> BiefstukFriet wrote:

> I am a continental western European, and I can say that the EU is and always has been a economical entity first and foremost. All this newfangled political schemes are only ment for the creation of a more streamlined economy. The social aspects of the EU are the pasttime activities of bored Eurocrats.

Let's also not forget that those EU ideologies are very much tempered by the national politics of the member states.>>
Hmm, well it still seems that the western Europeans are ideologues, at least the member states are. Maybe the EU has schemes to increase its "federation power," but due to the fact that the member states have a save the world attitude and actually commit to it (like sending aid to Africa when it is detrimental to their own long-term interests), I suspect a great deal of idealism.

> TheYell wrote:

> You'd be suprised at the reach of peripheries under that scheme!>>

Yes, and so would ours. Japan, South America, some places in the Middle East. They'd be our toys!

And Eastern Europe would be Russia's toys. And it would scare the Western Europeans too, that's all ways a good thing to have them scared. When they are occupied with fear, they don't have time to pursue their save the world foreign policy.

Edit: To what you said.

Yes, they can keep their noses out of South America. I realize they have been mingling in South American affairs and doing things to undermine us, but we have been doing the same. There needs to be a formal policy of respect toward each other's peripheral areas, and an end to this indirect proxy war.

> Matrix wrote:

> if Georgia really did attack the baracks of the russian peacekeeping force in that area then they had this coming....

btw i wonder why every contry is dening South Ossetia independence... i really fail to see a difference to Kosov...
are they better people as Osseties?>>
Because supporting regional independence can be a double edged sword.

And a maple leaf in the center of their flag!

France and Britain were dumb for declaring war on Germany for invading the Danzig, as they had historical claim to it from the not so distant past. If I lead either country, I would have let them smash Poland and not be afraid of them at all. I would be more afraid of the USSR, and use Germany as a buffer and counter balancing force to Stalin's power (after all, they hated each other and Stalin also invaded Poland).

The Brits and French knew nothing of realpolitik, or anything regarding pragmatic politics to begin with. In fact, they still act like a bunch of ideologues. Not that America does any better, sadly.

DPS,

Did Britain or did Britain not board US merchant vessels and encourage bordering Native Americans to skirmish US territory?

> Phoenix Mailer wrote:

> it is funny how when talking about taxes people often concentrate on money being taken from them part whereas most crucial is the other part , namely, how the money collected are being spent.

government can abandon taxes alltogether and simply print the money needed from thin air (in this way everyone is taxed via inflation). So you see taxes are optional instrument. The real problem is when money are spent inefficiently (indifferent of collected or out of thin air money)

Yes, and in America money is spent inefficiently to the point of it being absurd. That was one thing I was mentioning in this thread. The US needs to spend its money more efficiently, and if it did taxes could be dramatically reduced.

Alan,

Dude, our tax system is all ready more regressive than the flat tax I proposed.

In 1812, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Great Britain were in conflict with the French Empire. The conflict resulted with a mutual embargo between France and its continental allies and subjects, Napoleon hoped to crush Britain by denying it from having consumers to sell their products to. The mutual embargo disrupted trade for the US, as merchant vessels headed to France were boarded by British warships (the British at the time had a monopoly on sea power). This created diplomatic tensions, and the US seeing a political opportunity to reduce British power and increase its own, invaded the Canadian territory of the British Empire. One important seige was in Quebec, where the US hoped to weaken British power by liberating the French there. Unfortunately for the US, the military expedition was expelled from Canada, and in response the British decided to invade the US again, beginning with the burning of Washington D.C. As the war continued Britain found itself unable to gain a decisive strategic victory against the US, because it was also expending a tremendous amount of resources to fight Napoleon. The resulting stalemate was eventually brought to a white peace agreement, but because of poor communication at the time there were still some battles and skirmishes. One famous battle that happened despite the peace agreement was at New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson's vastly outnumbered and out armed forces delivered a crushing victory against the advancing British army.

A few more things about France before I go to bed.

1. We have France to thank for saving the west (yes, all of western civilization) from assimilation from evil Muslim hordes, and keeping them limited to most of Spain. If it wasn't for France, we might all be Muslim today.

2. Only until recently was the area consisting of the Kingdom of France anything resembling "French." The French were limited to the area near Paris and central France, while the rest of France consisted of vassal states of very different languages and ethnic backgrounds such as Burgundy, Brittany, and Normandy. During the French Revolution, in fact, many of the different ethnicities in France revolted partly for reasons dealing with the terror, and also for Nationalism. One city in the south of France even opened its ports to Great Britain, that was until artillery sergeant Napoleon came up with a grand idea of how to force the English fleet to retreat and then take the city.

Vietnam is in Asia, nearby Cambodia, China, Thailand, and Laos. It has also been a contested territory in history, with the Chinese repeatably invading it. And France ofc.

Edit: forgot to mention Laos and the Hmong!!!

BW,

I actually do not mind university professors in principle, on the condition that their work and discipline is backed by evidence or experience. That is why I have a lot of esteem for the hard scientists - their study is supported and more importantly useful. But when we enter disciplines like Psychology, it becomes more difficult to say yes or no. Behaviorism, as first practiced by Skinner, was backed by evidence and it managed to develop solutions to behavioral problems like excessive fears (phobias) or in understanding our learning. On the other hand, detractors to Behaviorist Psychology do not bother to use evidence, or it's weak, and they moreover really aren't that helpful. A few good examples are the Humanists and Neo-Freudians.

Then there are the liberal arts. On personal bias, I like some philosophy such as Analytic Philosophy and have a very negative view of Continental Philosophy (continental as in Western Europe with the exclusion of Great Britain where Analytic Philosophy is popular and owes its origins). AP holds that truth can be discovered, aims to write clearly so people can understand, and AP moreover carefully uses logic and evidence to test and support its philosophical conclusions. CP, on the other hand, will write without evidence, use inappropriately advanced and obscure language to sound profound, and labels AP arrogant for giving less than deserved tribute to past great thinkers by testing the truth of what they say instead. Lol, silly Europeans. As for the other disciplines part of the Liberal Arts curriculum in the US (not to bash the classical definition of Liberal Arts), like multicultural studies, post-modernism, women studies, and political science, the focus is really on the normative (what ought to be) rather than how things are and using evidence to support those conclusions. However, there is one school of thought in political science that is both practical and supported by evidence, and that is real politik. But then, most academic circles in the US and Europe bash real politik by calling it immoral and giving it undeserved criticism. Anyhow bw, you should check out real politik, you might like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_politik