How would Europe feel if we shut down all our military bases and removed US troops?

[dystopian]

Floods is a correct term so it is hardly fear mongering to report what is actually happening.

Thank you for just declaring it's the correct term without any justification. Real helpful.

If their transport moved faster we could call it a stampede. Nearly 800,000 flooding into Germany (sorry "arriving" in Germany) in a year is hardly something not to be worried about.

Germany doesn't seem to be worried. In fact, they're welcoming them with open arms; as you should know if you'd paid attention to the news.

Next year the figure will be more.

There's no evidence of that. Even if true, it certainly doesn't represent the new norm, as the causes behind these current spikes are not systematic but temporary.

All this talk of "floods" and "stampedes" and "swarms", is the kind of xenophobia one really only sees in the UK political scene/media and eastern Europe in any significant degree. Ironically, it is these places that take in some of the fewest numbers of refugees. The UK government has said it wouldn't even accept a 1000 Syrian refugees... a number that is utterly insignificant given the UK's size and which really invalidates their complaints. They're bitching over absolutely nothing, while Germany, with those 800,000 asylum seekers being accepted, shows itself to have actual empathy and reality-sense. If Germany can take in almost a million and do so with open arms, then the UK and these other cold-hearted xenophobic countries can take in their own fair share.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Thank you for just declaring it's the correct term without any justification. Real helpful.

If their transport moved faster we could call it a stampede. Nearly 800,000 flooding into Germany (sorry "arriving" in Germany) in a year is hardly something not to be worried about.

Germany doesn't seem to be worried. In fact, they're welcoming them with open arms; as you should know if you'd paid attention to the news.

Next year the figure will be more.

There's no evidence of that. Even if true, it certainly doesn't represent the new norm, as the causes behind these current spikes are not systematic but temporary.

All this talk of "floods" and "stampedes" and "swarms", is the kind of xenophobia one really only sees in the UK political scene/media and eastern Europe in any significant degree. Ironically, it is these places that take in some of the fewest numbers of refugees. The UK government has said it wouldn't even accept a 1000 Syrian refugees... a number that is utterly insignificant given the UK's size and which really invalidates their complaints. They're bitching over absolutely nothing, while Germany, with those 800,000 asylum seekers being accepted, shows itself to have actual empathy and reality-sense. If Germany can take in almost a million and do so with open arms, then the UK and these other cold-hearted xenophobic countries can take in their own fair share.

Since floods are the correct term by way of comparison, there is no fear mongering since this is a matter of fact.
You have a good knowledge of international affairs why would you take the UK’s posturing seriously when it comes to caps on how many come in. The amounts the government purported to accept in the past and the amount that actually came in are two different things. The reality is we no longer have control over our borders since we are dictated to by Eu policy and all Cameron can do is provide placebos not remedies.

It would be nice to take in millions but we don’t live in an ideal world and we have to face economics. In Britain we are not even looking after our own properly. ‘Own’ means any British person of any ethnic background.

European nations are perceived as a soft touch and no one knows it better than the human traffickers who also sell dreams to the very people they fleece. Some die when the boats tip over.
More and more people wish to go to Europe and for the moment and who can blame them but where does the money come from?

Who is welcoming those into Germany, the German people or the German government?

 

[dystopian]

Since floods are the correct term by way of comparison, there is no fear mongering since this is a matter of fact.

Ah yes, the old "this is the correct term because I say so and also that it's exactly like this other thing and that that's a fact!"

You have a good knowledge of international affairs why would you take the UK’s posturing seriously when it comes to caps on how many come in. The amounts the government purported to accept in the past and the amount that actually came in are two different things.

Oh okay, I guess I'll just stop listening to people from England entirely then?

The reality is we no longer have control over our borders since we are dictated to by Eu policy and all Cameron can do is provide placebos not remedies.

Wow, that referendum propaganda has really got you going, hasn't it?

European nations are perceived as a soft touch and no one knows it better than the human traffickers who also sell dreams to the very people they fleece. Some die when the boats tip over.

And your solution to stop people from dying is... what, exactly? Keep the borders closed and pretend all those people who are dying because of it are just fictions?

More and more people wish to go to Europe and for the moment and who can blame them but where does the money come from?

Ah yes, money. We're the richest region on the planet and can quite easily provide the basic means for these people to survive... but then maybe you'd have to pay a few pounds more in taxes and then you'll have to give up your dream of buying the expensive pickles instead of the generic brand. Can't have that.

Who is welcoming those into Germany, the German people or the German government?

Both, actually; but nice attempt to try and turn it into a binary proposition. The German government has been quite open to asylum requests and has been very vocal about Europe's moral duty in helping. And polls by ZDF show that an increasing majority of the German people support these efforts and feel that Germany is able to absorb the large numbers of migrants. There have been large grassroots organizations of German citizens helping out, opening up their homes, bringing in so much donated food, clothes, and other items that authorities can't even cope with the volume.

It's almost as if the German people have seen the ugly side of xenophobia and decided to try something different. Couldn't be though, could it?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

If the EU kicked out or if the U.S. left on its own, it would only be a matter of time before Europe began foisting its horrors on the world again. Only under the protection of the U.S. has Europe managed to not erupt into the most violent, murderous place on the planet---and it hasn't been able to export those horrors either.

Oh look, someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

History speaks for itself. Now get to it. You obviously have a lot of reading to do.

Ignorance of the past is very unbecoming.

 

[dystopian]

History speaks for itself. Now get to it. You obviously have a lot of reading to do.

Ignorance of the past is very unbecoming.

Irony is an alien concept to you, isn't it?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

History speaks for itself. Now get to it. You obviously have a lot of reading to do.

Ignorance of the past is very unbecoming.

Irony is an alien concept to you, isn't it?

Look, being a smartass isn't an argument. You either provide some kind of proof that Europe wouldn't break the fuck down without the protection of military might or shut up. History doesn't lie. You're already crying about how the U.S. needs to stay to protect you from Putin. So if the U.S. left, you already seem to know how fast western Europe would crumble. Only an idiot doesn't realize how familiar that sounds.

The whole planet has been blistered enough by European diplomacy. Be honest and acknowledge that Europe can't handle it's own shit without the U.S. watching over it. Actually, you've already admitted it.

Do you know that history didn't begin in say, 1975 or so?

 

[fromderinside]

uh, one who considers you wet behind the ears and who is old enough to know from whence that phrase arose. My great grandfather who remained close to his German ancestors explained it by showing it to me during calving season. I was six.

 

[dystopian]

Irony is an alien concept to you, isn't it?

Look, being a smartass isn't an argument. You either provide some kind of proof that Europe wouldn't break the fuck down without the protection of military might or shut up.

Wow. I'm still thinking you lack the irony gene altogether. It's like you don't understand that the sentence you utter is immediately contradicted by the very next sentence.

History doesn't lie. You're already crying about how the U.S. needs to stay to protect you from Putin. So if the U.S. left, you already seem to know how fast western Europe would crumble.

Actually no, at no point did I say that. Europe is more than capable of defending itself from Putin on its own. Not only do we easily outspend Russia, the combined army of the EU member states is bigger than any army in the world.

What I *did* say was that the US has an obligation (by law) to help maintain European security; and that we would like them to stay because while it is true that Europe has a large and advanced enough military to protect itself, it's also true that *two* large and advanced militaries working together is even better. I would imagine this fact to be rather obvious.

The whole planet has been blistered enough by European diplomacy.

What does this even mean? Like, seriously, what specific acts of European diplomacy are you even referring to? Or do you just want to rant and rave in general?

Be honest and acknowledge that Europe can't handle it's own shit without the U.S. watching over it.

Again, are you just seriously out of touch or do you genuinely believe that the richest continent in the world, the birthplace of democracy, science, secularism, and just about anything else you hold dear, a region with the highest standard of living in the world, can't take care of itself as well as a country that appears constantly on the verge of ripping itself apart between two political extremes that actually look pretty much identical to the rest of the planet? Because I got to say man, that's some crazy shit you've got going on in that noggin'.

Actually, you've already admitted it.

Yeah, I guess. Except for how I didn't.

Do you know that history didn't begin in say, 1975 or so?

Oh, I actually understand European history yes, as well as the fact that it stretches back quite a while. Now if you would kindly explain exactly why you're laboring under the delusion that the only reason Europe isn't crumbling/fucking up the world (I'm not sure how we can do both at the same time, but I guess that's what I get for trying to understand crazy people's ramblings) is because of the US; given that in actuality it is thanks to NATO (an organization that was initiated by European countries and which the US is a part of because it suits your own geopolitical interests so I don't see any particularly reason to credit you with being our "salvation") and the EU and it's predecessor forms (which can be traced back to 1948).

Oh, don't tell me, you're jerking off over that borderline token effort you delivered in the world wars, convinced by nationalist fervor that you did the brunt of the work when you just came in riding on the successes of other countries, and now you think we should be eternally grateful to you and grovel in the dirt? Well, if you get to do that, I get to take credit for the fact that you even exist; which then lets me take credit for any help you've given us over the years as well.

Look, Europe and the US are allies, you've done your share to help us, but you don't get to take the credit for the whole of European peace, unity and success. And you've done your share to try and fuck things up for us in the interest of enriching and empowering yourselves too, don't think we're just ignoring that. And if you think we'd all turn into a bunch of bloodthirsty savages if the US didn't exist, you *really* don't understand the modern European mindset.

Now maybe if you're going to calm down we could rationally discuss the pros and cons of a US withdrawal and its effect on Europe...

...or you could pull out your dick and pretend it's about five times its actual size again. Up to you man.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who knows their history should be calling for the EU to get back to running the USA as a colony.

The last time a European colonial power left them to govern themselves, the place disintegrated in less than a century, and collapsed into one of the bloodiest civil wars in history. Clearly they can't govern themselves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You fantasies about the acceptability of theft aren't reality.

You only care about some theft. The smaller part.

You are redefining theft.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.

Mahatma Gandhi

 

[untermensche]

You only care about some theft. The smaller part.

You are redefining theft.

No, capitalists have simply deemed their theft acceptable.

And like all true believers you don't question the dogma.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You have a very short attention span.

All that property was paid for with Cuban labor that had been exploited for decades.

The businessman actually got off easy. They owed workers a lot more.

Basically all you're saying is that if US business interests exploit some workers and profit from it they must have the right to exploit workers forever.

Your position is the position of the despot. The position of the imperialist.

You fantasies about the acceptability of theft aren't reality.

Doesn't matter. You implied that the U.S. attacked those countries because they had aligned themselves with the Soviet Bloc.

That's just not true. Those countries aligned with the Soviets because the U.S. was trying to overthrow their leaders and/or bomb the shit out of them. There were lots of reasons why the United States tried to do this so many times, and the administrations and military planners at the time certainly thought those reasons were legitimate (most of which were bullshit). But the point here is, Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Unions was almost entirely a reaction to U.S. hostility; North Vietnam's acceptance of aid from the Soviets via China was an "enemy of my enemy" desperation move. Even our enmity towards China has very little to do with their relationship with the Soviets (they were competitors AT BEST) and more to do with the fact that Mao Zedong overthrew our favorite dictator and exiled his followers to Taiwan. And us, being the sore-looser assholes that we are, have continued to make that an issue ever since.

 

[Jayjay]

You only care about some theft. The smaller part.

You are redefining theft.

No, you are.

It's not "theft" if it is not illegal in a given country. Not any more than government taxing American companies and people is "theft", or taking their land and houses via eminent domain is "theft".

You are only calling it theft, because you want to associate nationalization of foreign-owned assets is something you think is bad (which it very well may be, but for practical reasons rather than moral).

 

[Axulus]

You are redefining theft.

No, you are.

It's not "theft" if it is not illegal in a given country. Not any more than government taxing American companies and people is "theft", or taking their land and houses via eminent domain is "theft".

You are only calling it theft, because you want to associate nationalization of foreign-owned assets is something you think is bad (which it very well may be, but for practical reasons rather than moral).

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

It sounds like he is using the common usage of the term. The Cuban government took another person's (or group of people's) property without their consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owners of it.

 

[Togo]

No, you are.

It's not "theft" if it is not illegal in a given country. Not any more than government taxing American companies and people is "theft", or taking their land and houses via eminent domain is "theft".

You are only calling it theft, because you want to associate nationalization of foreign-owned assets is something you think is bad (which it very well may be, but for practical reasons rather than moral).

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

It sounds like he is using the common usage of the term. The Cuban government took another person's (or group of people's) property without their consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owners of it.

In other words, nationalisation is theft because it's not 'rightful'? That's not terminology, that's just labelling as theft any property transfer you don't like. By that logic any kind of fine, or asset seizure is theft, including for bankruptcy or debt, as is deliberately paying low wages. Just because it's not 'rightful'. Workers consent to mistreatment and starvation wages in the same way that businesses consent to being under the jurisdiction of Cuban law.

 

[barbos]

Cuban nationalization of US tied private properties can be justified by the fact that property owners were closely tied with previous regime and actually financed counter-Maidan revolution. Yanukovich Batista was pretty corrupted SOB. US administration should have cracked down on business attempts to help Batista and accept Cuban Maidan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are redefining theft.

No, capitalists have simply deemed their theft acceptable.

And like all true believers you don't question the dogma.

Except you haven't shown they are stealing anything. A voluntary exchange is not theft.

- - - Updated - - -

You fantasies about the acceptability of theft aren't reality.

Doesn't matter. You implied that the U.S. attacked those countries because they had aligned themselves with the Soviet Bloc.

That's just not true. Those countries aligned with the Soviets because the U.S. was trying to overthrow their leaders and/or bomb the shit out of them. There were lots of reasons why the United States tried to do this so many times, and the administrations and military planners at the time certainly thought those reasons were legitimate (most of which were bullshit). But the point here is, Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Unions was almost entirely a reaction to U.S. hostility; North Vietnam's acceptance of aid from the Soviets via China was an "enemy of my enemy" desperation move. Even our enmity towards China has very little to do with their relationship with the Soviets (they were competitors AT BEST) and more to do with the fact that Mao Zedong overthrew our favorite dictator and exiled his followers to Taiwan. And us, being the sore-looser assholes that we are, have continued to make that an issue ever since.

You're missing the fact that most every leftist revolution in that era had Moscow as a silent partner long before they ever came to power.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are.

It's not "theft" if it is not illegal in a given country. Not any more than government taxing American companies and people is "theft", or taking their land and houses via eminent domain is "theft".

You are only calling it theft, because you want to associate nationalization of foreign-owned assets is something you think is bad (which it very well may be, but for practical reasons rather than moral).

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

It sounds like he is using the common usage of the term. The Cuban government took another person's (or group of people's) property without their consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owners of it.

Exactly--I'm using the common meaning as nationalization is simply redefining theft as legal. Thus the legal definition in this case means nothing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, nationalisation is theft because it's not 'rightful'? That's not terminology, that's just labelling as theft any property transfer you don't like. By that logic any kind of fine, or asset seizure is theft, including for bankruptcy or debt, as is deliberately paying low wages. Just because it's not 'rightful'. Workers consent to mistreatment and starvation wages in the same way that businesses consent to being under the jurisdiction of Cuban law.

Nationalization is theft because it's theft. Redefining it as not theft doesn't make it so.

 

[Axulus]

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

It sounds like he is using the common usage of the term. The Cuban government took another person's (or group of people's) property without their consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owners of it.

In other words, nationalisation is theft because it's not 'rightful'? That's not terminology, that's just labelling as theft any property transfer you don't like. By that logic any kind of fine, or asset seizure is theft, including for bankruptcy or debt, as is deliberately paying low wages. Just because it's not 'rightful'. Workers consent to mistreatment and starvation wages in the same way that businesses consent to being under the jurisdiction of Cuban law.

You've ever heard of a concept called "due process"?

- - - Updated - - -

Cuban nationalization of US tied private properties can be justified by the fact that property owners were closely tied with previous regime and actually financed counter-Maidan revolution. Yanukovich Batista was pretty corrupted SOB. US administration should have cracked down on business attempts to help Batista and accept Cuban Maidan.

You ever hear of a concept called "due process"?