A step in the right direction.

I don''t live in Europe, and only have the murkiest grasp on EU politics, but I just don''t see that happening. Blair alienated quite a bit of Europe by helping us with the war, and just the idea of Bush wanting to create the position and install Blair in it just doesn''t sit right. I think many people will think we''re meddling in European affairs.

"Kriegshund" wrote:

I don''t live in Europe, and only have the murkiest grasp on EU politics, but I just don''t see that happening. Blair alienated quite a bit of Europe by helping us with the war, and just the idea of Bush wanting to create the position and install Blair in it just doesn''t sit right. I think many people will think we''re meddling in European affairs.

Not the governments. More EU governments were with us than France.

Oh is this going to be a bitter and messy campaign...

Not the governments. More EU governments were with us than France.

That''s what they said on MSNBC, hm? Out of the 8 European countries who made the Pro-Bush statement a while ago, only 5 were members of the EU. 5 out of 15 doesn''t look like a majority. EU doesn''t include every European country, most of the Eastern countries have yet to be integrated.

And don''t count the Netherlands in, although we gave our ''political'' support there hasn''t been any practical support whatsoever.

"Koesj" wrote:

And don''t count the Netherlands in, although we gave our ''political'' support there hasn''t been any practical support whatsoever.

What pratical support could any country in Europe outside of the UK give? None of you spend enough money on a military, even if you wanted to help, you cannot.

Frankly, I''d have a good chuckle if the EU told the US to piss off.

""Hi! We''re America, and we have some ideas about how you should run a government ... it''s kind of our thing.""

""Piss Off!""

/Elysium chuckles.

"Elysium" wrote:

Frankly, I''d have a good chuckle if the EU told the US to piss off.

""Hi! We''re America, and we have some ideas about how you should run a government ... it''s kind of our thing.""

""Piss Off!""

/Elysium chuckles.

The EU is doing this all by its self. Bush is just supporting Blair in his bid to be the President of Europe.

What pratical support could any country in Europe outside of the UK give? None of you spend enough money on a military, even if you wanted to help, you cannot.

It seems that you associate every instance of ''helping'' a country with the use of force, I''m not _only_ talking about Iraq here ya know Humanitarian aid, helping with nation-building and relieving countries of their debt are all fine examples of helping without the situation necessarily deteriorating into conflict.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Bush is just supporting Blair in his bid to be the President of Europe.

Just like Blair is supporting Bush in becoming the President of the Middle East?

Honestly, I thought you were one of the ones downplaying the importance of the EU. Now that the Cabal can get control of it, it all of a sudden becomes important, eh?

"Koesj" wrote:
What pratical support could any country in Europe outside of the UK give? None of you spend enough money on a military, even if you wanted to help, you cannot.

It seems that you associate every instance of ''helping'' a country with the use of force, I''m not _only_ talking about Iraq here ya know Humanitarian aid, helping with nation-building and relieving countries of their debt are all fine examples of helping without the situation necessarily deteriorating into conflict.

I''m pratical. Are you saying countries are so selfish that they won''t give humanitarian aid, helping with debt and other things? If so, Europe has a big problem.

Who in their right mind is going to turn down helping the Iraqi people because they were against the war? That just shows how wrong people are.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Koesj" wrote:
What pratical support could any country in Europe outside of the UK give? None of you spend enough money on a military, even if you wanted to help, you cannot.

It seems that you associate every instance of ''helping'' a country with the use of force, I''m not _only_ talking about Iraq here ya know Humanitarian aid, helping with nation-building and relieving countries of their debt are all fine examples of helping without the situation necessarily deteriorating into conflict.

I''m pratical. Are you saying countries are so selfish that they won''t give humanitarian aid, helping with debt and other things? If so, Europe has a big problem.

Who in their right mind is going to turn down helping the Iraqi people because they were against the war? That just shows how wrong people are.

Noone said they wouldn''t. He was replying to your post that most of Europe couldn''t ""help"". Which he said there were several ways someone could help besides militarily. You then jumped to a topic that wasn''t being discussed, saying how messed up most of Europe is for trying to withhold aid. Strawman

haha yeah an EU president. I remember how upset especially the brits where when Fischer suggested that the EU should have a foreign minister. And now they want an EU president? That doesn''t add up.
Second a central government for the EU is still at least 20-30 years off.
Third, it is very unlikely with the current british role in the EU that Blair would become the first EU president.
Also I wonder what the US has to do with inner EU affairs? Bush should better take care of his internal affairs than messing with ours.

Ulairi: Your statement is quite off the mark. Almost all EU countries offered humanitary aid. Plus its the majority of the EU that is currently sitting in Bosnia and Afghanistan for peace keeping not the US. The facts prove your statement false.
Other than that Pyroman summed it up quite nicely.

I''d also find it amusing since the country Blair is representing is the one of those that didn''t want to join the €-zone so far.

Thank you Pyroman, now I don''t have to re-explain the point that Ulairi seemed to have deliberately missed for the sake of instigating another conflict Please don''t make assumptions based on things that were never said in this forum. If you would like to point out that Europe has problems, fine, just don''t base your opinion off of misinterpretations.

"Koesj" wrote:

Thank you Pyroman, now I don''t have to re-explain the point that Ulairi seemed to have deliberately missed for the sake of instigating another conflict Please don''t make assumptions based on things that were never said in this forum. If you would like to point out that Europe has problems, fine, just don''t base your opinion off of misinterpretations.

You were missing the point of what I was saying.

Ulairi: Your statement is quite off the mark. Almost all EU countries offered humanitary aid. Plus its the majority of the EU that is currently sitting in Bosnia and Afghanistan for peace keeping not the US. The facts prove your statement false.
Other than that Pyroman summed it up quite nicely.

My point was that no one would not contribute to the humanitarian aid. No one. So, if the United States goes in and does it with a few countrys after the ""war"" countries will donate and help with aid. That''s what good people do. I was being a little tounge-in-cheek about Europe not doing it.

I was quite surprised by this statement as normally Britains Labour Government (and every Conservative Government since Thatcher took office) has been pretty strongly against European Central Government. The strongest example of that was Britain being one of the few EU nations not to commit to the single European Currency.