EU versus US.....fight!

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-03-02 07:54pm

I notice that France has nukes, Britain has nukes and Belgium has chocolate which they can trade with Russia for....... nukes. I think Europe is safe enough.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-02 07:57pm

SirNitram wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:
<whispers>Psst. Guess what? There is nothing in your precious constitution about the 6 billion+ people on this world who aren't citizens of the US of A...</whispers>
What the hell is that supposed to mean? That we don't have a claim on soveriegnty?
It's more a reference to the fact that you can't run and hide saying 'It's not in the constitution! We don't gotta!' if a treaty the US signs requires something. Of course, that's not quite the case here: It's other people exercising their sovereignty to remind the US they are not alone in the universe.

Can you say strawman? You've completely misrepresented the arguement. The arguement is as follows: The people of the United States are the ones who are soverign, the Government is their servant. The Constitution determines what the Federal Government has the authority to do; any action taken by the Government that violates the Constitution is illegal. As a result the WTO has no authority over the US since it was illegal for Congress to try to delegate its authority to this body in the first place. As a result, any declarations by the WTO are not recognizable in US law and are thus meaningless and non-binding.

Regardless of this, this does illustrate one point finely. The EU considers confiscating less of people's property an "unfair trade practice". Just gotta love the individualist, non-statist Europeans.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-02 07:58pm

TheDarkling wrote:I notice that France has nukes, Britain has nukes and Belgium has chocolate which they can trade with Russia for....... nukes. I think Europe is safe enough.

Too bad none of them are ICBMs. (Or if there are any, not enough to matter).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-02 08:03pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean? That we don't have a claim on soveriegnty?
It's more a reference to the fact that you can't run and hide saying 'It's not in the constitution! We don't gotta!' if a treaty the US signs requires something. Of course, that's not quite the case here: It's other people exercising their sovereignty to remind the US they are not alone in the universe.
Can you say strawman? You've completely misrepresented the arguement. The arguement is as follows: The people of the United States are the ones who are soverign, the Government is their servant. The Constitution determines what the Federal Government has the authority to do; any action taken by the Government that violates the Constitution is illegal. As a result the WTO has no authority over the US since it was illegal for Congress to try to delegate its authority to this body in the first place.

And here is where you fall down. The WTO has no authority to dictate what the US -must- do, persay. It merely dictates that which should be done, and what other sovereign nations can and should do in result of breaching those agreements. As much as you would like to repaint the Constitution to make American Sovereignty superior to all of America's treaties, it doesn't work that way. Sorry.

As a result, any declarations by the WTO are not recognizable in US law and are thus meaningless and non-binding.

If it said 'You must do this' and then attempted anything direct, this would be so. It is not the case. It said 'You must do this' and when defied, other sovereign nations partook of actions within their rights. That it hurts the US is simply a reminder that treaties should be obeyed.

Regardless of this, this does illustrate one point finely. The EU considers confiscating less of people's property an "unfair trade practice". Just gotta love the individualist, non-statist Europeans.

Wow, leveraging for some companies but not all might be 'unfair economically'. I'm not surprised that went over your head.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-02 08:53pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
TheDarkling wrote:I notice that France has nukes, Britain has nukes and Belgium has chocolate which they can trade with Russia for....... nukes. I think Europe is safe enough.
Too bad none of them are ICBMs. (Or if there are any, not enough to matter).

The only nukes in Western Europe that can reach the US by missile are on the 4 Vanguard class SSBNs of the Royal Navy (each armed with 16 Trident II SLBMs, with six 475kt warheads per missile),
and the 4 Triomphant class SSBNs of the French navy (each armed with 16 M45 SLBMs, with six 110kt warheads per missile). While this could do significant damage to the US, the trick is to convince Europe that you're actually crazy enough to nuke them regardless of the consequences to yourself (which of course would be far less than the consequences for Europe). Don't worry: Europe will cave and do the bidding of the evil imperialistic Americans: It is their destiny

.
As for the Russians, you can neutralize their arsenal by offerring to let them share in the spoils...

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-03-03 02:33am

Of course, if you have the massive technology, science, money and knowhow that the E.U has, it's really no big deal to start massproducing ICBM's with nuclear warheads in an hypothetical arms race. Last time I noticed, we're not exactly North Korea.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-03 02:50am

Colonel Olrik wrote:Of course, if you have the massive technology, science, money and knowhow that the E.U has, it's really no big deal to start massproducing ICBM's with nuclear warheads in an hypothetical arms race. Last time I noticed, we're not exactly North Korea.

No, but if my hypothetical "evil American Empire" had any modecem of common sense, they would also demand that Europe also scrap it's own nuclear arsenal, or...else

.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-03-03 02:59am

Ma Deuce wrote:
The only nukes in Western Europe that can reach the US by missile are on the 4 Vanguard class SSBNs of the Royal Navy (each armed with 16 Trident II SLBMs, with six 475kt warheads per missile),

Not even, the US and Britain jointly maintain the Trident II stockpile, when a British SSBN is preparing for its patrol it sails to the US, loads Trident II's, then comes home and then has British warheads fitted to them. Then it goes on patrol. IIRC the missiles may be transferred a few times directly from sub to sub, before being disarmed and returned to a US base for servicing. So the UK never has more then sixteen Tridents in its possession.

and the 4 Triomphant class SSBNs of the French navy (each armed with 16 M45 SLBMs, with six 110kt warheads per missile). While this could do significant damage to the US, the trick is to convince Europe that you're actually crazy enough to nuke them regardless of the consequences to yourself (which of course would be far less than the consequences for Europe). Don't worry: Europe will cave and do the bidding of the evil imperialistic Americans: It is their destiny .
As for the Russians, you can neutralize their arsenal by offerring to let them share in the spoils...

The French nuclear deterrent force is a joke; there maintenance is so bad at one point there entire six boat SSBN force was in port without a single operational boat.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-03-03 03:03am

Oh you crazy Europeans! Now go back to making chocolate and beer, and letting our drunken hyperactive frat boys sleep with your woman, like it is in the movies!

(If you didn't notice the sarcasm in the above, please, seek medical attention)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-03 11:17am

The US probably could destroy Europe's nuclear deterrant without too much difficulty, actually, and the combined European Navy is still no match for the US Navy.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2004-03-05 09:02pm

I'm waiting for my uncle to hear about this, if he already hasn't already. He's convinced that, with the leadership of Germany, the EU will attack the US and usher in the Apocalypse.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-03-05 09:27pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:I'm waiting for my uncle to hear about this, if he already hasn't already. He's convinced that, with the leadership of Germany, the EU will attack the US and usher in the Apocalypse.

The Germans don't run the EU and even if they did they are a bunch pacifist tree huggers, I would suggest they need to toughen up a bit but that may not be wise.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-05 09:31pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:I'm waiting for my uncle to hear about this, if he already hasn't already. He's convinced that, with the leadership of Germany, the EU will attack the US and usher in the Apocalypse.

Actually, he's partially right: If the EU attacked the US, it would be apocalyptic. Apocalyptic for the EU, that is. Bwhahahahahahahahaha

.

Seriously, I don't know why the Fundies (especially Jack van Impe) think the EU is the NWO, or the "revived Roman Empire" as JVI likes to call it. In order to fit the passage in Revelation that JVI claims prophesies about the EU, it would have to have 13 members. It currently has 15, and more are on the way.
Ah, fuck it. Biblical prophecies are as vague (not to mention stupid, as with any attempt to predict the future) as Nostradamus prophesies (most of them anyway; where Nostradumus gave specifics, he was always proven wrong), and thus can be applied to just about anything. A random fact: JVI also believes in Nostradamus prephecies

.

Besides, to quote Jesse Helms "...the EU couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag" (he said this after an EU proposal that membership in the EU be a prerequisite for NATO membership. Naturally, this proposal went nowhere.)

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-05 09:49pm

Who's JVI?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-03-05 09:50pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Who's JVI?

I would guess Jack van Impe, whoever that is.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-03-05 09:57pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Who's JVI?

I thought my post explained that? I posted his full name "Jack van Impe" once, then from there on abbreviated to JVI...

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2004-03-06 01:43am

*Continues his painfully obvious thread hijack...*

JVI? At first I thought you were giving some kind of weirdo nickname to Jack Chick.

Heh, well this whole thread reminded me of my reclusive live-in uncle, and how his weirdo prophesy stuff creeps the everlasting fuck outta me sometimes.

He also said that it was stupid of our government to help rebuild Germany after the war, because they were our enemy, and will be again very shortly. I was about to slap some sense into him.

The EU invasion is also timed with Russia-China's invasion, because, you know, those two signed an arms agreement so that means they must be allies! Ah...Religious egocentrism meets US vs. the World insane patriotism, the possibilities are endless!

I just figure it's fun to share this.

*While this is Off-Topic from the original post, my posts aren't so off from the thread name, methinks.*