World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[o.pwuaioc]

Civil unrest needs to be defined, and war is a bit extreme, even for Greece right now. A Grexit is the best deal for both Greece and Europe as a whole.

A Grexit would instantly destroy the European Union. This almost has.

I didn't say European Union. I said Europe.

[Erik_Twice]

I didn't say European Union. I said Europe.

My point is that the destruction of the EU would be bad for Europe, you are free to argue otherwise, of course.

[o.pwuaioc]

I didn't say European Union. I said Europe.

My point is that the destruction of the EU would be bad for Europe, you are free to argue otherwise, of course.

I don't want to argue, but I will prevent some alternative views. First, an article for discussion (not argument) on the Eurozone "racket".

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/13/the ... -eurozone/

Second, most people, not just Europeans, credit the European Union with providing stability after hundreds of years of wars, culminating in the worst war of all time. What they seem to forget, though, is that less wars these days have nothing to do with the European Union at all, and "unions" of all sorts have led to wars just as much as they have prevented them. Eighty years had passed before the United States, very much a union, fought a civil war. Eighty years ago today, the Nuremberg Laws weren't even in effect yet. And "union" did absolutely nothing to prevent east and west Ukraine from becoming very hostile to each other. Or North and South Sudan.

Maybe that's not fair, though. Certainly the type of federation is different, even from the United States. But another point people often forget is that not just Europe, but the world as a whole is less violent and there are less wars than ever before.



It's not the European Union, or even Europe. It's definitely not the Eurozone. The massive advance in technology, the rise of the democratic alliance, the growth of gigantic hegemonic powers, and the United Nations all deter Europe from war with itself, all scale back war worldwide. The dissolution of the European Union isn't going to affect this situation very much.

And if that means bad economics in Germany and Brussels can't force Greece to continue to bleed its economy dry, I call that a win.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't want to argue, but I will prevent some alternative views. First, an article for discussion (not argument) on the Eurozone "racket".

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/13/the ... -eurozone/

There is no "racket". Germany is not a "bulldozer", Paris is not a "secret agent" working for them and Croatia and Finland are not a "useful idiots".

The entire article is absurd, I mean it claims that Berlusconi was "forced" out of the presidency by the European Union. I think that losing a local election, having his party having split into two a year earlier and being prosecuted of bribery, tax evasion, sex with minors, corruption, witness tampering, perjury, mafia collusion hadfar more to do with it than any supposed force by the EU

I think there are problems with the EU but that article is not a way to discuss it.

It's not the European Union, or even Europe. It's definitely not the Eurozone. The massive advance in technology, the rise of the democratic alliance, the growth of gigantic hegemonic powers, and the United Nations all deter Europe from war with itself, all scale back war worldwide. The dissolution of the European Union isn't going to affect this situation very much.

Last time Europe was in war with itself the United Nations knowingly looked the other way while thousands of Bosniaks were being massacrated in Srebenica.

The UE hasn't been stellar in that regard, either, but the entire reason why a monster like Karadžić is in The Hague and a denialist like the Serbian president Nikolic has been forced to backtrack and "apologize" for Srebenica is because of their interest in joining the European Union. That and the fact that Bosnia is protected by an European military mission (EUFOR Althea IIRC) and envoys from it have been working for decades to stabilize the region and foment its economic and political development so it can eventually transform itself into a modern country. It pains me to say it, but without the EU there were two possible outcomes for the Balkans: Serbians with kalashnikovs or Russia.

And that's a only the tip of the icerberg for me. The influence of the European Union (Which I consider to be both a democratic allliance and a hegemonic power) is huge and the world would be very different without it.

And if that means bad economics in Germany and Brussels can't force Greece to continue to bleed its economy dry, I call that a win.

There's no "Germany", but "Germany and every other country in the Eurogroup except Greece itself".

I also feel it's very easy to call the dissolution of the EU a "win" when you don't live here, really

[Pulsar_t]

[Pulsar_t]

[marurun]

So, I've been trying to stay relatively quiet about the shootings in Chattanooga, but Chatt-town is my hometown where I grew up, so I guess I feel obligated. My father was in the Naval Reserves, so he spent time training at the facility that was attacked. I think it's the same location where he was recognized when he retired.

On the one hand, I'm glad (not happy, mind you) the shooter's target was military instead of civilian. On the other hand, it was a gun-free military facility, and I can only imagine the shooter knew that. I'm wondering if more strict gun control laws could have stymied the shooter. I'm also wondering how, with as many freedoms as we have lost in the name of the great American surveillance society how this shooter managed to glide through unnoticed and unflagged. This is just more evidence that our loss of liberty has not bought us increased safety from outside threats. It has, however, made us more vulnerable to the government responsible for protecting us.

In truth, our only hope of safety from terrorist attacks linked to overseas causes comes from American foreign policy. How we treat the rest of the world is far more important to our safety than spying on ourselves. But I do hope that this further raises the topic of gun control. It's time we started collecting more data and got the government and public funds back in the business of exploring the efficacy and costs of various gun controls. (There are limits now, because laws restrict how Federal dollars can be spent in relation to studying gun control and public health, among other things. That's how powerful the NRA and gun lobbies are, we can't even spend money studying gun control.)

[Pulsar_t]

Trump is an assclown, a hypocrite and a mofo. Thanks for reading.

[Ack]

So, I've been trying to stay relatively quiet about the shootings in Chattanooga, but Chatt-town is my hometown where I grew up, so I guess I feel obligated. My father was in the Naval Reserves, so he spent time training at the facility that was attacked. I think it's the same location where he was recognized when he retired.

On the one hand, I'm glad (not happy, mind you) the shooter's target was military instead of civilian. On the other hand, it was a gun-free military facility, and I can only imagine the shooter knew that. I'm wondering if more strict gun control laws could have stymied the shooter. I'm also wondering how, with as many freedoms as we have lost in the name of the great American surveillance society how this shooter managed to glide through unnoticed and unflagged. This is just more evidence that our loss of liberty has not bought us increased safety from outside threats. It has, however, made us more vulnerable to the government responsible for protecting us.

In truth, our only hope of safety from terrorist attacks linked to overseas causes comes from American foreign policy. How we treat the rest of the world is far more important to our safety than spying on ourselves. But I do hope that this further raises the topic of gun control. It's time we started collecting more data and got the government and public funds back in the business of exploring the efficacy and costs of various gun controls. (There are limits now, because laws restrict how Federal dollars can be spent in relation to studying gun control and public health, among other things. That's how powerful the NRA and gun lobbies are, we can't even spend money studying gun control.)

So...would you have preferred a bombing then?

[marurun]

So, I've been trying to stay relatively quiet about the shootings in Chattanooga, but Chatt-town is my hometown where I grew up, so I guess I feel obligated. My father was in the Naval Reserves, so he spent time training at the facility that was attacked. I think it's the same location where he was recognized when he retired.

On the one hand, I'm glad (not happy, mind you) the shooter's target was military instead of civilian. On the other hand, it was a gun-free military facility, and I can only imagine the shooter knew that. I'm wondering if more strict gun control laws could have stymied the shooter. I'm also wondering how, with as many freedoms as we have lost in the name of the great American surveillance society how this shooter managed to glide through unnoticed and unflagged. This is just more evidence that our loss of liberty has not bought us increased safety from outside threats. It has, however, made us more vulnerable to the government responsible for protecting us.

In truth, our only hope of safety from terrorist attacks linked to overseas causes comes from American foreign policy. How we treat the rest of the world is far more important to our safety than spying on ourselves. But I do hope that this further raises the topic of gun control. It's time we started collecting more data and got the government and public funds back in the business of exploring the efficacy and costs of various gun controls. (There are limits now, because laws restrict how Federal dollars can be spent in relation to studying gun control and public health, among other things. That's how powerful the NRA and gun lobbies are, we can't even spend money studying gun control.)

So...would you have preferred a bombing then?

False Dilemma much?