PeteEU
You said , "There are 25+ nations in Europe, all with different constitutions and rule sets".
Those are the Constitutions I was obviously referring to
We have a treaty (several technically) that have been amended over and over again.
Well there you go!!! And that's Europe in a nutshell! Not only can you not agree on anything, apart from anti Americanism, you can't even make it simple and understandable for the people it's designed, ostensibly, to serve.
The last amendment happened after the Constitution idea was given up. This amendment was needed since the EU had expanded to 25 since the last treaty was amended. I would have preferred a whole new treaty tbh... and no that does not mean I was for the Constitution idea.
Sure, Nobody knows what they want and can never agree on anything. This EU thing was simply a really bad idea. What we do know is that it wasn't one of those "power to the people" inspirations.
. LOL not it does not. Only difference is that it has two chambers some thing some European countries have given up, but not all. There is nothing that prevents the US for holding a referendum.
No, of course not, but it would be redundant. Why not, as a European, stick to things you know something about?
Have you ever picked up a history book about Asia? Let me start with some more recent history...The Chinese Cultural revolution from 1966 to 1976 cost 10s of millions of lives. Cambodia's killing fields, and of course Vietnam. That was just the last 40 years.
I've actually mentioned the Cultural Revolution many times, and of course the Left were enthralled by Chairman Mao and his Little Red Book, just as they are with Fidel Castro. But you seem to forget Communism was another insane European idea, which is exactly the point I'm making.
Before that we had the Chinese civil war, the Indian Partition, Japanese aggression across Asia, the Malaya conflict and so on. Then there was the Boxer uprising in China at the turn of the century. That is the last century.. add to that 4000+ years of recorded history and well..
Let's keep it to European history and compare, for our purposes here, the last 500 years. Asia might be close but Europe would would probably top the list.
What does this have to do with Asia?
We were questioning who has the bloodiest history, Europe or Asia. You say Asia, I say Europe.
It is obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of European politics since WW2.
And I'm not certain you do.
Of course it is different. Canada is just over 100 years old, with 2 countries bordering it. Europe has 3000+ years of history with many many countries with many borders that have shifted over time. But what does not change is that each country has internal issues like Quebec, or Catalonia, or Corsica, or Scotland. Add to that issues between the countries in Europe then of course it is "different", and yet it is the same.
Canada is 143 years old, and it's been settled even longer, but no matter. Let's take your 100 years. Now how many wars has Canada instigated in the last 100 years and how many wars have the Europeans instigated? Canada and the United States are certainly not "the same" as Europe. The people here, including my great grandparents, fled Europe because of the wars, lack of religious freedom, the 'class' system, poverty and, as well, the stifling social habits of the Europeans.
LOL revisionist history making. You came to Europe to defeat the Nazies. And you were all about leaving but then the cold war happened and it was seen as a good idea to have bases here.
It sure did. Otherwise there would be another hot war in Europe. And let's keep in mind the number of Europeans who protested those bases and held marches regularly, wanting the
Americans out. In fact at one time the Americans were going too leave Germany, at which point the Germans begged them to stay.
You did not "babysit" us out of the goodness of your heart, but of the fear of the Soviet Empire.
Why should we fear the Soviet Union? They were on the other side of the ocean. Do you really think Russia would have attacked the United States? There was no other reason than to protect the Europeans who obviously could not, and cannot, protect themselves.
We in Europe fixed our political and economic differences via agreements and treaties after WW2 and that lead to what we have today.. the EU.
And without regard for tomorrow. This is just the latest in a string of failed fiscal and social experiments Europe has attempted.
No Canadian or US meddling happened, at least on a major scale.. only one I can come to think of was the CIA's rigging of the Italian and Greek elections so that the communists would not gain power.
And i assume you believe that to be a bad thing.
And you can of course give examples of "going down the tubes" right? Remember we have 50 countries in Europe.
It doesn't matter. Your mutual futures are assured. That's why so many thousands are leaving every years.
Easy to get along with one person when you have no choice but to agree with them. And Danish and Canadian relationships are not that good after you lot tried to steal Danish land.
Canada tried to steal Danish land? Well I hope for their sake they don't try to go to war with us. They've got their hands full with the Muslims. But they recently gave a prestigious award to a Canadian (Mark Steyn) anyway, so i assume you're exaggerating the situation again.
It is an idiotic hail marry attempt to salvage a loosing debate by putting into the frame a topic that you know that you cant loose on.
I'll win in any case, Pete.
US of course. Was a big Reagan fan. He was the right man at the right time to stand up to the Soviets. That I dont agree with some of the US methods does not mean I dont support the idea they set forward. After all it is that idea that makes it possible for me to disagree with their methods.
And yet those methods won. He was right and the Eurolefties were wrong, wrong, and wrong again. As usual.
TV: CNN, Sky News, Fox News, BBC News, France 24, Russia Today (totally biased like Fox btw), Al Jazzera, Euronews and local news reports.
Newspaper: Local danish newspapers, International Herald Tribune, other newspapers you never heard off.
Radio: Local radio, BBC World Service, VOA.
So your biggest beef with Fox is for a false story they didn't create while I can point out false stories the BBC DID create. Yet you will still give the BBC greater credibility than Fox? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Should never have been aired. Their biased nature meant that the story validated their views on the subject so they went with it without confirmation. And it is not the first time I might add.
They agree it should never have aired as the story wasn't true, or at least only partly true. But Fox weren't the only one to report this story and, again, they did not create it. The BBC, on the other hand, and as is well known, creates false stories. BBC bias is infamous, and the reason why so many Brits susceptible to propaganda still buy into it. It has helped create a generation of leftwing nitwits.
Well. They have token non conservatives that usual get badgered into silence by the other guests and/or news anchors. Only time any one from the non right wing gets a word in (and only barely) is if it is a non right wing person is a big wig of some sort.
And it is difficult for any Leftwingers to defend their position. That's why they prefer to appear on left wing media, where their BS is accepted without serious question.