U.S.A. Slipping Towards Third World Status: Will No Longer be the World Leader

[-Demosthenes-]

And the BBC is NOT a propaganda machine??

Every thing that has to do with media is somehow influenced by politics.

[atinymonkey]

You do realise that is a contradiction in terms? A democratic multi nation state is, by definition, impossible.

 

I disagree.

[Flareon]

And the BBC is NOT a propaganda machine??

 

You do have a point. But even if you consider BBC a source for propaganda comparable to that of FOX (!), let me emphasize that Americans need a dose of foreign news every now and then and that in general, foreign propaganda is less harmful to one than that of one's home country. Why? Because one, we tend to believe less what other countries say, and two, homeland propaganda is aimed primarily at its people, the voters (as if voters really determine the election nowadays anyway ).

[Aardvark]

A state made up of more than one nation, by definition is made up of more than one people.

 

A democracy is rule of the people, a 'demos'. Where you have more than one demos it is not possible for a democracy to function.

 

Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you try to put different demos together in one polity.

 

It is not possible for a European Union to be a democratic entity.

[Douglas]

You do have a point. But even if you consider BBC a source for propaganda comparable to that of FOX (!), let me emphasize that Americans need a dose of foreign news every now and then and that in general, foreign propaganda is less harmful to one than that of one's home country. Why? Because one, we tend to believe less what other countries say, and two, homeland propaganda is aimed primarily at its people, the voters (as if voters really determine the election nowadays anyway ).

Flareon, a lot of Western European countries dislike the U.S......The question is why.....is it because the majority of the country's media outlets are influencing their thinking? Why do the French dislike the U.S.? Is it because of Chirac or Le Monde or both or non of the above?

[Flareon]

Why do the French dislike the U.S.? Is it because of Chirac or Le Monde or both or non of the above?

 

That's a whole another can of worms I'm not going to open today. Besides, I don't think the French 'hate' America as much as they disagree with many US policies and are at times disgusted and disturbed by our actions. And I will say that I think the French have a vaid reason for disagreeing with us regarding the Iraq war.

[Aardvark]

Besides, I don't think the French 'hate' America as much as they disagree with many US policies and are at times disgusted and disturbed by our actions. And I will say that I think the French have a vaid reason for disagreeing with us regarding the Iraq war.

 

French antipathy to America goes back a long time before the Iraq war.

 

The French were writing that Americans and all living things from America were physically inferior to the French back in the late 1700's. Thomas Jefferson actually had a Moose transported to Paris to try and dispel this myth but they don't seem to have noticed.

 

For some reason a dislike of America and a (misplaced) sense of superiority has been rooted in the French psyche for over 200 years.

[Flareon]

Hey, the French think they're are superior to everybody, not just Americans

[Aardvark]

Hey, the French think they're are superior to everybody, not just Americans

 

Isn't it amazing how deluded some people can be?

[-Demosthenes-]

Most people identify with their Nation and the people of ther nation no matter where they are.

[Aardvark]

Most people identify with their Nation and the people of ther nation no matter where they are.

 

But preferably without bigotry and chauvanism.

[-Demosthenes-]

But much of that would naturally become part of the National identity. People that are similar or close, that form some kind of group, tend to band together and identify with themselves and the other people of that group. And it would be a natural inclination to take that further by seeing your group as different somehow, and more personal. It is human nature.

[atinymonkey]

A state made up of more than one nation' date=' by definition is made up of more than one people.

 

A democracy is rule of the people, a 'demos'. Where you have more than one demos it is not possible for a democracy to function.

 

Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you try to put different demos together in one polity.

 

It is not possible for a European Union to be a democratic entity.[/quote']

 

Democratic as in advocating democracy. I suggest if you have a problem with the definition then you take your oxford pocket dictionary and protest at Brussels, as there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter any political definitions that you are uncomfortable with.

 

And no, the European Union is not akin to the fall of Communism in Yugoslavia following the death of Tito.

[Sayonara]

And the BBC is NOT a propaganda machine??

Seeing as I've never seen any evidence that it is, and seeing as the BBC has absolutely nothing to gain from being what you nebulously term a "propaganda machine", I'd much rather assume it isn't (and remain open to new evidence) than just imagine it has attributes I've never witnessed.

[andy]

I think the European Union and China will become more powerful than the USA in the recent future, but why does that mean it'll be 'third world'? The USA should be grateful for the power it has, and will still have, just not over China and us in the EU.

[Aardvark]

Democratic as in advocating democracy.

 

You stated that the EU is becoming a democractic multi nation state. That is a very different thing from being simply an advocate for democracy.

 

I suggest if you have a problem with the definition then you take your oxford pocket dictionary and protest at Brussels, as there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter any political definitions that you are uncomfortable with.

 

You have just changed your terms of reference. I do not need anyone to alter any political definitions for me. It is yourself who is confused on this matter.

 

 

And no, the European Union is not akin to the fall of Communism in Yugoslavia following the death of Tito.

 

Yes, it is.

 

The parrallels are clear.

 

A completely artifical political construction forcing different nations together, imposed on people from above.

 

Both are/were completely artifical entities and thus attract no natural loyalities. One way or anyone the EUs Federalist agenda will fail.

[-Demosthenes-]

Both are/were completely artifical entities and thus attract no natural loyalities. One way or anyone the EUs Federalist agenda will fail.

Actually I can see the countries of Europe growing closer together in the future. Europe has been the main scene of many wars where European countries fought European countries, but now where Europe can really see themselves in terms of the world and not just their continent, and now that other powers are growing in the world, they might come together.

[Aardvark]

Actually I can see the countries of Europe growing closer together in the future. Europe has been the main scene of many wars where European countries fought European countries, but now where Europe can really see themselves in terms of the world and not just their continent, and now that other powers are growing in the world, they might come together.

 

Coming together as peace loving friends and neighbours who cooperate is one thing.

 

Being forced into an artifical superstate is quite another.

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes, what exactly do you mean by forced into? and artificial superstate? Sry I'm not familar with those terminologies with reguard to the EU.

[Aardvark]

Yes, what exactly do you mean by forced into? and artificial[/b'] superstate? Sry I'm not familar with those terminologies with reguard to the EU.

 

The EU elite have a clear agenda of creating a new country called Europe. Every move they make is to centralise more power in Brussels and reduce power in individual nations.

 

It's as if NAFTA had the authority to overide the President, the Senate, Congress and the Supreme court of the USA.

 

This process has never been agreed upon by the peoples of Europe. It is not created by elected representatives. The EU system is made up of self selected officials who are not accountable to any electorate.

 

This new state seeks to reduce my nation to the status of a region of a country called Europe. I've never been asked if i want this, let alone been given the opportunity to actually vote on it.

 

Fortunately when the EU wrote itself a constitiution public pressure forced a highly reluctant government to agree to a referendum. The anger from the European Federalists at this cave in to 'popularism' was vociferous. For once people actually have the chance to vote on this matter. So far opinion polls show a serious majority against.

 

The EU is in the process of trying to create a new nation without the consent of the peoples involved. It's in no way at all democratic.

[-Demosthenes-]

Thank you I probably should have tried to do some more research first, but thanks for explaning. It seems like a load of bull to me (the EU)

[Aardvark]

Thank you I probably should have tried to do some more research first, but thanks for explaning. It seems like a load of bull to me (the EU)

 

 

Just imagine if Nafta decided that it had the right to make laws for you and override your elected representatives.

 

It seems like a load of bull to me too.

[atinymonkey]

You stated that the EU is becoming a democractic multi nation state. That is a very different thing from being simply an advocate for democracy.

It's a very different thing to what you ascribed it to be, but that really isn't my fault. You can't simply redefine what's said and expect your context to overrule the original.

 

You have just changed your terms of reference. I do not need anyone to alter any political definitions for me. It is yourself who is confused on this matter.

Nope. I clarified my reference, the only thing it differs from is your interpretation. I suspect you are leading yourself round in semantic circles, as is your idiom.

 

Yes' date=' it is.

 

The parrallels are clear.

 

A completely artifical political construction forcing different nations together, imposed on people from above.

 

Both are/were completely artifical entities and thus attract no natural loyalities. One way or anyone the EUs Federalist agenda will fail. [/quote']

There are few parallels between an unstable communist country's isolated and abortive attempts at democracy and the current situation with the multinational European Union. While I'm sure passing reference to Yugoslavia may seem apt to your mind, but it's a wholly superficial comparison. Yugoslavian politics post Tito may have stemmed from the multinational state Yugoslavia constituted, but in the end it was still a unitary monarchy that morphed into a Socialist republic. Yugoslavia's fall was as inevitable as the fall of any country's in the independent communist bloc post USSR. The only difference with Yugoslavia was that Tito kept the country independent from soviet rule, almost the antithesis of what the EU is attempting.

 

Your opinions on the future of the EU are only that. They really don't have any impact on the current situation nor on the characterization the EU places on itself.

[-Demosthenes-]

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579567_1/European_Union.html#S1

In 1991 the governments of the 12 member states signed the Treaty on European Union (commonly called the Maastricht Treaty), which was then ratified by the national legislatures of all the member countries.

Aren't they elected?

This issue came to a head in 1999, when a report prepared by independent auditors at the request of the European Parliament cited multiple examples of mismanagement on the part of the European Commission. The report accused several commissioners of corruption, cronyism, and poor oversight over programs under their control. After the report was released, the entire European Commission resigned, something that had never happened before. Experts generally considered the report and its consequences to be an important step by the European Parliament toward increasing the democratic accountability of the EU governing bodies.

It seems that something is up.

The European Parliament (EP) is made up of 732 members who are directly elected by the citizens of the EU. Direct elections to the EP were implemented in 1979. Before that time, members were appointed by the legislatures of the member governments. The European Parliament was originally designed merely as an advisory body; however, its right to participate in some EU decisions was extended by the later treaties. It must be consulted about matters relating to the EU budget, which it can reject; it can remove the European Commission as a body through a vote of no confidence; and it can veto the accession of potential member states.

The European Parliament’s influence is essentially negative: It can block but rarely initiate legislation, its consultative opinions can be ignored, and it has no power over the Council of the European Union. Its effectiveness is limited by two structural problems: It conducts its business in 20 official languages, with consequent huge translation costs, and it is nomadic, using three sites in different countries for its meetings. Unless changes are made, these weaknesses will likely intensify as the union grows larger. At the same time, there have been frequent calls for expanding the powers of the European Parliament, which would increase the democratic accountability of the EU. The weaknesses of the European Parliament can be remedied, however, only by the national governments. To cope with an increase in the number of member states due to EU enlargement, the Treaty of Nice allowed for a limit to the size of the EP by providing for a reallocation of seats among the members.

It seems that there is an elected parliment, but they have little power.

 

Sorry for taking up so much room, and for going a little off topic, but I find I am relatively unaware of what the EU really is, I'd like some one info, and I'll probably be reading alot tomorrow on the net.

[Aardvark]

It's a very different thing to what you ascribed it to be' date=' but that really isn't my fault. You can't simply redefine what's said and expect your context to overrule the original.

 

Nope. I clarified my reference, the only thing it differs from is your interpretation. I suspect you are leading yourself

round in semantic circles, as is your idiom. [/quote']

 

You stated that the EU was building a 'democratic multi nation state', you then stated that it was only democratic in that it 'advocated' democracy.

 

You have altered your terms of reference, you redefined what you said. You are arguing semantics.

 

At this stage it is hard to believe that you are discussing this matter with intellectual honesty.

 

There are few parallels between an unstable communist country's isolated and abortive attempts at democracy and the current situation with the multinational European Union. While I'm sure passing reference to Yugoslavia may seem apt to your mind, but it's a wholly superficial comparison. Yugoslavian politics post Tito may have stemmed from the multinational state Yugoslavia constituted, but in the end it was still a unitary monarchy that morphed into a Socialist republic.

 

Interesting that you should characterise Nazi invasion followed by a three way civil war leading to a military take over by commnists and brutal repression as 'morphed' into a socialist republic. You seem to lack all sense of perspective here.

 

Yugoslavia's fall was as inevitable as the fall of any country's in the independent communist bloc post USSR.

 

And yet not every country fell apart. Poland, Hungary, Rumania didn't fall apart. But every country made up of more than one nationality did. If you study that fact you might start to understand some of the implications.

 

The only difference with Yugoslavia was that Tito kept the country independent from soviet rule, almost the antithesis of what the EU is attempting.

 

Being independent of the Soviet Union is the 'antithesis' of what the EU is attempting?

 

Perhaps you want to reconsider that peculiar statement?

 

 

Your opinions on the future of the EU are only that. They really don't have any impact on the current situation nor on the characterization the EU places on itself.

 

Of course my opinions are 'only that'. This is a discussion forum. IE a place where opinions are aired and discussed.

 

Or are we only allowed to post opinions in agreement with your prejudices?