[The_Kelzor]

the european union has existed for a little bit and have done well as far as now. but, they have recently been expanding their sights to the balkans and talks exist of admitting turkey. dilemma? socialism can be argued forever but do socialist concepts work or will they fail when they start admitting more and more poor controversial countries? Greece has been the poor kid for some time and i know they are upset but that is beyond the point. taxes will be forced to increase even more to compensate. another problem: how would you feel as a british,danish,etc paying taxes(especially increased taxes) to help the serbian montenegren regions knowing full and well of the corruption that exist. will your money go to help bring food to the families and build roads or will it instead end up in a swiss bank account. i would like to remind you that ironically switzerland is one of the very few european countries not in the EU.

[taco]

I say we grab skinner and bomb the shit out of the rest of em.

[Mr Skinner]

Thanks, taco, but we're not even in the EU...so let the bombs rain! But please spare the czech rep. I couldn't imagine life without their beer...

[AnnonUSA]

Without droning on, I have posted about this in another thread here a while back.

The EU in it's haste to overtake the USA as the worlds economic superpower, is courting Turkey and other Middle eastern countries such as Iran. The inclusion into the EU of countries that are closed minded, and religiously fanatical, will only lead to failure for the EU.

When these countries try to impose their moral and religious will on the EU, and then realize they are not on the same economic footing as countries like France and Germany, they will want to leave the EU, or take it over. Either way, vastly different cultures, economic situations and religious beliefs are and have been the precursor to all the wars on Earth. The creation of the EU, and it's vulnerability to failure, will be the driving force behind the next World War.

[Mr Skinner]

Well, the EU has recently tried to create a new alliance with the US in the attempt to oppose the growing influence of China, but Bush refused, leaving many a US corporate executive shaking heads.

As for the ideological differences inside the EU: Turkey's the only muslim country in Europe. And they're pretty darn secular. All other european countries are srtictly christian. Some more than others, some (France) have a christian population, but keep christianity out of public life.

But most of the fundamentalists live in the poorer countries, and they benefit so much from the EU, they'd never leave.

I think ye put too much into the EU. There would have to be stronger forces at work to spark off WWIII than a Romania and a Georgia. They have neither the political, economical, or military power to do that.

Besides...I've said it before. The only ones capable of starting a decent world war are the germans. None above, none beside.

Edit: The EU is not courting Turkey any more than before. Nor is it courting Iran. As for other middle-eastern countries: Prolly no more than the US itself.

[taco]

[AnnonUSA]

Sorry on the Iran thing, the talk there was that both Iraq and Iran were talking about changing their principle oil currency to the Euro. That has led to another question of why the US went to War with Iraq, as this would have had a very negative effect on the US Economy.

[The_Kelzor]

Originally Posted by Mr Skinner

There would have to be stronger forces at work to spark off WWIII than a Romania and a Georgia. They have neither the political, economical, or military power to do that.
Besides...I've said it before. The only ones capable of starting a decent world war are the germans. None above, none beside.

i assume you are suggesting that the germans caused both world wars...well first of all you say Romania and Georgia could never be the lead cause of a world war although most historians agree that the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Bosnian studen Gavrilo Princip was immediate cause of the first world war. The plan had been conspired by the Serbian secret society Black Hand. Austrian then declared war on Serbia which they had every right to do. But then Russia decided to respond to any Austian military action against Serbia with partial mobilization, not only against Austria but Germany as well. This obviously alarmed Germany who then demanded that Russia discontinue this mobilization of troops, which Russia refused. War was then declared and Germany sent ambassadors to France and demanded that the French Leaders make their intentions known...Premier Rene Viviani replied that France would act "in accordance with her interests" which meant that France was still pissed at Germany for the GERMAN speaking provinces Alsace-Lorraine that Germany had taken back from France during the Franco Prussian War(which led to the unification of Germany)...Germany then declared war on France...so saying that minor countries in the Balkans could never be the cause of a world war has already been disproven by history...

[AnnonUSA]

World Wars Suck.

[FilLaB0NGo7]

dude, European on my boots!

[gilligan]

they are a bunch of girlymen.

[Mr Skinner]

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

i assume you are suggesting that the germans caused both world wars...well first of all you say Romania and Georgia could never be the lead cause of a world war although most historians agree that the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Bosnian studen Gavrilo Princip was immediate cause of the first world war. The plan had been conspired by the Serbian secret society Black Hand. Austrian then declared war on Serbia which they had every right to do. But then Russia decided to respond to any Austian military action against Serbia with partial mobilization, not only against Austria but Germany as well. This obviously alarmed Germany who then demanded that Russia discontinue this mobilization of troops, which Russia refused. War was then declared and Germany sent ambassadors to France and demanded that the French Leaders make their intentions known...Premier Rene Viviani replied that France would act "in accordance with her interests" which meant that France was still pissed at Germany for the GERMAN speaking provinces Alsace-Lorraine that Germany had taken back from France during the Franco Prussian War(which led to the unification of Germany)...Germany then declared war on France...so saying that minor countries in the Balkans could never be the cause of a world war has already been disproven by history...

Plans, distrust and mobilisation

Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the war plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer and his followers have emphasised the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia. Conflict on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other, relying on a strict timetable. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by pre-empting its mobilisation.

After the attack, the German army would then rush to the eastern front by railroad and quickly destroy the more slowly mobilizing military of Russia.

In a greater context, France's own Plan XVII called for an offensive thrust into Germany’s industrial Ruhr Valley which would cripple Germany’s ability to wage war.

Russia’s revised Plan XIX implied a mobilisation of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.

All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs were anxious to seize the initiative and achieve decisive victories. Elaborate mobilisation plans with precise timetables were prepared. Once the mobilisation orders were issued, both generals and statesmen alike understood that there was little or no possibility of turning back or a key advantage would be sacrificed. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, which resulted in delays of hours or even days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW_1

The 'shots in Sarajevo' were a convenient opportunity to launch a war for the germans. It was said to kick off WWI, but the plans had already been in the making for a long time...

[AnnonUSA]

Those Bastards!

[The_Kelzor]

Originally Posted by Mr Skinner

There would have to be stronger forces at work to spark off WWIII than a Romania and a Georgia. They have neither the political, economical, or military power to do that.

this is what you said...you just admitted that the shots in the balkans did start the war..you could say those shots sparked off that war that perhaps had been brewing ever since the franco-prussian war and the unification of germany. when tension builds up and builds up between powerhouses, small conflicts in minor small countries such as in the Balkans can blow everything up...to argue with that is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You are right that the great war had been brewing for a while. Bismark inadvertantly started this by trying to keep the peace by making strong allies with germany. his idea was if all the countries make agreements to help each other if under attack, then nobody can really attack germany or anyone for that matter..so this ended up with the central powers germany, austria, italy and the allied power...italy went over to the allies and ottomons went with central...but in the end, the war would have been avoided if Russia and France had not mobilized with Russia actually starting it

and the schleiffen plan is no ground to blame the war on germany, it is simply being smart. germany was in between two strong military powers who they did not have good relations with. to not have a plan to defeat them in case of a two fronted war would be suicide.

[Mr Skinner]

Aight, my bad.