I hear some americans dont like France

[SPQR]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
By ways I mean when you consider the environment Anglo-Saxon settlers departed from and created (as they were there before the others, bar the french but they didn't have mass emmigration), and the environment other immigrants left from.

You are overrating the Anglo-Saxon settlers.

Britain's empire was based around economic prosperity and the principle that empire was good for those who had it enforced on them. Every single other empire was based around exploitation, not trade (one has to examine the situation closely to see why this distinction matters) and the good of the home country. Consider also the Commonwealth, still remains today and is indicative of a large degree of residual good will towards if not British practices then British ideals.

Oh please, don't tell me they were any better than other empires.

House of lords was an accident of historical inertia. It just happened to be there because there was always a significant landed gentry in a country where there was no new land. Basically it slowed down change, but it never reversed or stopped it. People's budget 1909 was the first time they tried to stop it and see what happened there. The similarities far exceed the differences for me.

Reducing it on an 'accident' is a bit too easy, is it?

PS Off to bed, night. fun talking with you.

Same here

[SPQR]

Originally posted by queball
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta..._pays_what.stm
Doesn't look like Germany is the only one financing the rest of the EU to me.

Doesnt look like France being just economical dependent on the EU either which was all i wanted to say They also pay more in than they get out. Thx for the graphic, it actually underlines my point.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by queball
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta..._pays_what.stm
Doesn't look like Germany is the only one financing the rest of the EU to me.

we still pay twice as much as uk ... (or look at the netherlands with 1/4 of the population of uk)
france doesnt pay enough though, especially now with the eastern expansion
oh and i still hope bush is at least a l8ittle useful and sues us at the wto for illegal farm subsideries which would force us to reform that whole CAP-thingy. that would be perfect, unfortunatly i dont see this happen. there are such a lot of better ways to spend that money

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by acropolis
I would guess that whoever wrote this drivel can't even spell 'economics'.

First, under the correct conditions (which are generally in existence right now) a country can run with a vast trade deficit for eternity without ever encountering any balooning debt. Depending on how you define 'trade deficit.'

Second, the comparison between the US and Argentina is beyond idiotic. [/i]

I am no economic analyst, I go by what I read, but I doubt that you are either. So forgive me if I still believe that 'drivel' is more or less correct. The following quote is from Jeff Faux, president of the EPI, I hope we can agree on that he can spell 'economics'. Your example did not mention anything about borrowing or paying interests, did it? Pay close attention to the sentence in italic text (also notice the comparison to Argentina again).

In order to finance this (trade) deficit, the United States has had to borrow from other countries and sell them more of our assets. Thus, each year the United States must devote more of its income to cover the interest on the debt and the transfer of profits to investors in other countries. After 1988, these payments began to exceed foreigners’ remittances to the United States. Since then, the US net international financial position has been running in the red. This net foreign “debt” is now 22% of GDP (Figure B). Assuming a recovery, the U.S. is on a trajectory to a debt burden of roughly 40% of GDP within five years. By way of comparison, Argentina, whose economy is collapsing under the weight of its external debt, owed 50% of its GDP to foreign investors last year.

But the United States is not Argentina. Not only is the dollar the world’s most important reserve currency, but the U.S. also has better credit and more assets to sell. Simple arithmetic, however, makes it clear that the United States cannot borrow forever in order to buy more from the world than it sells. The interest burden will eventually be so heavy that foreign investors will be unwilling or unable to keep financing the rising U.S. debt. When that happens, the dollar will free-fall and interest rates will spike upward, with devastating economic consequences.

Source

[xtrasyn]

/me hates dollars

another jap economy car anyone?

Originally posted by Mushroom
sympathise with those americans btw, i think they're being pedantic isolationist twats.


No, they haven't. Those thousands of white crosses at Normandy represent what happens in war. And that's what the French are trying to stop happening again. No, i think it's the Americans who have forgotton what those thousands of white crosses mean.

I suggest you check yourself before trying to intimate that we have forgotten the sacrifices we've made for GLOBAL peace. If doing the world a favor means removing a homicidal maniac WITHOUT anyone's approval, so be it.

It means maybe we'll think twice in the future about preventing a country from being wiped from the face of the earth,...especially WHEN France gets itself into a jam,...again. This would also be doing the world a favor by ensuring the "Surrender" gene from the French gene pool gets weeded out.

Maybe Germany or Trinidad and Tobago will help them?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
I suggest you check yourself before trying to intimate that we have forgotten the sacrifices we've made for GLOBAL peace. If doing the world a favor means removing a homicidal maniac WITHOUT anyone's approval, so be it.

Removing Saddam is more likely to disrupt global peace than to stabalise it, what with the international objections and removing-a-secular-government-in-the-middle-east-without-replacing-it-with-anything problem similar to what's happened in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Removing Saddam is more likely to disrupt global peace than to stabalise it, what with the international objections and removing-a-secular-government-in-the-middle-east-without-replacing-it-with-anything problem similar to what's happened in Afghanistan.

Oh, do tell! My God, it's unbelievable! Girls are now GOING TO SCHOOL! The people of Afghanistan are getting rid of an oppressive government and getting some semblance of order going!

Man, maybe the French should go in there and fix all of these terrible things!


You are expecting a "fixed" Afghanistan in less than a year? We went in and did what the Soviets never accomplished, and we are trying to rebuild that country as best we can, using the people WITHIN the country to get things going. Yeah, we created a power vacuum, but notice we aren't running away, we are trying to get that place stabilized.

If you are so ignorant of the real truth as to think that we would remove Saddam without having a power structure to replace him, then you are squeezing fetid air through your sphincter into something resembling speech.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
We went in and did what the Soviets never accomplished,

You've done exactly what the soviets have accomplished, which is to have power in Kabul through military prescence and bugger all elsewhere.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You've done exactly what the soviets have accomplished, which is to have power in Kabul through military prescence and bugger all elsewhere.

OMG! Please, do some research on the subject,...please?! If you think that the US military is in charge in Kabul, then, well, never mind, I don't want to embarrass you further.

If the power is centered in Kabul, then that is on the new Afghani government. We are way too busy still hunting down the people who attacked us,...and we are getting them slowly but surely.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
OMG! Please, do some research on the subject,...please?! If you think that the US military is in charge in Kabul, then, well, never mind, I don't want to embarrass you further.

This kind of thing you mean?

Eh?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
This kind of thing you mean?
Eh?

Yep!

Donald Rumsfeld says the goal in Afghanistan is not to engage in nation-building, it is to help the Afghans so they can build their own nation.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Yep!

How does that contradict what I said?

[Phang]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
OMG! Please, do some research on the subject,...please?! If you think that the US military is in charge in Kabul, then, well, never mind, I don't want to embarrass you further.

If the power is centered in Kabul, then that is on the new Afghani government. We are way too busy still hunting down the people who attacked us,...and we are getting them slowly but surely.

After all, the country is a true haven for law now that those nasty bearded Hitlers called the 'Taleban' have gone

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Yep!

Can you not see that the rumsfeld quote is about simply justifying this kind of thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1632582.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2823557.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2848221.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2759789.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2018811.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2031305.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1666626.stm?

and so on, searching the BBC webbie for terms like 'afghanistan aid' turns up literally dozens of such articles.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by SPQR
Oh please, don't tell me they were any better than other empires.

The British Empire, for all its faults, dismantled itself relatively peacefully, leaving functional democracies in many countries. Many countries of other former European empires are far less lucky.

[BLACK_OPPS]

Originally posted by Wî†ne§§ †GñA†
Oh, do tell! My God, it's unbelievable! Girls are now GOING TO SCHOOL! The people of Afghanistan are getting rid of an oppressive government and getting some semblance of order going!

Man, maybe the French should go in there and fix all of these terrible things!


You are expecting a "fixed" Afghanistan in less than a year? We went in and did what the Soviets never accomplished, and we are trying to rebuild that country as best we can, using the people WITHIN the country to get things going. Yeah, we created a power vacuum, but notice we aren't running away, we are trying to get that place stabilized.

If you are so ignorant of the real truth as to think that we would remove Saddam without having a power structure to replace him, then you are squeezing fetid air through your sphincter into something resembling speech.

god dam American properganda started up a train on this ones ass and he took every shot as fact

[BLACK_OPPS]

Originally posted by G_frog
Can you not see that the rumsfeld quote is about simply justifying this kind of thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1632582.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2823557.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2848221.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2759789.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2018811.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2031305.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1666626.stm?

and so on, searching the BBC webbie for terms like 'afghanistan aid' turns up literally dozens of such articles.

ok just a point here the BBC is and has been since the end of the 2nd world war a more or less pro american media form useing media to prove a point wont do jack **** immo

[LHC]

this doesn't look pro America to me