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