... the EU! :frog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/nobel-peace-prize.html?_r=0
Superbe! :frog:
Great, we could use some money.
Don't let France have it, they'll never pass it on when it's the next member state's turn.
Good decision. When it is fashionable to complain about the EU and its bureaucracy, people tend to forget that it achieved what no other European project has before - guaranteed peace in Europe for the last 60 years.
I thought nukes did that.
The Nobel Committee is going to look foolish when you Europeans start butchering each other like a cattle-run slaughterhouse over the debt crisis.
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace. NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Quote from: Zanza on October 12, 2012, 05:13:14 AM
... the EU! :frog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/nobel-peace-prize.html?_r=0
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace. NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
I guess these people think that weapons and armies cannot preserve peace, they can only do war.
So does that mean I'm a winner? :unsure:
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2012, 06:42:36 AM
So does that mean I'm a winner? :unsure:
No, you defaulted by moving away from the EU's warm, peaceful embrace.
Quote from: Fireblade on October 12, 2012, 05:55:17 AM
The Nobel Committee is going to look foolish
going to look foolish? :sleep:
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2012, 06:24:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace. NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
I guess these people think that weapons and armies cannot preserve peace, they can only do war.
The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 05:43:15 AM
people tend to forget that it achieved what no other European project has before - guaranteed peace in Europe for the last 60 years.
What's Yugoslavian for "Huh?" How many languages does that require?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 06:57:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 05:43:15 AM
people tend to forget that it achieved what no other European project has before - guaranteed peace in Europe for the last 60 years.
What's Yugoslavian for "Huh?" How many languages does that require?
Only one, now! :bash:
This isn't a bad prize, since I guess it's too late to give it to Monnet and Schuman. But I don't think you can just say that there's peace because of Nukes. India and Pakistan had nukes, after all. The EU has been a huge success story in opening up borders, encouraging democracy in Southern and Eastern Europe, and defusing tensions in a lot of the continent.
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2012, 06:24:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace. NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
I guess these people think that weapons and armies cannot preserve peace, they can only do war.
Like dynamite, eh?
I've give the EU kudos for managing not to get into the usual generational British-French war, let Germany beat everybody up, or stuff all the continent's Jews into cattle cars, but that whole Balkans thing back in the 90's that nobody wanted to do anything about until the United States (once again) got involved (twice) really makes the concept of a Peace Prize fall a bit flat.
Then again, they gave it to a guy with a Kill List. So go fig.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace.
Like between its members such as Greece and Turkey?
Quote from: Caliga on October 12, 2012, 06:45:22 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on October 12, 2012, 05:55:17 AM
The Nobel Committee is going to look foolish
going to look foolish? :sleep:
Seriously what is wrong with them?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 12, 2012, 07:09:57 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace.
Like between its members such as Greece and Turkey?
Shitty Greek pilots and shitty Turkish pilots running into each other try to out-hotdog one another is NATO's fault?
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
Seriously what is wrong with them?
So you don't think that Monnet, Schuman, etc. did something worth a Nobel peace prize for?
I wonder, how long until the peace prize goes.out to: You
About fucking time somebody who deserves it gets it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 07:12:02 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 12, 2012, 07:09:57 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 12, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
I thought NATO guaranteed the peace.
Like between its members such as Greece and Turkey?
Shitty Greek pilots and shitty Turkish pilots running into each other try to out-hotdog one another is NATO's fault?
That's how you sum up the fighting at Cyprus in 1974?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 12, 2012, 07:34:15 AM
That's how you sum up the fighting at Cyprus in 1974?
No, I sum it up as irrelevant. But you Euros with your goofy nationalist tendencies always blow shit out of proportion.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 07:33:22 AM
About fucking time somebody who deserves it gets it.
Somebody? The EU is either a comission, which hasn't really done jack shit for world peace, or it's a series of treaties.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 08:06:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 07:33:22 AM
About fucking time somebody who deserves it gets it.
Somebody? The EU is either a comission, which hasn't really done jack shit for world peace, or it's a series of treaties.
By economically integrating europe the EU has assured that war has become impossible between it's members. That is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Interesting statement from SIPRI on the award:
QuoteOn two occasions—after the convulsion in the international system caused by World War II and the upheaval caused by the end of the cold war—closer cooperation in the framework of what has become the EU was an unequivocal statement that Europe is committed to peace and security between its member states.
The EU is based on core European values of peaceful coexistence, democracy and cooperation, rather than nationalism and protectionism. Today's strong relationship between the historical contenders France and Germany, as well as between former cold war adversaries, are two striking examples of this.
At a moment of rising economic and political uncertainty within the EU and unfolding violent conflicts and humanitarian crises on its doorstep, the decision of the Nobel Committee is a valuable reminder of the EU's purpose and positive achievements.
There has not been an armed conflict between members of the EU (or its forerunners) since the end of World War II, building domestic peace for over 500 million EU citizens.
'The awarding of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize reminds us that the European Union is the most successful example of peacebuilding ever achieved in world history,' stated Tilman Brück, SIPRI's incoming director.
'However, the European Union must come to terms with its increased global responsibilities and the urgent need for more effective European institutions in the fields of international peace and security.
'To be relevant for its citizens and to become a significant global player, the European Union must achieve peace and prosperity abroad as well as at home.'
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
By economically integrating europe the EU has assured that war has become impossible between it's members. That is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
A reasonable argument, but who is the somebody that integrated Europe economically? Give them the prize. Don't give it to an address in Brussels. It's like giving the Nobel to the Oval Office.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 08:19:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
By economically integrating europe the EU has assured that war has become impossible between it's members. That is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
A reasonable argument, but who is the somebody that integrated Europe economically? Give them the prize. Don't give it to an address in Brussels. It's like giving the Nobel to the Oval Office.
The UN, the UN peacekeepers, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International are all organizations that have won the prize. I think it is fitting that an organization can be a fitting recipient for the prize.
Funny thing is that FB may be right a few years down the line.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 07:52:05 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 12, 2012, 07:34:15 AM
That's how you sum up the fighting at Cyprus in 1974?
No, I sum it up as irrelevant. But you Euros with your goofy nationalist tendencies always blow shit out of proportion.
Ethnic cleansing irrelevant? Turks are Euros? Since when?
Last but not least, the self-hating euro pinko commie has nationalist tendencies if goofy?
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 08:19:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
By economically integrating europe the EU has assured that war has become impossible between it's members. That is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
A reasonable argument, but who is the somebody that integrated Europe economically? Give them the prize. Don't give it to an address in Brussels. It's like giving the Nobel to the Oval Office.
The UN, the UN peacekeepers, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International are all organizations that have won the prize. I think it is fitting that an organization can be a fitting recipient for the prize.
Seems as about as fitting to give it to a beleaguered organization as it is to give to a newly minted president.
Also all of those other organizations you've listed pretty much exist with the aim of peace. I'm not sure a trade organization should be considered the same - though I recognize that some advocated for it in favor of peace.
On a different note - does linked economies actually ensure that war is impossible between member states?
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
The UN, the UN peacekeepers, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International are all organizations that have won the prize. I think it is fitting that an organization can be a fitting recipient for the prize.
Amnesty and MSF are independent organizations. Peacekeepers are individuals engaged in an often unpleasant, dangerous, and thankless job. As for the UN, the most suspect member of that list, at least it has a Sec Gen who often engages in personal diplomacy. And IIRC, the UN got the prize for Coffee Onan's attempts to thwart Bushitler's attempt to conquer the Muslim word.
What has the EU done that's comparable? Written harmonization regulations?
The prize shall be given to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
I reckon it's fairly easy to argue that the EU has indeed done more than just about any other organization to work for the fraternity between nations, considering that it is a tightly integrated confederation of 27 nation states.
Arse, I really thought I was in with a chance this year. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 08:55:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
The UN, the UN peacekeepers, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International are all organizations that have won the prize. I think it is fitting that an organization can be a fitting recipient for the prize.
Amnesty and MSF are independent organizations. Peacekeepers are individuals engaged in an often unpleasant, dangerous, and thankless job. As for the UN, the most suspect member of that list, at least it has a Sec Gen who often engages in personal diplomacy. And IIRC, the UN got the prize for Coffee Onan's attempts to thwart Bushitler's attempt to conquer the Muslim word.
What has the EU done that's comparable? Written harmonization regulations?
<mittens>Countries are people my friend.</mittens>
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 07:04:51 AM
I've give the EU kudos for managing not to get into the usual generational British-French war, let Germany beat everybody up, or stuff all the continent's Jews into cattle cars, but that whole Balkans thing back in the 90's that nobody wanted to do anything about until the United States (once again) got involved (twice) really makes the concept of a Peace Prize fall a bit flat.
Then again, they gave it to a guy with a Kill List. So go fig.
Balkans are not part of the EU. :secret:
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
On a different note - does linked economies actually ensure that war is impossible between member states?
And if so, how does one explain civil wars?
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 09:38:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
On a different note - does linked economies actually ensure that war is impossible between member states?
And if so, how does one explain civil wars?
States' rights.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
On a different note - does linked economies actually ensure that war is impossible between member states?
Why are you asking such a dumb question? If by "ensure" you mean completely eliminates the chance of war, then the answer is obviously "no."
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:32:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:21:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 08:19:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 08:09:40 AM
By economically integrating europe the EU has assured that war has become impossible between it's members. That is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
A reasonable argument, but who is the somebody that integrated Europe economically? Give them the prize. Don't give it to an address in Brussels. It's like giving the Nobel to the Oval Office.
The UN, the UN peacekeepers, Doctors without Borders and Amnesty International are all organizations that have won the prize. I think it is fitting that an organization can be a fitting recipient for the prize.
Seems as about as fitting to give it to a beleaguered organization as it is to give to a newly minted president.
Also all of those other organizations you've listed pretty much exist with the aim of peace. I'm not sure a trade organization should be considered the same - though I recognize that some advocated for it in favor of peace.
The EU is not (just) a trade organization. :huh:
Obviously they should pull a Time Magazine and give the Nobel Prize to "you"
edit- On second thought maybe that's what they were trying to do /pun
It's an ok choice. But I prefer individuals. Kohl and Delors would have been a better way to honour the EU.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 09:30:57 AM
<mittens>Countries are people my friend.</mittens>
Wait a sec, are you suggesting that the real recipients of the Nobel are the member states?
So the EU members get the Nobel prize because they decided not to start a war every five years?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 09:30:57 AM
<mittens>Countries are people my friend.</mittens>
Wait a sec, are you suggesting that the real recipients of the Nobel are the member states?
So the EU members get the Nobel prize because they decided not to start a war every five years?
No, I'm suggesting that an organization with states as members is just as valid a recipient as an organization with people as members.
The mittens quip was yet another failed attempt at humor.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 09:30:57 AM
<mittens>Countries are people my friend.</mittens>
Wait a sec, are you suggesting that the real recipients of the Nobel are the member states?
So the EU members get the Nobel prize because they decided not to start a war every five years?
No, I'm suggesting that an organization with states as members is just as valid a recipient as an organization with people as members.
The mittens quip was yet another failed attempt at humor.
Besides, with the EU citizenship introduced, the EU has a dual nature, being a body composed of states and of individuals.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 09:43:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
On a different note - does linked economies actually ensure that war is impossible between member states?
Why are you asking such a dumb question? If by "ensure" you mean completely eliminates the chance of war, then the answer is obviously "no."
I'm glad that such is not what I meant by ensure. :)
Quote from: Count on October 12, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Obviously they should pull a Time Magazine and give the Nobel Prize to "you"
edit- On second thought maybe that's what they were trying to do /pun
I said that earlier. :P
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 09:50:33 AM
No, I'm suggesting that an organization with states as members is just as valid a recipient as an organization with people as members.
The mittens quip was yet another failed attempt at humor.
I got it. :console:
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 07:04:51 AM
I've give the EU kudos for managing not to get into the usual generational British-French war, let Germany beat everybody up, or stuff all the continent's Jews into cattle cars, but that whole Balkans thing back in the 90's that nobody wanted to do anything about until the United States (once again) got involved (twice) really makes the concept of a Peace Prize fall a bit flat.
Then again, they gave it to a guy with a Kill List. So go fig.
Balkans are not part of the EU. :secret:
Ah, so the European Union doesn't have to worry about Europe itself, just the Union. Gotcha.
So I guess receiving an award from a country outside the Union doesn't really count.
The controversy in norway is that giving the prize to the EU is controversial in a country where the issue of EU membership is still controversial and opinion is opposed to.
All of a sudden the anti-eu advocates have become prize purists arguing that the prize should go to someone doing the most for peace in the last year. IMHO EU doe alot for peace every year.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 12, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
Ethnic cleansing irrelevant?
Ethnic cleansing, my ass. So some people got kicked to the other side of the island by the UN. I don't see anybody calling the UK's policies in Northern Ireland as ethnic cleansing.
QuoteTurks are Euros? Since when?
Last but not least, the self-hating euro pinko commie has nationalist tendencies if goofy?
Damn, even the pinkiest of you Euros are some xenophobic motherfuckers when it comes to Turkey. Stop the hate.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:13:55 AM
The controversy in norway is that giving the prize to the EU is controversial in a country where the issue of EU membership is still controversial and opinion is opposed to.
All of a sudden the anti-eu advocates have become prize purists arguing that the prize should go to someone doing the most for peace in the last year.
Greece can probably use the prize money.
QuoteIMHO EU doe alot for peace every year.
I don't think trying not to kill each other for the second half of the century really deserves an award. I mean, you're supposed to not be killing each other anyway.
But I'm sure Chancellor Merkel appreciated dodging all those molotov cocktails the other week.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:10:42 AM
Ah, so the European Union doesn't have to worry about Europe itself, just the Union. Gotcha.
The European Union is not a military organization. And the sorta weak ass attempts to make it so happened well after the Yugoslav shit.
Quotebut that whole Balkans thing back in the 90's that nobody wanted to do anything about until the United States (once again) got involved (twice) really makes the concept of a Peace Prize fall a bit flat.
Um until the US got involved? We were involved right from the beginning both times. In the Bosnian thing we created an international arms embargo right from the beginning. That assured the Bosniaks would be unarmed when the Serbs came to slaughter them for example. In Kosovo we announced we were going to be intervening in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing, leading to radical Kosovars to provoke the Serbs (which granted is not hard). Still cannot believe Clinton did not see where making an announcement like that was going.
It is just ridiculous that the Euros couldn't move in and take care of shit like that in their backyard, and even if they had I am sure they would have fucked it up far worse than we did. But that has nothing to do with the EU really.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: Count on October 12, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Obviously they should pull a Time Magazine and give the Nobel Prize to "you"
edit- On second thought maybe that's what they were trying to do /pun
I said that earlier. :P
Ha sorry didn't see it. Great minds.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:21:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:13:55 AM
The controversy in norway is that giving the prize to the EU is controversial in a country where the issue of EU membership is still controversial and opinion is opposed to.
All of a sudden the anti-eu advocates have become prize purists arguing that the prize should go to someone doing the most for peace in the last year.
Greece can probably use the prize money.
That won't even cover the postage of all the letters informing the civilized world of it's default.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:21:36 AM
QuoteIMHO EU doe alot for peace every year.
I don't think trying not to kill each other for the second half of the century really deserves an award. I mean, you're supposed to not be killing each other anyway.
But I'm sure Chancellor Merkel appreciated dodging all those molotov cocktails the other week.
Well, yes. When normal behaviour is to invade and occupy then not invading and occupying is a good step. The EU was intended and designed to deal with specific causes of conflict, the imperial and balance of power causes for war. The first step was to pool strategic resources in the Coal and Steel Union in the 1950's.
A pre-EU response to a Greek default would have looked more like Marita-2 than QE-2.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 11:24:23 AM
The European Union is not a military organization. And the sorta weak ass attempts to make it so happened well after the Yugoslav shit. So I am not sure what that has to do with the EU.
The EU's not just about finance charges and interest rates; it's still an organization of nation states with a vested interest in collective security, even before the Berlin conference.
But, since it's not a military organization, it doesn't deserve a peace prize then. They should endorse the reward check and deposit it to NATO's account to cover the lack of GDP commitment spending most of them still don't meet.
QuoteUm until the US got involved? We were involved right from the beginning both times. In the Bosnian thing we created an international arms embargo right from the beginning. That assured the Bosniaks would be unarmed when the Serbs came to slaughter them for example. In Kosovo we announced we were going to be intervening in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing, leading to radical Kosovars to provoke the Serbs (which granted is not hard). Still cannot believe Clinton did not see where making an announcement like that was going.
Ah yes, the arms embargo and other associated platitudes. Did wonders to stop the shelling of civilians and mass graves. And none of them were willing to stand next to Tony Blair, who was the only leader over there that had the balls to say this shit doesn't happen in Europe anymore.
Filty Serbs didn't start fucking dying and Europeans wouldn't drop a single bomb until NATO (read: the United States) agreed to come along for the ride.
Quote
It is just ridiculous that the Euros couldn't move in and take care of shit like that in their backyard, and even if they had I am sure they would have fucked it up far worse than we did. But that has nothing to do with the EU really
They have everything to do with it. I believe the OSCE still prints its own stationery.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:16:37 AM
Damn, even the pinkiest of you Euros are some xenophobic motherfuckers when it comes to Turkey. Stop the hate.
I can see how people become unfavorably disposed to religious conservative country hicks coming to the big cities in droves. Mind you, if the Turkish immigration to Europe came from Western Turkey or Istanbul there would be hardly any problems.
Imagine Seattle having a 10% share of conservative, traditionalist folks from West Virginia or similar who after two or three generations still don't integrate well, with generation 3 often still struggling with the main language.
In fact, some of the challenges are similar to the Hispanic immigration into the U.S., I guess.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:10:56 PM
In fact, some of the challenges are similar to the Hispanic immigration into the U.S., I guess.
3rd generation Mexican immigrants are almost always monolingual in English here. (excepting border regions where there is a strong bi-lingual emphasis)
I can't think of any immigrant group since the 19th century that hasn't become English-only speakers by the third generation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
The EU's not just about finance charges and interest rates; it's still an organization of nation states with a vested interest in collective security, even before the Berlin conference.
But, since it's not a military organization, it doesn't deserve a peace prize then. They should endorse the reward check and deposit it to NATO's account to cover the lack of GDP commitment spending most of them still don't meet.
I have been arguing since the late 90s (back when people cared enough about the EU to talk about it alot) that the EU needed to unite Europe's military and diplomacy and be a real military alliance in order to really have legitimacy...well that and be more democratic. But that would destroy the nation states really. Which is why the EU will never be a big success as anything but an economic union (and probably not even that) since that will never happen. And since when do you have to be a military organization to get the Nobel Peace Prize? Doctors Without Borders cannot exactly project force.
QuoteAh yes, the arms embargo and other associated platitudes.
Yeah ok key events that were primary movers in the way things unfolded are not platitudes.
QuoteDid wonders to stop the shelling of civilians and mass graves.
You know what would have done wonders to stop the shelling of civilians and mass graves? Guns for the Bosniaks.
QuoteAnd none of them were willing to stand next to Tony Blair, who was the only leader over there that had the balls to say this shit doesn't happen in Europe anymore.
Yeah I guess I missed the massive British intervention.
QuoteFilty Serbs didn't start fucking dying and Europeans wouldn't drop a single bomb until NATO (read: the United States) agreed to come along for the ride.
Well the Croat Army also helped. Also the Bosniaks did eventually scrounge up enough guns to start fighting back. But yeah for the most part the EU countries did not do much beyond donating troops to the UN efforts.
QuoteThey have everything to do with it. I believe the OSCE still prints its own stationery.
The EU lacks the power, authority, and legitimacy to do anything about things like Bosnia and Kosovo. They are even less able to than the Article of Confederation US government was able to deal with the secession of Vermont. At least the Congress was supposed to handle things like that, they simply lacked the ability to. The EU does not even have a mandate.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:10:56 PM
In fact, some of the challenges are similar to the Hispanic immigration into the U.S., I guess.
Not really. The Hispanics are Westerners with the Western religion and beliefs. They are just a bit more old school than most Americans and speak and look a little different. But they integrate just like every other immigrant group.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 12:20:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
Ah yes, the arms embargo and other associated platitudes.
Yeah ok key events that were primary movers in the way things unfolded are not platitudes.
QuoteDid wonders to stop the shelling of civilians and mass graves.
You know what would have done wonders to stop the shelling of civilians and mass graves? Guns for the Bosniaks.
Which is why I called them platitudes. Useless.
QuoteThe EU lacks the power, authority, and legitimacy to do anything about things like Bosnia and Kosovo.
They possess as much power, authority and legitimacy as they choose to have. Which is none, because they're a collection of neutered weenies that can't take care of their own back yard without Uncle Sam kicking them in the ass. It doesn't have to be that way: the EU can do more.
Quote from: PDH on October 12, 2012, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:10:56 PM
In fact, some of the challenges are similar to the Hispanic immigration into the U.S., I guess.
3rd generation Mexican immigrants are almost always monolingual in English here. (excepting border regions where there is a strong bi-lingual emphasis)
Border regions? The Montana border?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 12:38:08 PMthe EU can do more.
Unfortunately, its member states are very strongly against ceding additional competencies to Brussels. Many people see the EU as a bureaucratic mess that wastes money and doesn't get anything useful done.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:50:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 12:38:08 PMthe EU can do more.
Unfortunately, its member states are very strongly against ceding additional competencies to Brussels. Many people see the EU as a bureaucratic mess that wastes money and doesn't get anything useful done.
Except apparently - peace.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:50:15 PM
Many people see the EU as a bureaucratic mess that wastes money and doesn't get anything useful done.
Unfortunately, that's the view from over here as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
Which is why I called them platitudes. Useless.
That makes no sense.
QuoteThey possess as much power, authority and legitimacy as they choose to have. Which is none, because they're a collection of neutered weenies that can't take care of their own back yard without Uncle Sam kicking them in the ass. It doesn't have to be that way: the EU can do more.
Right the states of Europe went out to create a confederation without any power and then were shocked when this organization was able to achieve little. Also they were mad that the EU was undemoctratic after they decided to make it undemocratic. The EU is basically what the US would be if we kept the Articles of Confederation around.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2012, 12:10:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:16:37 AM
Damn, even the pinkiest of you Euros are some xenophobic motherfuckers when it comes to Turkey. Stop the hate.
I can see how people become unfavorably disposed to religious conservative country hicks coming to the big cities in droves. Mind you, if the Turkish immigration to Europe came from Western Turkey or Istanbul there would be hardly any problems.
Imagine Seattle having a 10% share of conservative, traditionalist folks from West Virginia or similar who after two or three generations still don't integrate well, with generation 3 often still struggling with the main language.
In fact, some of the challenges are similar to the Hispanic immigration into the U.S., I guess.
Except for your example to apply, those third generation west virginians would have to be denied Washington State citizenship, despite being born there...
Canada doesn't get a lot of Turkish immigrants. But we get a lot of iranian and pakistani immigrants. And by the third generation they're very well assimilated. Hell the second generation is well assimilated.
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
While The leader of the Norwegian Nobel Comittee Thorbjørn Jagland was the leader of the European Movement (the organisation trying to get norway to vote yes in the referendum about joining in 1994) he called on the EU to get the peace prize; he now was able to give it to them himself.
The man is scum, but he is right about the EU.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
THEIR CULTURE IS LOVELY DAMMIT
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
Why dont you ask the multicultis that? Its the inmates running the asylum over here.
We all just need to agree that the US is great with immigration and the european states suck at it.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
THEIR CULTURE IS LOVELY DAMMIT
I am sure their culture is lovely but it is not the culture of the country they moved to. I guess if they just plain do not want to assimilate that is one thing but surely most of them at least want to understand and operate inside the culture of the place they live in if not fully declare themselves proud members of the German nation or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
The racism would come from our policies in the past where would we try and make sure that new immigrants gave up all of their former cultural customs.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:05:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 02:48:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cecil on October 12, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
To even mention the A word would brand you racist here.
Keeping them in a cultural ghetto is far more racist. Since, you know, one of the ways racism works is you refuse certain groups the ability to assimilate. How in the world is assimilation racist?
THEIR CULTURE IS LOVELY DAMMIT
I am sure their culture is lovely but it is not the culture of the country they moved to. I guess if they just plain do not want to assimilate that is one thing but surely most of them at least want to understand and operate inside the culture of the place they live in if not fully declare themselves proud members of the German nation or whatever.
In Sweden what you're saying will get you excommunicated for racism. I don't make the rules.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
The racism would come from our policies in the past where would we try and make sure that new immigrants gave up all of their former cultural customs.
And it was never really successful. Immigrant neighborhoods thrived, entire communities flourished in their own ways, maintaining their own languages, their own churches, their own local economies.
Now, the two major groups that were not given the ability to assimilate themselves or maintain their cultures, they're the ones that suffered from race-based policies.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
The racism would come from our policies in the past where would we try and make sure that new immigrants gave up all of their former cultural customs.
That was not motivated by racism. And besides we let them run their own language newspapers and businesses and schools and churches. So to the extent we had policies to 'make sure' that the new immigrants gave up all of their former cultural customs they were not very successfully applied. Even in this case we only wanted the white people to assimilate anyway. We were fine with the Chinese staying in their little enclaves, presuming we let them in, because we did not want them around anyway.
Granted things would get pretty ugly if you were unfortunate enough to be a strong cultural practitioner of a country that just went to war with the United States.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2012, 02:16:01 PMExcept for your example to apply, those third generation west virginians would have to be denied Washington State citizenship, despite being born there...
Which is certainly not the case in Germany or Austria. In fact, very often the second if not the first already has local citizenship at latest when they turn 18.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:08:03 PM
In Sweden what you're saying will get you excommunicated for racism. I don't make the rules.
So what is a non-racist plan? A partition of the country into different cultural-ethnic zones?
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:08:03 PM
In Sweden what you're saying will get you excommunicated for racism. I don't make the rules.
So what is a non-racist plan? A partition of the country into different cultural-ethnic zones?
Why would there be a plan?
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
Why would there be a plan?
I thought commies like the Swedes were all about plans. Particularly five year ones.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:14:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
The racism would come from our policies in the past where would we try and make sure that new immigrants gave up all of their former cultural customs.
That was not motivated by racism.
Sure the correct term would probably be something like xenophobia as it couldn't have been racism or said groups could never have assimilated. We certainly did want them to give up their "barbaric" customs though.
Also, I'd like to point out that I live in a part of Vienna that has a high percentage of foreigners - ca. 25%, not counting the naturalized ones. Most of them from the Balkans, Turkey etc. In general it's considered to be one of the "not so nice" areas of Vienna (though it's still safer than many other European cities - it's certainly no Parisian banlieu). Personally, I have no problems living here or felt uncomfortable. Most people just want to do their thing, be it running a small business or raising a family. In my apartment building are Austrians, Chinese, Africans and Turks, and there's no issues. There's a Turkish youth café in the basement (recently refurbished with new pictures in the windows - one of them a larger than life picture of Bill Cosby photoshopped to look like he's holding the mouthpiece of a waterpipe. The youths that hang out there (or in other places) are your usual teens - they may listen to Turk-Rap/-Pop, but largely there's no visible differences to Austrian teens (except for the language, obviously).
On the whole I think it's not as dire a situation as the right wingers want to paint ("Almost 10% of all crime in Vienna happens in 10th District" - they don't mention that the district has MORE than 10% of the people of Vienna . . . ), nor as rosy as the multiculturalists want to believe. Mostly it's folks wanting to go with their lives, with a few rabble rousers trying to turn this into a tribalist issue.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
Why would there be a plan?
I thought commies like the Swedes were all about plans. Particularly five year ones.
Well there was indeed a plan. The plan was to let as many uneducated third worlders as possible into the country and get them dependent on government handouts, to ensure Socialist majority in parliament. As far as I can make out the plan pretty much ended there. And as plans go it was pretty neat, immigrants vote overwhelmingly Red. Obviously it was very destructive for the country and the people in it, natives and immigrants. That however was never seen as a problem.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sure the correct term would probably be something like xenophobia as it couldn't have been racism or said groups could never have assimilated. We certainly did want them to give up their "barbaric" customs though.
Well there was certainly alot of anxiety as immigrants were just let in without restriction and they poured in in huge numbers. But come on garbon there were hundreds of entire towns that consisted of nothing but one ethnic group practicing its culture and speaking its own language and everybody left them well enough alone.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Well there was indeed a plan. The plan was to let as many uneducated third worlders as possible into the country and get them dependent on government handouts, to ensure Socialist majority in parliament. As far as I can make out the plan pretty much ended there. And as plans go it was pretty neat, immigrants vote overwhelmingly Red. Obviously it was very destructive for the country and the people in it, natives and immigrants. That however was never seen as a problem.
Well if that is the plan I can see why people would be upset if you tried to help these people learn Swedish and get a job. They might start voting blue or something.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Well there was indeed a plan. The plan was to let as many uneducated third worlders as possible into the country and get them dependent on government handouts, to ensure Socialist majority in parliament. As far as I can make out the plan pretty much ended there. And as plans go it was pretty neat, immigrants vote overwhelmingly Red. Obviously it was very destructive for the country and the people in it, natives and immigrants. That however was never seen as a problem.
Well if that is the plan I can see why people would be upset if you tried to help these people learn Swedish and get a job. They might start voting blue or something.
Well the plan probably doesn't exist anymore. Now the same thing just continues because of PC-crazed inertia.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sure the correct term would probably be something like xenophobia as it couldn't have been racism or said groups could never have assimilated. We certainly did want them to give up their "barbaric" customs though.
Well there was certainly alot of anxiety as immigrants were just let in without restriction and they poured in in huge numbers. But come on garbon there were hundreds of entire towns that consisted of nothing but one ethnic group practicing its culture and speaking its own language and everybody left them well enough alone.
I'm talking about places where people actually came into contact with immigrants not where they setup their own locations. I'm not sure why you're reacting as though this is some new thought. We've discussed this in the past before and I even brought up how in school they were teaching us about using a salad bowl metaphor over that of melting pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_(cultural_idea)
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:52:55 PM
I'm talking about places where people actually came into contact with immigrants not where they setup their own locations. I'm not sure why you're reacting as though this is some new thought. We've discussed this in the past before and I even brought up how in school they were teaching us about using a salad bowl metaphor over that of melting pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_(cultural_idea)
Well for a really long time people came here for the free Indian-stolen land. So a huge majority set up their own settlements or moved to smallish communities. So why is addressing how most of the immigration went some sort of exception? The new idea here is there was some sort of concerted policy to forcefully assimilate people and that is just not the case. There were pressures and bigoted people and unfortunate incidents and so forth and there was alot of pressure to do things like make English the official language and all sorts of things. But ultimately we did not do those things. Ultimately assimilation was voluntary. And ultimately the concerted xenophobic policies that actually mattered are/were the ones that limit immigration and seek to make it more difficult. So I can see the salad bowl metaphor as an attempt to smooth over some conflicts and so forth...the problems from bigoted persecution of immigrants created a tiny percentage of the problems forcibly excluding people from becoming part of the majority did.
And anyway despite our problems we totally rock at assimilating (or integrating or whatever) immigrants. Shockingly the xenophobes were completely wrong.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:44:49 PM
Well the plan probably doesn't exist anymore. Now the same thing just continues because of PC-crazed inertia.
Do think the problem will just sort itself out? Surely a certain percentage of those immigrants are becoming Swedes at least to a functional extent.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
Sure the correct term would probably be something like xenophobia as it couldn't have been racism or said groups could never have assimilated. We certainly did want them to give up their "barbaric" customs though.
Well there was certainly alot of anxiety as immigrants were just let in without restriction and they poured in in huge numbers. But come on garbon there were hundreds of entire towns that consisted of nothing but one ethnic group practicing its culture and speaking its own language and everybody left them well enough alone.
I'm talking about places where people actually came into contact with immigrants not where they setup their own locations. I'm not sure why you're reacting as though this is some new thought. We've discussed this in the past before and I even brought up how in school they were teaching us about using a salad bowl metaphor over that of melting pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_(cultural_idea)
If I want a tossed salad I'll go to the local prison.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:52:55 PM
I'm talking about places where people actually came into contact with immigrants not where they setup their own locations. I'm not sure why you're reacting as though this is some new thought. We've discussed this in the past before and I even brought up how in school they were teaching us about using a salad bowl metaphor over that of melting pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_bowl_(cultural_idea)
Well for a really long time people came here for the free Indian-stolen land. So a huge majority set up their own settlements or moved to smallish communities. So why is addressing how most of the immigration went some sort of exception? The new idea here is there was some sort of concerted policy to forcefully assimilate people and that is just not the case. There were pressures and bigoted people and unfortunate incidents and so forth and there was alot of pressure to do things like make English the official language and all sorts of things. But ultimately we did not do those things. Ultimately assimilation was voluntary. And ultimately the concerted xenophobic policies that actually mattered are/were the ones that limit immigration and seek to make it more difficult. So I can see the salad bowl metaphor as an attempt to smooth over some conflicts and so forth...the problems from bigoted persecution of immigrants created a tiny percentage of the problems forcibly excluding people from becoming part of the majority did.
I don't think that's correct as far as everyone was just so happy to show up and lose their former customs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(immigration)
QuoteKellor, speaking for the NAC in 1916, proposed to combine efficiency and patriotism in her Americanization programs. It would be more efficient, she argued, once the factory workers could all understand English and therefore better understand orders and avoid accidents. Once Americanized, they would grasp American industrial ideals and be open to American influences and not subject only to strike agitators or foreign propagandists. The result, she argued would transform indifferent and ignorant residents into understanding voters, to make their homes into American homes, and to establish American standards of living throughout the ethnic communities. Ultimately, she argued it would "unite foreign-born and native alike in enthusiastic loyalty to our national ideals of liberty and justice.
QuoteAfter the 1970s proponents of multiculturalism have attacked Americanization programs as coercive and not respectful of immigrant culture. A major debate today is on whether speaking English is an essential component of being American.
QuoteThe French-speaking Cajuns of southern Louisiana were not immigrants—they arrived before the American Revolution in an isolated area that allowed little contact with other groups. The Cajuns were forcefully Anglicized in the 20th century. Children were punished in school for using French; they were called names like "swamp rat" and "bougalie", forced to write lines ("I will not speak French in school"), made to kneel on kernels of corn, and slapped with rulers. French was also banned as a medium of education in 1912. English also gained more prestige than Cajun French due to the spread of English-language movies, newspapers and radio into Acadiana. Wartime military service broke the crust of traditionalism for younger men, while automobiles and the highway system allowed easy movement to Anglo cities. Prosperity and consumer culture, and a host of other influences have effaced much of the linguistic and cultural uniqueness of the Cajuns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation_of_Native_Americans#Americanization_and_assimilation_.281857.E2.80.931920.29
http://hsp.org/sites/default/files/legacy_files/migrated/reading2.1.pdf
QuotePressure on immigrants to
assimilate was tremendous and extended to all areas of life including the
workplace. Sometimes immigrants were required to take English classes as part of
their job placement. Women were seen as the ones who would pass on American
culture to their families, so organizations established classes to teach women
American homemaking skills. For instance, cooking classes taught immigrant
women how to cook American style and promoted certain vegetables as "American"
while others were labeled "foreign"! Bilingual schools were looked down upon and
non-English language programs were viewed as un-American. Programs for children
included opportunities to play that taught them how to go grocery shopping,
American games and music, and took them on outings.
The immigrants themselves often resented the organized efforts at Americanization.
Their responses to the programs ranged from indifference to hostility. Italians in
general avoided programs that promised handouts because they were distrustful of
them. Such help had been uncommon in Italy. Italians relied on their families,
relatives, and the mutual aid societies to help the needy.
QuoteBy the 1930s through the 1950s, increasing concern about prejudices and tensions
among immigrant groups gave rise to the theory of cultural pluralism. This idea
promoted the view that diversity was good as long as it was not accompanied by
prejudice of one group toward another. The metaphor of the salad bowl replaced
the theory of the melting pot in which everyone was expected to assimilate. Many
people believed that ethnic identity would disappear over time. This has not
happened. We have seen how older immigrant groups as well as newer immigrants
can still place great value on their own cultural traditions while at the same time
embracing the United States as their adopted home.
And here's an article from the earlier 20th century about the difficulties at americanize immigrants and the best ways to make sure that they conform.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/1010522
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 04:14:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:44:49 PM
Well the plan probably doesn't exist anymore. Now the same thing just continues because of PC-crazed inertia.
Do think the problem will just sort itself out? Surely a certain percentage of those immigrants are becoming Swedes at least to a functional extent.
We keep adding more all the time, and any and all talk about assimilation is considered racist. Granted, what is Swedish is changing and is not the same thing now that it was in the 80s so hardcore Muslim views will certainly become more Swedish. For instance these days being hunted by murderers for drawing a cartoon is considered normal and many native Swedes think that the artist has himself to blame by making Muslims upset.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 04:17:21 PM
I don't think that's correct as far as everyone was just so happy to show up and lose their former customs.
Indeed that was exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I was saying for decades they spoke their own languages and lived in their own towns. It is kind of hilarious how stuck in time those communities were. Even to this day the idea of Germanness the German towns of Central Texas portray is very much a mid-19th century version. It was their grandchildren and great-grandchildren who moved on. Eventually living in the past loses its charm.
I want to point out that the stuff you were mentioning is 20th century stuff, did not last that long, was completely inneffective, and was not applied in huge areas of the country. I would agree that anything coercive is xenophobic but we have been without these things, legally anyway, for the majority of our history and it has nothing really to do with how effectively immigrants have assimilated.
I didn't say it did..but I think it would be a mistake to run roughshod over what happened to a lot of immigrants (especially those sticking to larger cities) and "natives."
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:41:10 PM
I didn't say it did..but I think it would be a mistake to run roughshod over what happened to a lot of immigrants (especially those sticking to larger cities) and "natives."
I agree there were many barriers--particularly when it came to employment and education--for immigrants, particularly fostered by municipal governments, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but assimilation was still radically easier in our society for both a willing immigrant population that wanted to come to the US and a Federal government willing to accept them and ensure their legal rights as citizens.
I'm not sure I buy the salad bowl thingy when it comes to US history of immigration. They melted like a fondue of cultural cheesy American goodness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 09:01:12 PM
I'm not sure I buy the salad bowl thingy when it comes to US history of immigration. They melted like a fondue of cultural cheesy American goodness.
Agreed. I think the salad bowl is problematic as it acts like we all remain separate. I think it is more like a fondue where everyone new brought in new flavors that mixed in.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 09:10:50 PM
Agreed. I think the salad bowl is problematic as it acts like we all remain separate. I think it is more like a fondue where everyone new brought in new flavors that mixed in.
Is this a great country, or what?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 09:19:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 09:10:50 PM
Agreed. I think the salad bowl is problematic as it acts like we all remain separate. I think it is more like a fondue where everyone new brought in new flavors that mixed in.
Is this a great country, or what?
It is pretty great. Now hopefully we can throw out faux-hope and change. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 09:19:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 09:10:50 PM
Agreed. I think the salad bowl is problematic as it acts like we all remain separate. I think it is more like a fondue where everyone new brought in new flavors that mixed in.
Is this a great country, or what?
It is pretty great. Now hopefully we can throw out faux-hope and change. :P
But the cheese at the top of the fondue is the best part. :(
Quote from: Faeelin on October 12, 2012, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 06:57:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 05:43:15 AM
people tend to forget that it achieved what no other European project has before - guaranteed peace in Europe for the last 60 years.
What's Yugoslavian for "Huh?" How many languages does that require?
Only one, now! :bash:
This isn't a bad prize, since I guess it's too late to give it to Monnet and Schuman. But I don't think you can just say that there's peace because of Nukes. India and Pakistan had nukes, after all.
They haven't fought a major war since they got nukes have they?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2012, 10:00:55 AM
They haven't fought a major war since they got nukes have they?
They deserve a peace prize.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
Why would there be a plan?
I thought commies like the Swedes were all about plans. Particularly five year ones.
Well there was indeed a plan. The plan was to let as many uneducated third worlders as possible into the country and get them dependent on government handouts, to ensure Socialist majority in parliament. As far as I can make out the plan pretty much ended there. And as plans go it was pretty neat, immigrants vote overwhelmingly Red. Obviously it was very destructive for the country and the people in it, natives and immigrants. That however was never seen as a problem.
It's the blues, not the reds, who are responsible for the immigration politics we have today.
At Lucia day 1989 The Social democrats stopped all asylum grants except to quota refugees we were bound by UN conventions to accept. Immigration went down. Google "Luciafördraget". Then the blues won the election in 1991, and self-proclaimed messiah Bengt Westerberg threatened to break up the parliamentary majority if the Lucia decision was not rolled back and the flood gates opened. Asylum seekers went from 27 000 in 1991 to 84 000 in 1992.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 11:16:37 AM
I don't see anybody calling the UK's policies in Northern Ireland as ethnic cleansing.
Because they weren't.
The horrendously bad response to the financial crisis should preclude the award (or at least change the timing of it to, say, 5 years ago). As someone on twitter joked, maybe the nobel is a parting gift.
Quote from: Count on October 14, 2012, 11:09:10 AM
The horrendously bad response to the financial crisis should preclude the award (or at least change the timing of it to, say, 5 years ago). As someone on twitter joked, maybe the nobel is a parting gift.
What should have been the correct response, in your opinion?
Bombing Poland
dette er for de som forstår nordiske språk
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/10/14/nyheter/thorbjorn_jagland/derrick/23867553/
Quote from: Pat on October 14, 2012, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2012, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
Why would there be a plan?
I thought commies like the Swedes were all about plans. Particularly five year ones.
Well there was indeed a plan. The plan was to let as many uneducated third worlders as possible into the country and get them dependent on government handouts, to ensure Socialist majority in parliament. As far as I can make out the plan pretty much ended there. And as plans go it was pretty neat, immigrants vote overwhelmingly Red. Obviously it was very destructive for the country and the people in it, natives and immigrants. That however was never seen as a problem.
It's the blues, not the reds, who are responsible for the immigration politics we have today.
At Lucia day 1989 The Social democrats stopped all asylum grants except to quota refugees we were bound by UN conventions to accept. Immigration went down. Google "Luciafördraget". Then the blues won the election in 1991, and self-proclaimed messiah Bengt Westerberg threatened to break up the parliamentary majority if the Lucia decision was not rolled back and the flood gates opened. Asylum seekers went from 27 000 in 1991 to 84 000 in 1992.
I don't think Bengt Westerberg did it to ensure Red parliaments.
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2012, 11:36:08 AM
dette er for de som forstår nordiske språk
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/10/14/nyheter/thorbjorn_jagland/derrick/23867553/
WTF? :lol:
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2012, 12:21:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2012, 11:36:08 AM
dette er for de som forstår nordiske språk
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/10/14/nyheter/thorbjorn_jagland/derrick/23867553/
WTF? :lol:
It's a downfall style subtitle rant with Derrick rather than Hitler bitching about Jagland giving the nobel prize to the EU.
I figured as much, but it always pains me when I see Derrick as it's one of the most dour boring crime shows ever.
Quote from: Martinus on October 12, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 07:04:51 AM
I've give the EU kudos for managing not to get into the usual generational British-French war, let Germany beat everybody up, or stuff all the continent's Jews into cattle cars, but that whole Balkans thing back in the 90's that nobody wanted to do anything about until the United States (once again) got involved (twice) really makes the concept of a Peace Prize fall a bit flat.
Then again, they gave it to a guy with a Kill List. So go fig.
Balkans are not part of the EU. :secret:
I'm pretty sure Slovenia is.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2012, 12:46:44 PM
I figured as much, but it always pains me when I see Derrick as it's one of the most dour boring crime shows ever.
There was a time when Derrick was the best thing on TV.
Quote from: Syt on October 14, 2012, 12:46:44 PM
I figured as much, but it always pains me when I see Derrick as it's one of the most dour yet legendary crime shows ever.
FYP
Pretty lively Derrick for a '90s episode in the sample :D