By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Catalonia declares independence. Puigdemont free to roam Belgium.

 

Who do you support?

Spain 139 59.40%
 
Catalonia 95 40.60%
 
Total:234
fatslob-:O said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

Well yes that changed when Hitler took power but it is still democracy that brought Hitler to power and that is my point. Democracy does not intrinsically mean peace as proven by Hitler's democratic access to power. Whereas a union like the EU does mean peace. There is yet to be a war inside the EU proving me wrong.

Hitler most certainly did not come into power democratically so the basis for your argument is already undermined in that regard ... 

There's also no precedent that a union brings peace like we see with the roman empire or the US civil war ... 

Ok dude no offense but if you are going to ignore basic historical facts, discussions become pretty much impossible ok?

FYI Hitler was ELECTED and thus came to power. If you want to form an opinion or disagree that's fine but the basic thing is to know what you are talking about cause things are hard enough when people disagree on stuff they know about without adding an extra layer of disagreeing on issues they don't understand. So open up a history book, enjoy the read and then feel free to join the debate.

Just saying.

As for the Roman empire example, it was just that, an empire that conquered through FORCE and INVASION. If you are going to compare the peaceful union of European countries in the present to the brutally conquered land by the Roman empire then you really are clueless as to what we have been talking about in this thread and as to what the EU is about.

As for the US civil war, it was not a conquest, it was a bunch of southern pro-slavery states that tried to leave the US. And while the military option of that time would probably not be viewed today as a 21st century choice, it still did manage to bring peace. Or was the US through civil wars after that? If you check history books, you'll see that it never was again.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 07 November 2017

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Hitler most certainly did not come into power democratically so the basis for your argument is already undermined in that regard ... 

There's also no precedent that a union brings peace like we see with the roman empire or the US civil war ... 

Doesn't even need to be the civil war. Before that you had the US independence war. Them being part of the United Kingdom didn't bring peace there either. There no doubt would have been further wars had the UK not eventually respected other nations desires for independence from them as well. There kind of was in the case of Ireland still...

Dude you're responding to a comment that says Hitler did not get elected democratically and then compares the brutal invasions of the Roman empire to the EU.

I know we don't agree on much but I was thinking higher of you than to see you get your point through the blatant inaccuracies of that comment you're responding to.

Well, I suppose you only answering to the part that makes sense here (the civil war) redeems you

So I'll reply to that part of your comment.

The US independence wars:

First the US was not exactly a part of the uk, it was (before the independence) a COLONY, in other words the land was invaded. The difference with a regular invasion is that the land had no official status of a country as the indians were not considered people with a government and an official country name. It was just the new world and several colonies, British, Spanish, French etc. So comparing colonies of invaded land with the peaceful union of countries in the EU is a bit ludicrous. Need I say more? I don't think so.

The US civil war:

This was not an invasion war it was a secession war, in other words 11 states in the south wanted to leave the US so they could continue satisfying their barbaric and brutal need to have slaves. You talk about me wanting other regions like Catalonia to be my slaves in that other comment which is so ridiculous but here you defend the south in the US civil war and their ACTUAL slavery practices and compare that (again) to the peaceful union of countries in the EU. So the bottom line is the US went to war against those pro-slavery states and yes, forced them back into the US. And contrary to what you guys are saying, this did bring peace inside the US, as there has never been a civil war after that.

Point is, all these examples are examples that do not compare to the EU, those are wars of independence, slavery, colonizations etc. And the fact you and others take these examples to try to criticize the EU feels like desperation to me, like you are so running out of arguments that you guys need to try to justify your side of the argument with examples that have nothing to do with what the EU is achieving now.

 

Ka-pi96 said:

There may not have been any wars within the EU but there have still been plenty of wars involving EU countries. How many wars have non-EU countries like Switzerland and Norway been involved in though?


And how are they enforcing division on you? You don't own them, they're not your slaves. You don't own their land. You're not losing a thing. And enforcing decisions is exaclty why I think smaller states are better. A lesser number of more culturally similar people are going to have significantly less disagreement and people upset at any decisions they make, therefore less people are unhappy and more people are happy.


And yes, I would always prefer small separate countries where people have self-determination than large ones where minorities are oppressed, enslaved or even slaughtered just because they think differently or look different.


Again you are avoiding the main issue. There have not been wars INSIDE the EU. That's the entire point, wars outside or involving EU countries are not the issue here, the issue is that union brings peace to the countries that ARE part of said union. Other wars prove that humans are a war driven race which makes my point be even more relevant. if such a war driven species manages ACTUAL PEACE inside their borders because they are united, that's a pretty strong case for a union, EU style.

As for your second paragraph, the slave thing, I already responded earlier and it's so ludicrous that there is no need to further elaborate. And I DO "lose a thing", I lose land in which I can freely come and go and so do they as they get limited by their own borders (if division wins over union) and WANTING to lose freedom of movment inside a shrinking territory is misguided and ignorant.

And yes, a lesser number of culturally similar people are indeed going to have less disagreements. But they are also going to be much weaker and in this 21st century world, good luck for a small number of people to have a say in talks with China for example. Again the UNITED (key word is "united") States of America, a huge number of different people make my point of union being better than division.

Of course I can't see into alternate universes my friend, but my little finger tells me that, had the US not existed as a single country but as 50 divided states, that not only there would have been a ton more wars inside America but also the ENTIRE western world would not be the free world it is today. Hitler I'm looking at you cause, had my friend Ka-Pi96's wishes for division been a reality in America, I kind of suspect that your invasion of Europe and maybe later America itself would have been, how shall I put it? Oh yes, WAY EASIER AND PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED...

Again you don't see the big picture and obviously neither do the nationalists.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 07 November 2017

CrazyGamer2017 said: 

And yes, a lesser number of culturally similar people are indeed going to have less disagreements. But they are also going to be much weaker and in this 21st century world, good luck for a small number of people to have a say in talks with China for example. Again the UNITED (key word is "united") States of America, a huge number of different people make my point of union being better than division.

Of course I can't see into alternate universes my friend, but my little finger tells me that, had the US not existed as a single country but as 50 divided states, that not only there would have been a ton more wars inside America but also the ENTIRE western world would not be the free world it is today. Hitler I'm looking at you cause, had my friend Ka-Pi96's wishes for division been a reality in America, i kind of suspect that your invasion of Europe and maybe later America itself would have been, how shall I put it? Oh yes, WAY EASIER AND PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED...

Again you don't see the big picture and obviously neither do the nationalists.

I hope that , if anything, the EU is aiming for a United States of Europe. The US isn't a single country, as far as i know, they just bow down to the will of the superstate in DC and can't do anything outside the union.

Also i don't think England initially invaded any natives, just claimed and settled the lands.



fory77 said:

I hope that , if anything, the EU is aiming for a United States of Europe. The US isn't a single country, as far as i know, they just bow down to the will of the superstate in DC and can't do anything outside the union.

Also i don't think England initially invaded any natives, just claimed and settled the lands.

The US is a union of states, officially they are a single country, in actuality they are a union of states, which makes a strong case for union against division.

The land of America is huge so the Brits did not technically speaking invade at first but by expanding they drove the nomadic indians away and in that sense they did invade their land.

EDIT: I'm glad that in your poll most people support Spain and union over Catalonia and their wish for division. It gives hope for the future.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 07 November 2017

CrazyGamer2017 said:
fory77 said:

I hope that , if anything, the EU is aiming for a United States of Europe. The US isn't a single country, as far as i know, they just bow down to the will of the superstate in DC and can't do anything outside the union.

Also i don't think England initially invaded any natives, just claimed and settled the lands.

The US is a union of states, officially they are a single country, in actuality they are a union of states, which makes a strong case for union against division.

The land of America is huge so the Brits did not technically speaking invade at first but by expanding they drove the nomadic indians away and in that sense they did invade their land.

EDIT: I'm glad that in your poll most people support Spain and union over Catalonia and their wish for division. It gives hope for the future.

I like it as it is right now, more or less. Further union would cause trouble.

The first poll with about 300 votes had them tied and initally most voted for Catalonia.



Around the Network
CrazyGamer2017 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Hitler most certainly did not come into power democratically so the basis for your argument is already undermined in that regard ... 

There's also no precedent that a union brings peace like we see with the roman empire or the US civil war ... 

Ok dude no offense but if you are going to ignore basic historical facts, discussions become pretty much impossible ok?

FYI Hitler was ELECTED and thus came to power. If you want to form an opinion or disagree that's fine but the basic thing is to know what you are talking about cause things are hard enough when people disagree on stuff they know about without adding an extra layer of disagreeing on issues they don't understand. So open up a history book, enjoy the read and then feel free to join the debate.

Just saying.

As for the Roman empire example, it was just that, an empire that conquered through FORCE and INVASION. If you are going to compare the peaceful union of European countries in the present to the brutally conquered land by the Roman empire then you really are clueless as to what we have been talking about in this thread and as to what the EU is about.

As for the US civil war, it was not a conquest, it was a bunch of southern pro-slavery states that tried to leave the US. And while the military option of that time would probably not be viewed today as a 21st century choice, it still did manage to bring peace. Or was the US through civil wars after that? If you check history books, you'll see that it never was again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Hmm, I see presidential elections, but who won?!? Not Hitler.



VGPolyglot said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Hmm, I see presidential elections, but who won?!? Not Hitler.

I can't believe we are going to start questioning history now, although it will do good to some to hear some history. So here is the key line:

Two successive federal elections left the Nazis as the LARGEST party in the Reichstag and anti-democratic parties in control of a majority of its seats. Under this political climate, Hindenburg reluctantly APPOINTED Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.

We can debate opinions but debating facts, that's kind of a waste of time, don't you think?



CrazyGamer2017 said:
VGPolyglot said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Hmm, I see presidential elections, but who won?!? Not Hitler.

I can't believe we are going to start questioning history now, although it will do good to some to hear some history. So here is they key line:

Two successive federal elections left the Nazis as the LARGEST party in the Reichstag and anti-democratic parties in control of a majority of its seats. Under this political climate, Hindenburg reluctantly APPOINTED Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.

We can debate opinions but debating facts that's kind of a waste of time, don't you think?

You didn't say the Nazis were elected. You specifically said Hitler, but Hitler was appointed.



VGPolyglot said:

You didn't say the Nazis were elected. You specifically said Hitler, but Hitler was appointed.

Are you serious? Is this some kind of a joke? Am I gonna be on, wacha call that show? Candid Camera?

The point is Hitler did NOT assemble an army and took power through bloodshed and overthrowing the government, he was democratically elected as in, he went through the system and got into power as allowed by the democratic system.

Technically his party won and he was as a consequence appointed yes. If it had not been Hitler it would have been someone else from the Nazi party.

Trump did not win the popular vote and he is still the president, is he not? One may agree or disagree with Trump but his election followed the American system and you cannot compare his election to some dictator in Africa that kills everybody on his way to the presidential seat.

So my point about democracy not being a direct cause for peace as a peaceful union like the EU is, still stands and all the obfuscation in the world won't change that.

EDIT: And since today's theme seems to be how to try to find fault in what I say by trying to take one or two words out of context let me clarify that I'm NOT saying democracy is not a factor in peace, I'm saying it's definitely NOT the main factor. A peaceful union is the main factor and democracy kind of makes a peaceful union, complete. But democracy ALONE does not make peace as shown in Nazi Germany.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 07 November 2017

Goodnightmoon said:
Nem said:

It shows the bully, and where that rotten mindset comes from.

No it doesn't, it shows that you live completely out of reality, just like when you said Catalan politicians went to Belgium to avoid being killed by the Government of Spain lol or when you said Spain is not gonna last cause their kingdoms wants to go despite the fact that only 2 comunities out of 17 have an independentist spirit and none of them were never an independent kingdom by their own, only regions of kingdoms that are now fully integrated into the concept of Spain. You live in a movie, one that takes place 600 years ago.

You are the one that lives in a dream. The dream that you think you can rule over the wills of others forever.

What they did is not illegal. Your constitution made it illegal cause it's imperialist. They didn't try to murder anyone. They wanted their voices heard just like any citizen in a free democracy expects to be.

WTF?! I showed you a map with all the different kingdoms that were formed and you still lie like that to my face.

Look dude, i know you spanish people. I have family in spain i have been to spain. I know what i castillian is like and i know what a Catalunyan is like. The catalunyans have wanted independence way before now. You are the evil ones trying to stop them from going cause you want to suck on their money tit.

(note: of course theres exceptions, but the ones arguing for spain here aren't it)

Bascs wanted independence not long ago remember? You killed those off or incarcerated them. They did make the mistake of going with terrorism, so they lost their case with it. But, it is still the fault of the imperialist mindset.

 

Like, how you and you buddies here tell us how the catalunyans can't "destroy a country". They aren't. You are just afraid of what it means if they leave. Because then others will step up and the sham will end with just the middle of the iberic peninsula, castille left.

Heck your abusive ways are in clear sight of everyone that visits this thread by the way the poll was pandered with when it didn't fit the agenda of the OP. You come here and try to humiliate Catalunyans for wanting their independence and try to wash it off just as a money issue. It's disgusting. I hate speaking to you guys because i know the bully way is so normalised in you that you don't even have the capability of seeing it anymore.

 

You are full of lies planted in your head. Your country is a disgrace. But, keep lying to yourself. It will eventually happen.

Last edited by Nem - on 07 November 2017