Several have said that they fear wars starting in Europe if the EU breaks up. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15034335
These are my thoughts on wars breaking out in Europe.
As a student of military history I have a lot of knowledge of the history of wars. As an American I have no expert knowledge about the details of the current culture in Europe.

However, I don’t fear wars in Europe, because —
1] Who has benefited from starting a war since 1850; yes, 1850? Since 1850 the nation who started a war has almost always lost it. It has been worse since 2000. So, what national leader would go against this trend to start an unnecessary war?
2] Since 1945 the world has had “The Nuclear Pax {peace}”. Two nations in Europe have nuclear weapons and will use them to avoid being destroyed. The UN frowns on nations that invade their neighbors. Wars are bad for business unless the business is an arms maker. Germany can’t sell its cars into either nation that is at war.
3] It is very much in the interest of the larger nations as a group to make sure that no nation starts a war and benefits from it. It is so nice to have the “General Peace” [whatever its cause is] that the larger nations should not let the idea get going that invading your neighbors to steal some of their territory or stuff is a winning plan.
4] Yes, many think that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 to steal its oil. But, that didn’t work out so well, did it? It is my non-expert opinion that buying the oil would have cost less than trying to steal it.
5] WWI and WWII demonstrated that modern wars consume ammo and ammo like weapons {tanks, planes, etc} so fast that it is not possible to steal enough after you win to repay the bills you ran it during the war. This is totally different from war before 1800. Then wars didn’t consume stuff for the most part. Mostly the stuff was laying around in good shape on the battlefield after the battle was over.
. . . Also, Iraq shows us another problem with wars to steal stuff in modern times. This is that the IED is cheap and makes it hard to occupy a nation after you win the battles of the invasion. If the occupying nation goes to mass executions to put down the resistance that is using the IEDs then that looks like war crimes and likely will result in the US coming to set things “right”. Or so it seems to me.

So, I conclude that going to war in Europe is a dumb idea and that the leaders of all the nations know that. So, this is just brought up to scare people with a threat that is impossible to actually see happen. Feel free to show me how I’m wrong about this.

PS . If the Troubles in N. Ireland start up again, so what? The number of UK citizens who die now per year for lack of timely, sufficient medical care due to austerity is far higher than the body count of the worst year of the old Troubles. It may even be lower per capita than the body count from mass shootings in America. America is totally willing to live with that body count to be able to keep their AR-15s and AK-47s, etc.
. . . I'm not saying it doesn't matter; I'm saying that austerity is killing more now, so it is a trade off. And this is assuming that the Troubles start over at about the same intensity as before. And, this is not a sure thing, but the deaths from austerity are going on now. Not to mention suicides in nations like Greece and Spain.
.
#15034560
What, politicians are all "military historians" now ? :lol:

The EU shows signs of breaking up, sure. Like with Brexit, even if Brexit might not actually happen.

However, the NATO doesnt.

And the wars I know from around 1850 are the civil war in the USA, and the war between Germany and France. Indeed France technically declared it and lost it, however Bismarck might have encouraged this in order to progress his own agenda.

That WW1 was declared by Germany was a pure technicality though. All nations had already stopped using any diplomacy and asked their military to take over and start the war machine. War was imminent and if the german king wouldnt have been so quick to officially declare it, any other nation would have declared it.

And I dont believe for a second that wars have ever been financed by the remains that could be found on the battlefield. Thats absurd even in a mediveal setting. The spoils of war are of course the resources you conquered, not the meager and partially destroyed remains of the battles.

Wars have become more expensive, thats true. Also the majority of victims of wars are nowadays civilians, not warriors.

The very point of wars nowadays is often the spending of money. President Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex for a reason. For even if the USA loses a war, they still have justified their outrageous spending on the military once again. This spending has been an constant of the USA since WW2.
#15034574
Steve_American wrote:So, what national leader would go against this trend to start an unnecessary war?

Maybe someone whose history class was light on facts and heavy on political ideology and "wokeness"?

Steve_American wrote:The UN frowns on nations that invade their neighbors.

So?

Steve_American wrote:Wars are bad for business unless the business is an arms maker.

In a deflationary environment, war is good for correcting an oversupply of product.

Steve_American wrote:It is so nice to have the “General Peace” [whatever its cause is] that the larger nations should not let the idea get going that invading your neighbors to steal some of their territory or stuff is a winning plan.

Its cause has mostly been American hegemony among Western nations in the post-WWII era. Opening the markets of former colonies to all former colonialist powers mean that competition was between private companies, not nation states. The US Navy generally provided that service.

Steve_American wrote:Yes, many think that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 to steal its oil.

That doesn't make it so.

Steve_American wrote:So, I conclude that going to war in Europe is a dumb idea and that the leaders of all the nations know that.

Becoming a heroin addict is a dumb idea, and almost all heroin addicts with few exceptions new that beforehand. Yet, we have an epidemic of heroin addicts. Knowing something is stupid doesn't prevent people from doing something stupid.

Steve_American wrote:Feel free to show me how I’m wrong about this.

Done.

Steve_American wrote:The number of UK citizens who die now per year for lack of timely, sufficient medical care due to austerity is far higher than the body count of the worst year of the old Troubles.

You mean government-run healthcare isn't what it's cracked up to be?
#15034654
My replies are in curved brackets and in italics. My addirions to his questions to make the context even a little clear are in straight brackets.
blackjack21 wrote:Maybe someone whose history class was light on facts and heavy on political ideology and "wokeness"? [.... would invade a neighbor.]

{[i]Mostly no one can start a war all by himself. He has advisers and military advisers to tell him not to do it.[/i}

So? [... what if the UN frowns on it?]

{Tell that to Saddam of Iraq, if he was still alive.}

In a deflationary environment, war is good for correcting an oversupply of product.

{So? That is mostly only true if you win. Unless you are the US Gov.
In case you have not noticed it, I have a far superior way for a Gov. to react to an oversupply of stuff. It is to use MMT to allow more deficit spending to increase the supply of currency or 'money' so the people can buy up the stuff. This was called Keynesian economics in the 50s & 60s. It would have ended the Great Depression if 3 times more had been deficit spent in the mid-30s. We didn't need to wait for WWII to spend more.}


Its [the General Peace's] cause has mostly been American hegemony among Western nations in the post-WWII era. Opening the markets of former colonies to all former colonialist powers mean that competition was between private companies, not nation states. The US Navy generally provided that service.

{And your point here is? This has nothing to do with 'will nations in Europe start wars if the EU breaks up'?}

That [that some say the US invaded Iraq in 2003 to steal its oil] doesn't make it so.

{It doesn't matter at all for my argument if it was true or not. What matters is that the US didn't steal its oil, maybe because of the unexpected IEDs being used all over the place.}

Becoming a heroin addict is a dumb idea, and almost all heroin addicts with few exceptions new that beforehand. Yet, we have an epidemic of heroin addicts. Knowing something is stupid doesn't prevent people from doing something stupid. [Therefore, it's possible and maybe even likely that nations in Europe will be stupid enough to invade their neighbors.]

{People become addicts for several reasons, the main one being their life is already so shitty they need to escape it.}

Done. [This is, he showed the OP where he went wrong.]

{I repied to your points. The lurkers will decide who is more right.}

You mean government-run healthcare isn't what it's cracked up to be? [... because austerity is making some citizens wait for healthcare and so die unnecessarily.]

{Good point except that the US system is allowing far more to die per capita than the gov. supplied healthcare systems are. You just ignore their deaths because, they aren't you or your family or friends.}
#15034655
Presvias wrote:There isn't much likelihood of the EU breaking up in the next 30-40 years.


The MMT economists that I read hope you are wrong. Why? ---

Because in their opinion there is a zero chance that the EU can be reformed until at least 2 nations leave it. That only the threat of a breakup will move or cause Germany to not use its veto power to stop the required reforms. The reformed are necessary to provide to promised "prosperity" in Europe. The economic system in use was locked in by the founding treaties. This system is now causing a long Recession in Europe, especially southern Europe and the UK. The resulting austerity is causing many problems. The mass of the people are suffering from those problems not the rich. There is no 'prosperity' for all, there is poverty for many, many.
. . And the Govs. can't act in a Keynesian way to solve the problems because the treaties don't allow it. Also, Germany has violated the treaties for 10 years now by having a large foreign trade surplus {that is banned}, but get away with it year after year. AND, Germany has and is intending to expand a set of programs that let it set up dummy "private entities", fund them with Gov. money, and claim it isn't adding to its deficit, a practice that it did not let Portugal do and will not let other nation do, because it is 'against the rules in the treaties'. Germany has a "do as I say, and don't stop me from doing what I'm doing, even if it is also against the rules" attitude. And, they are right that they can break the rules that they make everyone else obey. Go figure how they can do this year after year.
.
#15034656
blackjack21 wrote:
You mean government-run healthcare isn't what it's cracked up to be?

Presvias wrote:Correct, it's even better than what you expect it to be.
And https://www.commonwealthfund.org/public ... are-system

And..

...snip...

Image
Why not look up infant mortality while you're at it?

Your system is shit.

Off topic, but on target.
The US system kills more of the uninsured and poorly insured than the gov. supplied healthcare systems do, and bankrupts many with medical bills; AND it costs far more in total per capita.

But, this has nothing at all to do with "Can the EU breakup without causing wars in Europe"?
#15034657
Negotiator wrote -

And I don't believe for a second that wars have ever been financed by the remains that could be found on the battlefield. Thats absurd even in a mediveal setting. The spoils of war are of course the resources you conquered, not the meager and partially destroyed remains of the battles.

Ancient Rome funded its wars by selling the conquered people into slavery.

I didn't say that wars were funded by picking up stuff from battlefields.
I said that the stuff was not destroyed like ammo and planes are.
Nation fought wars to steal the land and the people {both indestructible}, and stuff from other nations.
And that mostly the stuff was also not damaged by the war.

The very point of wars nowadays is often the spending of money. President Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex for a reason. For even if the USA loses a war, they still have justified their outrageous spending on the military once again. This spending has been an constant of the USA since WW2.

Do you realize that the govs. can spend without a war? All they have to do is choose to spend it. War spending has often caused inflation because it was hard to fine tune to be just the right amount. Choosing to deficit spend has the effects of spending and helps the nation's people more than war spending; AND it can be fine tuned to be "just right". At least it can be if everything goes right.
#15034663
Steve_American wrote:The MMT economists that I read hope you are wrong. Why? ---

Because in their opinion there is a zero chance that the EU can be reformed until at least 2 nations leave it. That only the threat of a breakup will move or cause Germany to not use its veto power to stop the required reforms. The reformed are necessary to provide to promised "prosperity" in Europe. The economic system in use was locked in by the founding treaties. This system is now causing a long Recession in Europe, especially southern Europe and the UK. The resulting austerity is causing many problems. The mass of the people are suffering from those problems not the rich. There is no 'prosperity' for all, there is poverty for many, many.
. . And the Govs. can't act in a Keynesian way to solve the problems because the treaties don't allow it. Also, Germany has violated the treaties for 10 years now by having a large foreign trade surplus {that is banned}, but get away with it year after year. AND, Germany has and is intending to expand a set of programs that let it set up dummy "private entities", fund them with Gov. money, and claim it isn't adding to its deficit, a practice that it did not let Portugal do and will not let other nation do, because it is 'against the rules in the treaties'. Germany has a "do as I say, and don't stop me from doing what I'm doing, even if it is also against the rules" attitude. And, they are right that they can break the rules that they make everyone else obey. Go figure how they can do this year after year.
.


If you want the EU to break up, do you like trade wars, possible wars and a weakening of cohesion across Europe?

Ok it would take more than 1-2 nations leaving the EU to cause wars, but that's still enough to get the ball rolling. That ball needs to stay still.

It's like wanting the USA to break up; that would also be asking for conflict and destruction. No matter how you feel about the US; It would be a bad thing; it gives confeds and reactionaries what they want.

Trust me, the people pushing for these things usually have corrupt intentions and will use you to achieve their ends.
#15034664
Wow, you wrote
PS . If the Troubles in N. Ireland start up again, so what? The number of UK citizens who die now per year for lack of timely, sufficient medical care due to austerity is far higher than the body count of the worst year of the old Troubles.


This is mind bending.

I don't see mass killing and ethnic cleansing and Catholics, Protestants burned out of their homes, sniper towers, tarring and feathering, kneecapping, bombing of the Lloyds building, mortaring of no 10 downing street, the Brighton hotel bombing, dead police, dead soldiers etc.

You have truly outdone yourself here.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of people or did you really not know?
#15034677
Presvias wrote:Wow, you wrote

This is mind bending.

I don't see mass killing and ethnic cleansing and Catholics, Protestants burned out of their homes, sniper towers, tarring and feathering, kneecapping, bombing of the Lloyds building, mortaring of no 10 downing street, the Brighton hotel bombing, dead police, dead soldiers etc.

You have truly outdone yourself here.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of people or did you really not know?

I have posted a couple of links to Prof. Bill Mitchell's blog. He's an Aust. core group MMTer. I'm positive his intentions are pure. He wants to see Europe do what is allowed by MMT but not allowed in the EU and eurozone.
. . . His and my goal is reform of the EU. To do this it must be shaken to its core by a breakup or almost breakup. And, then it can be reformed with better rules. If you know your US history then you know this happened in the US in 1787. The Articles of Confederation had 2 glaring problems. 1] The US Gov. could not levy taxes and so had to beg the states for money, and 2] to amend it required all 13 states to agree. So, they called for a Constitutional Convention and it broke the rules and wrote a whole new Constitution. Europe needs its own "Constitutional Convention" to break the current rules.
. . . There is a 99% chance that you don't grok MMT. Because I do, I can see that the Eu is going to breakup pretty soon. The economic 'sound finance' rules embedded in the treaties make it unworkable after the GFC/2008. They worked OK before that but as soon as there was a recession they will not work ever again. Historically, they way nations broke out of such a mess wasby starting a war. This is not possible for the EU, because it has no equal power nation to fight. Fighting the US or Russia will not work because the EU would lose of nuclear weapons would start to fly. All other nearby nations would be a walk over, unless the US fought on the other side.

You don't seem to know it but there is a trade war going on since 2004 between Germany and southern Europe. Greece was a big looser in this war. In this war Germany runs a trade surplus which results in it hoarding euro from the so called PIGS nations. It has no legitimate use for them because it doesn't buy much from the rest of the eurozone. The only thing it can do with them is lend them to someone. If it lends them to the PIGS then the PIGS can buy more stuff from Germany. Germany thinks this is a good thing. What it doesn't grok is that the PIGS can't repay the loans unless they can run a trade surplus which they can't do because Germany sees to it they they don't. The PIGS can't stop this because of EU rules, all other non-EU nations could put a stop to it by devaluing their currency or putting up capital controls.
#15034681
Presvias wrote:Wow, you wrote

This is mind bending.

I don't see mass killing and ethnic cleansing and Catholics, Protestants burned out of their homes, sniper towers, tarring and feathering, kneecapping, bombing of the Lloyds building, mortaring of no 10 downing street, the Brighton hotel bombing, dead police, dead soldiers etc.

You have truly outdone yourself here.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of people or did you really not know?

I'm 72. Did those really high body count things happen before 1955? Because I don't remember any of that. I just remember a few bombings and some other minor stuff. Do you really see ethnic cleansing happening in NI?
. . . I suppose maybe if ACC make the world's temp go up by 2 more deg. C soon, for a total of about 3.3 deg. C from preindustrial temps. Then maybe, but then we will see mass deaths all over the world.

And how many people are dying now in the UK from austerity hitting the NHS?
#15034835
Hmm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Please just read about it before you comment on it.

It's a large subject, 1968-1998 is a long time yes?

If you aren't British, it's ok, you weren't to know, but you can't comment from a position of not knowing.

Look, the EU breaking up would be bad news. If you want to make a serious case, at least start by providing some evidence to back up your claims?
#15034840
Steve_American wrote:I'm 72. Did those really high body count things happen before 1955? Because I don't remember any of that. I just remember a few bombings and some other minor stuff.


Bombing is minor stuff? I remember the Troubles. I remember machine gun fires and constant police checks in Belfast. I remember bombings and frequent bomb alerts in London. It wasn't just confined to NI. It spread to the whole of the UK and had a massive impact of social and political life in the country. Nobody who has experienced that wants to go back to those days.

To deny the EU's role in post-war peace and stability is part of Brexit propaganda for denigrating the EU. The UK hasn't left, but we already see numerous conflicts between the UK and the rest of Europe. Conflicts that are normally dealt with within the framework of EU cooperation now come into the open with all the jingoistic fervor national media can muster. That cements and aggravates conflicts. In today's world, the European empires of the 19th century no longer exist. Individual European nations have no means to defend their interests against today's imperialist powers on their own. Thus, Europe isn't going to plunge the world into another world war; however, that doesn't exclude regional conflicts of the kind we see all around the EU.
#15035097
Atlantis wrote:
Bombing is minor stuff? I remember the Troubles. I remember machine gun fires and constant police checks in Belfast. I remember bombings and frequent bomb alerts in London. It wasn't just confined to NI. It spread to the whole of the UK and had a massive impact of social and political life in the country. Nobody who has experienced that wants to go back to those days.

To deny the EU's role in post-war peace and stability is part of Brexit propaganda for denigrating the EU. The UK hasn't left, but we already see numerous conflicts between the UK and the rest of Europe. Conflicts that are normally dealt with within the framework of EU cooperation now come into the open with all the jingoistic fervor national media can muster. That cements and aggravates conflicts. In today's world, the European empires of the 19th century no longer exist. Individual European nations have no means to defend their interests against today's imperialist powers on their own. Thus, Europe isn't going to plunge the world into another world war; however, that doesn't exclude regional conflicts of the kind we see all around the EU.

I had admitted in the OP that being an American I have little knowledge about the cultures of Europe. I'll extend this to include the Troubles.

However, I still claim that compared to war, the Troubles were 'minor'. Like compared to the Blitz in London it was minor.

I'm also ignorant on the issue of just how being in the EU keeps the situation in NI quite. Maybe you can explain the link to me.
. . . Maybe the people on NI are now of a new mindset. Maybe they like it safe and quite. Maybe they would not support the terrorists and would turn them in every chance they got. Maybe there will not be a return to the Troubles, just a few more terrorist attacks that fizzle out over a short time, because none of the people see any benefit from them for themselves.
. . . America has a current problem with right-wing terrorists who shoot up stores, nightclubs, and concerts, etc. I contend that this is minor. Gun deaths in America are far less than the deaths from traffic accidents and a lot of other causes, especially if we take out suicide by gun deaths.

On the question of how many die per year from lack of sufficient, timely medical care from the NHS, the UK Gov. does not provide any statistics for how many die per year from lack of sufficient, timely medical care, of course it doesn't. So, it is just conjecture. Even a study would not convince those who fear a return of the Troubles. So, this is just my gut feeling by an admittedly ignorant American. Therefore, YMMV.
. . . However, if we extend the damage to all looking at all of the EU then I'm positive that the yearly damage from the totally unnecessary* austerity is more than 10 times the yearly damage from the Troubles. I include deaths (incl. additional suicides), great hardship, and ruined lives in the damage here. HTOH, it is all together possible the some problems like the Troubles could start up in other places in Europe.
. . . And like someone said, NATO will still be there and NATO might keep its members from attacking each other.
. . . Also, the current Yellow Vest troubles are *now* being caused by the austerity that the EU & eurozone rules require, and so are causing people feel put upon by the situation they live in. I claim that the EU rules are directly *causing* the Yellow Vest troubles.


. * . I claim that this is "totally unnecessary" based on my understanding of economics. I understand that most people disagree with my understanding of economist. I claim that most people are wrong here. My main evidence for this is the period I lived through in America from the end of WWII until 1973, or so. That is, "the good life" happened then so it isn't necessary to *not* have the good life now. Additional evidence is contained in MMT's writings.
. . . In this period things were going just fine for most people. There was some inflation near the end of that time, but wages kept up with it and borrowers paid back their loans with cheaper dollars. Then came to oil price shock brought on by OPEC and a war in the Middle East. Oil is in the cost/price of everything. so everything cost more, OPEC reacted to this by increasing the price of oil more, and so on for a while. This caused high ongoing inflation that allowed the Neo-liberals to take over the US Gov. and they ruined the good times. There were other solutions** to the inflation. The solution we got has let to the economic inequality we now have in US & EU. Where some few are stinking filthy rich and 25% of the people live in grinding poverty. And this is in a period where the stuff people need is abundant, there is no shortage of food and stuff, instead there is a shortage of money to buy the stuff.
. . . Modern Monetary Theory explains all this quite nicely. Your everyday experience does NOT lead you to understanding this. EU govs. are like families, they must find euros before they can spend them. The US and most other Govs. are *not* like this, they can deficit spend and then borrow what they just spent back (after the fact so to speak) so they can cover the deficit. OTOH, no nation ever needs to "payoff its debt", ever. All nations can keep borrowing to roll its debt over forever. Any nation today that tries to run a surplus sufficient to payoff its debt will destroy the nation's economy. It is as simple as that. Therefore, all nations *must* keep rolling over its debts, forever. They have no choice. They are trapped, if you want to look at it that way. [The only way to "payoff the national debt" is to pay it with newly created dollars which may be inflationary. But, inflation is far better than endless Great Depression Squared.]
. . . The nations in the eurozone do have a problem with this. They may have to pay too high an interest rate to be able to sell their bonds. This is part of the reason that the EU must be reformed. Other nations like the US & Canada can just spend dollars and not ever sell bonds to cover the deficit if the interest rates are too high. They can always pay their bills because they can create dollars.
. . . In fact it is now realized by a growing number of economists that nations must create new currency in some way, with deficits or just spending it. This is because people and comp. want to save and when they save this cuts the income of someone else (income they would have got if that money had been spent instead of being saved) and that then cuts the incomes of others, etc. For a while this drop in income can be offset by income from people spending money they borrowed from a bank, but at some point they will have to stop borrowing because they can't afford the payments on all those loans. This then will cause a Recession. And, the only way to end a Recesso is with deicit spending (starting a war was just a way to justify deficit spending, so better to just deficit spend on infrastructure, education, healthcare and other stuff that are investments).

.** Another possible solution would have been, for example, for the US Gov. to pay every comp. that made an investment an amount each year equal to the rate of inflation (minus some fixed X%, maybe 1% or 2%, with a minimum of 0%) times the amount of the investment. If this had been done then comp. would not have to worry that inflation would eat up all the profits from the investment. The Gov. gets the money to pay this by just creating it. Since it must create money anyway it would simply deduct this amount from the total amount it should be creating for other reasons. This money is then in the economy and will let people or comp. save or be spent to add to the GDP and therefore some people's incomes which lets them buy stuff. [You must remember that after 1971 the US had the ability to create any amount of dollars and give them to someone, because it went off the gold standard.]
. . OTHO, *soon*, we will have to find a way to learn to live with much less economic growth. The environment can't supply raw materials in unlimited amounts and it can't take an unlimited amount of pollution either. And ACC is happening. It seems to me, that economic growth will have to be limited (in some way, some how) to an amount equal to the increase in our (worldwide) ability to do things with less damage to the environment and/or with less input of raw materials.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 21 Sep 2019 11:31, edited 1 time in total.
#15035113
The last proper war in Europe, and it was vicious, happened in a political union called Yugoslavia.

The Troubles were not a war but a terror campaign similar to that in Spain around the same time, although the Troubles caused more deaths. There's been plenty of paramilitary terror activity in NI since the Belfast agreement and Britain reports a comparatively high number of terror incidents compared to most of the rest of Europe each year, with most of them being located in NI. There's not much news about this because the UK keeps a tight lid on NI to this day and hence almost all attacks are prevented. See second panel of image below for number of bombing incidents over the last 10 years, with a high point of 100 in 2010/11 and much reduced since. Of course, there's plenty of other paramilitary activity too such as shootings, organised crime, intimidation, etc. From the Security Situation Statistics 2019

Image
#15035148
Steve_American wrote:I'm also ignorant on the issue of just how being in the EU keeps the situation in NI quite.


When Ireland gained independence from its colonial masters, the British split up the island to carve out a part with a majority unionist population, who would have been a minority in a united Ireland. Most Irish never accepted that division. That legitimized the armed struggle. With both Ireland and the UK being in the EU, the border between Ireland and NI became invisible and people were able to cross from one country to the other like you cross from one side of the street to the other.

In Europe, there is not an inch of soil that hasn't been drenched in blood because different people lay claim to it. Due to the EU, Germans have no need to fight for getting the Alsace or Danzig back because they can move from Berlin to Strasbourg or Gdansk as they move from Hamburg to Munich. The EU has laid to rest all the old demons of the past. It is the greatest achievement in human history.

. . . Maybe the people on NI are now of a new mindset. Maybe they like it safe and quite. Maybe they would not support the terrorists and would turn them in every chance they got.


If my father killed your father and if I adhered to the same ideology as my father do you really think we could be good neighbors?

While the violence has died down, it'll take many generations for the hostile feelings to disappear. And even then, as we see from the ME, hostility between different groups can flare up again even after centuries. While both sides try to keep the peace, there are still occasional bomb attacks or attacks on the armed forces. There are still neighborhoods enclosed by walls to keep unionists and republicans apart.

Image

Image

It just takes the spark of Brexit and a new border to reignite the Troubles.

Re. austerity and climate change. The green left is in an existential contradiction in that it wants to fuel economic growth by debt spending while at the same time pretending to be concerned about green house gas emissions due to the very same economic growth. The 60s and 70s won't come back, neither for you nor for anybody else. We just can't afford to repeat the sins of the past.
#15035150
ki
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The last proper war in Europe, and it was vicious, happened in a political union called Yugoslavia.

The Troubles were not a war but a terror campaign similar to that in Spain around the same time, although the Troubles caused more deaths. There's been plenty of paramilitary terror activity in NI since the Belfast agreement and Britain reports a comparatively high number of terror incidents compared to most of the rest of Europe each year, with most of them being located in NI. There's not much news about this because the UK keeps a tight lid on NI to this day and hence almost all attacks are prevented. See second panel of image below for number of bombing incidents over the last 10 years, with a high point of 100 in 2010/11 and much reduced since. Of course, there's plenty of other paramilitary activity too such as shootings, organised crime, intimidation, etc. From the Security Situation Statistics 2019

Image


Lol.

If you think firing a rocket at Vauxhall Cross (MI6), destroying the Lloyds building or even just 7 year old kids throwing bricks at police... is the same as a couple of threats, mostly defused bombs which are just warnings, and the very sad and thankfully very rare occasional assassination, and beatings, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Those terror incidents have gone up since D Cameron said he was a "proud unionist" and defended an evil policy with the then-secretary for NI; Theresa Vilestliers.

Then Theresa May said that she would try to stop prosecutions against ex squaddies who perpetrated horrific abuses in NI.

The UK govt are a bunch of terrorist, and war crime supporting feckin cunts.

Btw a poll said that the majority in NI would vote for reunification with the republic in the event of no deal.

So maybe something good will come out of this joke saga.
Canadian Federal Election

And now you seem to be angry again. You pretty[…]

If I am to put this in one sentence, this hypothe[…]

An hour and forty minutes? On what planet is that[…]

Ukrainegate

Lmbo Turkey just openly mocking President Deals no[…]