically speaking).

Fixed, not burned to the ground. There's no need to do that. Either way, as echoes said, Le Pen was ambivalent about the EU, she just wanted to leave the euro (which would've probably caused them to leave the EU). Melenchon only wanted to renegotiate the treaties, especially the economic ones.

Of course the EU needs reform, but it's overall effect on countries I believe is positive. It does free up trade massively, and that helps countries' economies. There are a few restrictions that are ridiculous (like the anti-nationalisation ones and anti workers rights ones) but there are also many which help worker's rights and especially the environment. A few tweaks will eliminate wages going down due to immigrants undercutting local people, which is one of the main problems. But let's face it: life in Europe is better now than before the EU. The idea is noble and essentially good imo, but the direction is wrong. However, if people focused on the European elections, that direction could change drastically and Juncker kicked out. It's not a given that Merkel's politics must run the EU - it's just how it has played out because of elections in Europe.

The Eurosceptics in Netherlands are in the minority, as we found out, and the M5S position on Europe changes on the daily. Frankly, the UK leaving the EU leaves the EU in a better place, and the negotiations that will come can be used to deter any other country from leaving. Or at least deter them from making the same stupid demands May has.

The EU also has the blessing not to be subject to one government's whimsical desires on which trade deals or laws to approve. There is normally always one or two countries (normally belgium, specifically the Walloons) who oppose and veto the likes of TTIP. Without the EU, it is possible that most of the biggest European countries would have ended up with a TTIP-like deal. In some cases (UK), more extreme.

Anyway, Macron and Le Pen will probably reach the second round, so no massive drama. Macron will probably beat Le Pen, unless if she manages a 10 point swing in the next two weeks. But not even Trump managed that, and he was against Hillary Clinton. It's a very similar match up, except both in France are probably more desirable than the US duo.

It's quite a disappointing result for Le Pen, really. People have spoken of her and her party's excellent performance this year but it's not massively better than under her father (5% or so), who unlike Marine had no qualms about making outlandish statements about the Holocaust and had no interest in ever actually taking power.

 

[BullsFan22]

I hope it's Le Pen vs Melenchon in the the run-off on May 7th. This would ensure that France will leave the EU. After Brexit, and a potential Frexit, the EU will continue its slow death. In fact, it will create a bigger ripple effect and other countries will follow suit. Non-establishment parties and candidates and Eurosceptics have grown in countries like Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, to name a few. People are starting to realize that the EU is not run well. It needs to be fixed, if not burned to the ground (metaphorically speaking).

Fixed, not burned to the ground. There's no need to do that. Either way, as echoes said, Le Pen was ambivalent about the EU, she just wanted to leave the euro (which would've probably caused them to leave the EU). Melenchon only wanted to renegotiate the treaties, especially the economic ones.

Of course the EU needs reform, but it's overall effect on countries I believe is positive. It does free up trade massively, and that helps countries' economies. There are a few restrictions that are ridiculous (like the anti-nationalisation ones and anti workers rights ones) but there are also many which help worker's rights and especially the environment. A few tweaks will eliminate wages going down due to immigrants undercutting local people, which is one of the main problems. But let's face it: life in Europe is better now than before the EU. The idea is noble and essentially good imo, but the direction is wrong. However, if people focused on the European elections, that direction could change drastically and Juncker kicked out. It's not a given that Merkel's politics must run the EU - it's just how it has played out because of elections in Europe.

The Eurosceptics in Netherlands are in the minority, as we found out, and the M5S position on Europe changes on the daily. Frankly, the UK leaving the EU leaves the EU in a better place, and the negotiations that will come can be used to deter any other country from leaving. Or at least deter them from making the same stupid demands May has.

The EU also has the blessing not to be subject to one government's whimsical desires on which trade deals or laws to approve. There is normally always one or two countries (normally belgium, specifically the Walloons) who oppose and veto the likes of TTIP. Without the EU, it is possible that most of the biggest European countries would have ended up with a TTIP-like deal. In some cases (UK), more extreme.

Anyway, Macron and Le Pen will probably reach the second round, so no massive drama. Macron will probably beat Le Pen, unless if she manages a 10 point swing in the next two weeks. But not even Trump managed that, and he was against Hillary Clinton. It's a very similar match up, except both in France are probably more desirable than the US duo.

It's quite a disappointing result for Le Pen, really. People have spoken of her and her party's excellent performance this year but it's not massively better than under her father (5% or so), who unlike Marine had no qualms about making outlandish statements about the Holocaust and had no interest in ever actually taking power.

You should be the pin up boy for the EU!

 

[Brullnux]

Why? Because I think that the EU is, inherently, a positive thing? I completely agree that it is, in its current state, broken and needs fixing. It is an institution which supports corporate interests and harms some of the people in it (Greece). But is that due to who is running the EU and has done for a long time now, or the EU itself? I think it's the former. If someone like Iglesias, say, was the President with Varoufakis as one of his main advisors, would you still think that the EU should be burned down?

My problem is that calling for the abolition of the EU is a defeatist attitude; a reaction to a problem, not a solution. The problems that face it right now are not unfixable nor permanent. A change of direction can be achieved without that much difficulty - there is no party in Europe which actually targets the European elections. If the any one of the European parties (S&D, PP, ELF, ALD) actually focused their efforts on saying: if you vote for us, then we will make sure to change the EU from within, then they could stand a great chance in doing so. Mind you, the ALD and PP have little desire to change its direction, and the S&D are only just starting to wake up and realise there is a need for change. There is an ever growing dissatisfaction for the EU that is not addressed by 'eurosceptic' parties like FN, Wilders and others, and it's there for the left to seize and with their support, change the EU. The attitude of "it's not working so let's give up" is like the (leftwing) anti-globalisation movement which attempts to purely stop globalisation, rather than adopting alter-globalisation pushed by the likes of Piketty and Stiglitz (not a socialist but still a left-wing social democrat), which is truer to the internationalist roots of Marxist Socialism, rather than the isolationist Stalinism.

 

[aphronesis]

Obviously it's a regressive nativism that isn't facing the present. Maybe the deeper question is not "who running it" but which interests served? Piketty and Stiglitz as humanist economists fall in the caregory of my previous post.

 

[python]

the eu membership can't be good for all or bad for all.. it should be looked at from inside each current or prospective member...for instance, i did not see any good reason for the brits exiting b/c they had forced brussels to accept just about everything others (like say greece) had failed - the financial sovereignty, trade giveaways, the immigration quotas/rules independence etc. the whole brexit projects still, and always will lack the overwhelming support and will always remain a testament to the peculiarity of the british way of democracy

that said, i had consistently been a euro skeptic in general. mostly for pragmatic, or id' like to think for philosophical reasons. that is, to put it simply, an unnatural body/organism with 28 heads can't be thinking nor acting smartly in terms of the best choices. iow, beyond the very short-term, artificially convenient compromise that typically had only glossed over the deep fissures in the european 'family'

at the moment france is a lot less clear about frexit - and for many good reasons - than even the brits. and it makes sense, they aren't the island nation and many french, the majority of them, had been born as the eu citizens as well as them being french.

it takes a LOT, than say compared to hungary, to completely reverse such an ingrained historically speaking realization. and to begin with france is still a major economic benefactor of the eu membership.

 

[Echoes]

Open your eyes, Brullnux, please. I was a small kid before the EU (before Maastricht) and we definitely lived better (despite technological advancement). The EU did nothing to the workers. Rather they turned them into workLESS people, favouring the relocation overseas in low cost countries with the current article 63 of the TFEU. They've lowered wages, destroyed agriculture, created a way to expensive currency for most countries, etc etc.

The EU has done nothing in favour of the environment. They have favoured global exchanges (the same relocation overseas) which is ecologically untenable. They've favoured GMO's, favoured animal flour, ...

I'm just desperately looking for a good thing that the EU has done, I see none.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

the eu membership can't be good for all or bad for all.. it should be looked at from inside each current or prospective member...for instance, i did not see any good reason for the brits exiting b/c they had forced brussels to accept just about everything others (like say greece) had failed - the financial sovereignty, trade giveaways, the immigration quotas/rules independence etc. the whole brexit projects still, and always will lack the overwhelming support and will always remain a testament to the peculiarity of the british way of democracy

that said, i had consistently been a euro skeptic in general. mostly for pragmatic, or id' like to think for philosophical reasons. that is, to put it simply, an unnatural body/organism with 28 heads can't be thinking nor acting smartly in terms of the best choices. iow, beyond the very short-term, artificially convenient compromise that typically had only glossed over the deep fissures in the european 'family'

at the moment france is a lot less clear about frexit - and for many good reasons - than even the brits. and it makes sense, they aren't the island nation and many french, the majority of them, had been born as the eu citizens as well as them being french.

it takes a LOT, than say compared to hungary, to completely reverse such an ingrained historically speaking realization. and to begin with france is still a major economic benefactor of the eu membership.

The problem is, Germany, France, Scandinavian countries and the Benelux shouldn't have to bail out the "PIIGS"-Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Greece has needed to be bailed out seemingly every year since they joined in 1981. Italy and Spain have had up and down economies and rely far too often on tourism, well, when the economy is bad, and air tickets increase, that doesn't help them. And what about the other countries? How can we seriously compare Bulgaria to Denmark, for example? Or Romania to Sweden or Holland? And further enlargement. What will that do? Countries of the former Yugoslavia were far better off when it was one country rather than six. Croatia and Slovenia are in the EU, while the others are in the process of getting, or trying to get in. Their currency is much weaker than the Euro, their economies either stagnating or failing....first every country has to look out for themselves and then think about helping other members. You can't expect everyone to produce equally. Easy border crossings and perhaps some nice trade deals, but everything else is a bureaucratic and economic nightmare. Plus, not many know how EU officials are even elected.

 

[python]

I'm just desperately looking for a good thing that the EU has done, I see none.

see my post above placde minutes before yours...

looking very narrowly, that would/is be a viable personal view, you have a point.

but the eu formation and the membership had many expressions...

among the positives was to set up, the irish, the portuguese, the spaniards to get the economic benefits of the socially responsible capitalist model. most of them now really appreciate the membership. i am not so sure about the eastern europeans benefiting equally b/c it was a political drive to accept them as fast as possible to spite russia as opposed to them being ready to integrate. accepting ukraine would a grave mistake along the same logic.

another huge benefit/success of the early eu was to integrate GERMANY thus removing its natural militaristic impulses...it's not all that simple.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Obviously it's a regressive nativism that isn't facing the present. Maybe the deeper question is not "who running it" but which interests served? Piketty and Stiglitz as humanist economists fall in the caregory of my previous post.

I agree, but I think who is running it has an impact on whose interests are being served.

Open your eyes, Brullnux, please. I was a small kid before the EU (before Maastricht) and we definitely lived better (despite technological advancement). The EU did nothing to the workers. Rather they turned them into workLESS people, favouring the relocation overseas in low cost countries with the current article 63 of the TFEU. They've lowered wages, destroyed agriculture, created a way to expensive currency for most countries, etc etc.

The EU has done nothing in favour of the environment. They have favoured global exchanges (the same relocation overseas) which is ecologically untenable. They've favoured GMO's, favoured animal flour, ...

I'm just desperately looking for a good thing that the EU has done, I see none.

I was mainly speaking from a UK perspective on the workers front, as joining up with the rest of Europe has helped us be dragged along up to their standards of workers rights, when previously they were much worse. I know that the EU regulations are much looser than the almost all continental countries but they are tighter than what Thatcher and her followers would have wanted. The environment ditto. They have helped the climate change meetings though, much more than other countries.

Python has mentioned a few good things that the EU has done. I stand by that while the EU is broken, it can be fixed. Less bureaucracy, and more power to the parliament rather than the council would be a start. Keep country vetoes for the most important laws and deals, but otherwise I'd try to marginalise their influence as much as possible.

 

[aphronesis]

Yeah Brullnux, but per Python's major points It will probably be awhile before we can think the conflicting and mutually reinforcing points of the 20th c state/authority war interests and post industrial/fixed capital interests. The US is stuck on this sure, but Europe's neoliberals are falling back too w/o thinking new societal models.

 

[python]

Re:

Yeah Brullnux, but per Python's major points It will probably be awhile before we can think the conflicting and mutually reinforcing points of the 20th c state/authority war interests and post industrial/fixed capital interests. The US is stuck on this sure, but Europe's neoliberals are falling back too w/o thinking new societal models.

yep.

the new societal models per se may not be needed as plenty already exist and more or less functioning. i mean functioning satisfactorily in the view of those practicing them. some will disagree, but based on personal experience, i would point for instance to the swedish and swiss models... granted, both are relatively small nations to build upon having in mind the 500 million motley collection of the eu inhabitants, but it would be a good starting point.

curiously, despite being quite diverse culturally (both within themselves and each other) and despite differing on the eu membership (the swiss are NOT in the eu) they share some remarkable qualities. such as the relative independence of their foreign policy (neither is a nato member and were officially neutral during the ww2) and both are quite reflective and responsible in terms at looking at themselves at the cost of their own choices...

i could easily get distracted by listing their examples, but my main points are:
A. the eu, like the relatively small successful societies should STOP the unlimited expansion
B. it should get honest and real about WHO fits the union. for instance, turkey and ukraine should be told straight WHY. not b/c they are the turks or ukrainians, but b/c their basic values and attitudes aren't the business of other members. no political correctness games should be played with such fundamental prerequisites.
C. a real and robust independence in foreign and military spheres is a MUST for europe. there is NOT a single policy or economic decision inherently serving the Europeans w/o a true sovereignty. anything else serves as another rope afixing europe to the only superpower which by definition pursues it own interests. the us being a 'benevolent leader' is a load of crap and is the biggest falsehood explioted by the pundits. it was once - sort of after the ww2 - but now it is just aother tool among others, like the american military and financial dominance
D. make the rules for leaving the eu easier so that only the willing participate.
E. (this is a biggy) think through and implement new procedures for multi cultural interactions and economic relations. they must be enforced by implementable hursh sanctions.up to and including suspension or expelling from the membership.

just thinking aloud...

 

[blutto]

....?....

Former Israeli Defense Minister Confirms Israeli Collaboration With ISIS In Syria

By Richard Silverstein

April 23, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - In the midst of complaining about the Islamist threat to Israel and the world, Bibi Netanyahu conveniently forgets that his own country enjoys a tacit alliance with ISIS in Syria. It is an alliance of convenience to be sure and one that’s not boasted about by either party. But is not terribly different from one than Israel enjoys with its other Muslim allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Bogie Yaalon served as defence minister in the current government till he had a falling out with Netanyahu. Now Yaalon plans to form his own party and run against his former boss. Unfortunately for him, he’s not polling well and doesn’t appear to be much of a political threat.

So Yaalon enjoys the position of having little to lose. He can speak more candidly than the average politician. In this context, he spoke at length on security matters at a public event in Afula. There is always much that I disagree with whenever I read Yaalon’s views. For example, while warning about the danger of favoring too heavily one side over the other, he essentially justifies Israel’s interventionist approach, which largely has favored Assad’s opponents. Nor do I like his choice of political allies–from Pam Geller to Meir Kahane’s grandson.

But he did reveal how closely tied Israel is to ISIS in Syria. I’ve documented, along with other journalists, Israeli collaboration with al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. But no Israeli till now has admitted it has forged an alliance with ISIS as well. Below Yaalon implicitly confirms this below

:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46929.htm

Cheers

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

One major problem for the EU, I think, is the relatively weak shared identity.

It's no secret that originally the ultimate goal, (and still the ultimate goal of some folks who run the EU), is to create a federal European state. What else can having an "ever closer union" mean? Nowadays we can hear some pro-European political parties arguing for a European army, a European minister of finance, etc. What do you call an organization that runs the economy, foreign policy, security etc.? Obviously those roles are typically reserved for sovereign states. In fact, some problems in the EU could actually be drastically improved by having a European state; having one currency and some shared economic policy for very different economies is a problem. Having open borders for countries with different immigration policies and different organization running their respective domestic security, is ludicrous.

Having a federal European state with one army, economy, foreign policy, immigration policy etc. would solve a lot of these issues. The problem with that is, I can't see them agreeing on how to run the economy, foreign policy or immigration policy. Countries like, say, Sweden and Hungary are never going to agree on a lot of stuff. And there's a deeper issue; states need some sort of a shared identity to work. Most countries have clear national identities (and those without them are often very unstable), but Europe has no such thing or a very weak one. People identify much stronger with their respective countries then they do with Europe. You can ridicule it as 'nationalism' or 'tribalism' or whatever; but these types of social identities is simply how human beings work and it enables them to cooperate in large groups like a state. A European state cannot exist without a European identity.

As I see it, the way the EU is run currently is kind of unstable and this either requires much more power to Europe to solve it, which the European people don't want, or it requires giving countries much more freedom to deal with these issues individually. I can't see the EU giving up lots of its power when the idea of an "ever closer union" is still ingrained in minds of many of the folks who seem to run the place, but with the current political climate I can't see the EU getting away with usurping much more power either. Hence I really can't see the EU lasting very long. This would require either a phenomenal change of mind on behalf of the folks who run it, or a phenomenal change of mind on the European people.

 

[Jagartrott]

Speaking as a scientist, I can only be pro-EU.
It is easy to fire away at the EU and it does a bad job at explaining its achievements, but on the science front, it has been incredibly important for facilitating joint research and exchanging students and staff.

 

[BullsFan22]

One major problem for the EU, I think, is the relatively weak shared identity.

It's no secret that originally the ultimate goal, (and still the ultimate goal of some folks who run the EU), is to create a federal European state. What else can having an "ever closer union" mean? Nowadays we can hear some pro-European political parties arguing for a European army, a European minister of finance, etc. What do you call an organization that runs the economy, foreign policy, security etc.? Obviously those roles are typically reserved for sovereign states. In fact, some problems in the EU could actually be drastically improved by having a European state; having one currency and some shared economic policy for very different economies is a problem. Having open borders for countries with different immigration policies and different organization running their respective domestic security, is ludicrous.

Having a federal European state with one army, economy, foreign policy, immigration policy etc. would solve a lot of these issues. The problem with that is, I can't see them agreeing on how to run the economy, foreign policy or immigration policy. Countries like, say, Sweden and Hungary are never going to agree on a lot of stuff. And there's a deeper issue; states need some sort of a shared identity to work. Most countries have clear national identities (and those without them are often very unstable), but Europe has no such thing or a very weak one. People identify much stronger with their respective countries then they do with Europe. You can ridicule it as 'nationalism' or 'tribalism' or whatever; but these types of social identities is simply how human beings work and it enables them to cooperate in large groups like a state. A European state cannot exist without a European identity.

As I see it, the way the EU is run currently is kind of unstable and this either requires much more power to Europe to solve it, which the European people don't want, or it requires giving countries much more freedom to deal with these issues individually. I can't see the EU giving up lots of its power when the idea of an "ever closer union" is still ingrained in minds of many of the folks who seem to run the place, but with the current political climate I can't see the EU getting away with usurping much more power either. Hence I really can't see the EU lasting very long. This would require either a phenomenal change of mind on behalf of the folks who run it, or a phenomenal change of mind on the European people.

You hit the nail on the head. I don't want to live in one big European country. I am not a nationalist in any shape or form, but it's important for European countries, or any country around the world, to not lose their identity. I am pretty sure the vast majority of people would agree with me on that. Having a common currency is already hard enough, but a one continent identity? Good luck with that. I am pretty sure when a Frenchmen or woman travel to North America or Asia, for example, they are not going to say 'I am European,' but 'I am French.' Likewise a Japanese won't say 'I am Asian...' Remember that the EU was made as a economic union between a few of the Western European countries. They have to go back to that.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Speaking as a scientist, I can only be pro-EU.
It is easy to fire away at the EU and it does a bad job at explaining its achievements, but on the science front, it has been incredibly important for facilitating joint research and exchanging students and staff.

We can do that without the EU. The US does it, Norway does it, Switzerland, Brazil...

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Speaking as a scientist, I can only be pro-EU.
It is easy to fire away at the EU and it does a bad job at explaining its achievements, but on the science front, it has been incredibly important for facilitating joint research and exchanging students and staff.

We can do that without the EU. The US does it, Norway does it, Switzerland, Brazil...

Norway and Switzerland do it by joining the EU party.
I don't exactly understand what you mean by 'the US does it'. They actually have quite limited international research efforts. If you compare that to the vast amount of intra-Europe activities (ERC, COST, Marie Curie, etc.), it is almost symbolic. Plus, and very important, the ability to freely relocate as a scientist within the EU is a *huge* advantage.