Thanks for your input! I'm also glad Brexit happened (I'm English) as we were just becoming a state of Europe. Good luck for your dream as well ;)

I think it's a horrible idea, resurgent exclusive nationalism trumping wider unity through ignorance.
Several regions voting 'leave' were net recipients of EU funding, and there is very little chance of replacement funding from Westminster filling the gaps.
There is a high likelihood that the only thing gained out of leaving the EU is /less/ of a say in the 'laws and regulations being dictated from Brussels' that people thought they were getting rid of. You still need trade agreements with countries in the EU, and if you think they'll go for them without forcing a relationship like Norway (which still pays admittance fees, and still has to keep goods up to a European standard) then you'll be sorely disappointed.
There's also the internal strife - Scotland agitating for another referendum of leaving the UK, since one of the main arguments for them staying last time was that by staying in the UK they'd stay in the EU. Northern Ireland risking issues again, since entirely open borders there was one of the critical items helping keep the peace. What's going to happen when you /have/ to secure your only land border with the EU to appease all the nationalists who voted to leave primarily over the migration issue?

So yeah. Terrible idea, but massively entertaining trainwreck. About the only good thing I can see coming out of it is a renewed attempt at closer bindings of the Commonwealth countries - already hearing of discussion regarding free movement between Australia, UK, NZ and Canada.

To follow up, since I forgot to mention country: I'm Australian.

It wont happen. The eventual new UK leadership will go back to EU, negotiate some slightly improved terms and conditions and under the guise of a "whole new operating relationship with EU" will put it to a new referendum, which they'll win easily. In the meantime, they'll quietly send some people across to the DNC and Hillary to get some pointers on how to totally rig a popular 'vote'.

Thanks for replying guys! It's interesting to get a view from Australia, a country that I believe is run very well! I think we could learn a lot from you guys!
I agree with milky on that, we probably will end up back with Europe, sadly. I think if we do go alone we will be better off but it will take 5 years (approx) before our QoL improves.

@ Mikey99 :

You wrote :
"The eventual new UK leadership will go back to EU, negotiate some slightly improved terms and conditions..."

Contrary to what the main media keeps repeating, the European treaties cannot be negotiated. It is impossible to change them because it would require the unanimity of all the EU members to amend whatever it is in a treaty. In other words, if one single country disagrees with a proposed change, it is vetoed.

--------------------
Indeed, please check Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union :
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT
On that official page, you can even choose the language you want to read it.

"Article 48 :
1. The Treaties may be amended...
[...]
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by ALL the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
[...]
Simplified revision procedures
6.
[...]
The European Council shall act by UNANIMITY after consulting...
[...]"
--------------------

It is impossible to create "another Europe". The only way to change something about it is to get out of the UE.

CORRECTION :
... get out of the EU.

I come a bit late but i think Brexit is a very good thing. EU project is dead full of civil servant who are too much paid and that apply lobbies wishes. EU is absolutely not democratic and very obscure. EU could not working because each nation has got its own culture, language, economic system and could not have got the same policy to work efficiency. I think european cooperation is good on some specific points (aerospetial for example) but not on every point. Moreover, EU has created many economic problems with the euro and unfortunately extrem rights movements are raising all around europe. Many europeans decisions are stupid and obey to some big companies interest and are against the general interest. So, I think EU is a bad thing for european people and that the more efficient system stays the nation-state. The quality of life has no relationship with the size of the country, look at Switzerland or Iceland!!! Sorry, for my english, I'm French ;)

American analytical point of view.  Not saying Brexit good or bad (yet), but contemplating the outcome of the vote.  Some questions:

Are the British now better off economically?   By what metric?  Household income?  GDP?  Trade Balance? 

Are you personally better off? (Meaning -will you be, meaning you (WorldCouldBeSoDifferent)
who kindly asked for input. :-)

Are the British better off culturally/politically/security?  Were these drivers?  Or was it economics, or both?

Did Britons consider what was best for them personally or nationally?  Big difference sometimes.  Or - Do you think people were caught in rhetoric? 

Were they making informed analytical decisions?  When you buy a car, sometimes you do the math, sometimes you buy what's cool. 

I assume people voted out because they were unhappy with their lives/pay/town.  Will it get better?  Could it get worse?  When will we know?

What impact did the EU really have on most Britons?  I don't know,  but I read the analysis and saw spin from both sides for sure.  What was really true?  

It's such a complex issue that it's hard to see how average people  (or even experts really) can analyze something so complicated.  It can be analyzed, but did voters do it?

Another thing, when Europe is divided,  historically the wars can be devastating.  Just look at this Diplomacy game we play.   Millions died 1914-1918.  Is that risk of war increased,  or irrelevant to this  (as in there will be new trade deals to relink everything). 

Will Britons get good trade deals, and not be pushed by EU/other nations into a worse spot?

Frankly,  all this goes for America too.  Both candidates/parties in the looming election have flaws, some huge.  Brexit had two sides too and multiple up/downsides to both.  Analytically, especially after watching Brexit, what's best for the US?  Do math, read ideas, think, don't believe spin from either side. 

Think.  What really matters?   What's nonsense,  what's important,  what's irrelevant to your desired outcome.

I'm leaning toward staying in (no Brexit) as the better economic option,  but time will tell.

Thanks for replying guys, I personally am better off and I believe that the economy will recover as it has only dropped due to the uncertainty. Once we are actually out of the EU things will get better for the majority as the pound recovers against the Euro and Dollar. I voted with a lot of consideration for what was best for the whole country as I'm very patriotic.
The chance of war is only being driven up by Russia and China causing problems (Russia in the Baltic's and China in the "China" Sea). GB is still part of NATO which is the military alliance so there's no more chance of war between those nations than before.
Camarade I'm actually living in France (but a very rural part), do you notice any anti EU feelings here? I certainly don't in my area and all the British and French in this area were very sad GB left. As mentioned before I am solidly out and I am hoping that the EU begins to fragment so they realise something needs to change. I don't hope it breaks up as it's a good concept, but if they were to improve the way it's carried out then I think Britain leaving would have been the best thing for the whole of Europe. I hope Britain never goes back to it as that would make us look very stupid and that we can't make up our minds. But I do hope that we didn't leave just for nothing to change, unfortunately we got Theresa May, who out of the ones that ran for it was the best, but she wasn't my choice (I was a BoJo fan).
As for America I think they're in trouble, Hillary or Trump isn't much of a choice. I think Trump is less dangerous than Hillary as he's less likely to act on his words. I think with Trump nothing much would happen whereas Hillary will screw up all sorts. Luckily not my decision.
Thanks to everyone for the great comments! I love talking about this topic and seeing what people think and making links to what different countries think. Thanks again

Though we disagree, that is a spirited, coherent argument and I agree, decent cordial discussion on many topics.

TheWorldCouldBeSoDifferent wrote :

"I'm actually living in France (but a very rural part), do you notice any anti EU feelings here?"

Yes the anti-EU feelings in France are growing more and more every day. Do you know the Union Populaire Républicaine (UPR) whose founder and president is François Asselineau ? The UPR is a political party whose main goal is to get France out of the EU, out of the eurozone and out of NATO.

Here is their internet site : upr.fr

François Asselineau is planning to run for the French presidential election of 2017. At this moment he is working on the gathering the 500 necessary signatures.

In Belgium, where I live, there is the Mouvement pour l'Indépendance de la Belgique (MIB) whose main goal is to get Belgium out of the EU, out of the eurozone and out of NATO.

Here is their internet site : mib-pib.jimdo.com

That's very interesting to hear! Thank you so much! I will certainly check out those websites when I have a bit more time to look at them properly as I'm just going to bed now.

In my opinion leaving NATO would be a bad thing, military alliances prevent wars and with the tensions from the east (Russia and China) I think NATO splitting up could be disastrous as it would allow Russia and China (even North Korea) to think it might just be the time to see how far they can really get.

I also think the principle of the EU is an excellent one that I hope isn't lost. I hope major countries like France and Belgium don't leave it, but revise it as it would make a very strong unity. I think the UK leaving is what showed the EU leaders something has to change or everything will fall apart. The departure of the UK from the EU may just be what saves the EU (obviously these are only my thoughts and I'm very interested in hearing everyone else's as well as which side - in or out - they're on)

Thank you again for replying and the information about the political parties.

I don't think that you really need to worry to much about China or North Korea seeing how far they can push you.

BTW, Turkey, France, Greece, the UK and Estonia (I'm being generous to the Estonians by rounding up) are the only European members of NATO that meet their spending requirements under NATO rules. The Belgians are as bad as the Canadians in terms of free riding on the US defense umbrella. The idea that y'all would quit NATO rather than being kicked out for systematically failing to fulfill your agreed obligations speaks volumes about Europe, no? I've never really understood why Anglophone Canada has never had a referendum on whether they wish to expel Quebec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

And here I thought the EU's original purpose was to steal from everyone else to subsidize the rural population of France. :oP

too much

I knew that only a few countries do meet the spending requirements, but I thought America was one of them isn't it? I'm probably wrong, but thought I'd check. Also I didn't realise Canada were piggy backing American defence systems.

Going back to China/North Korea (/Russia) they are already pushing the limits. China causing issues with Japan (and I think Vietnam), North Korea relentlessly testing their missile capabilities - one missile hit Japanese waters, various others into the pacific - and Russia is repeatedly flying fighter jets over UK waters and now over UK soil too. I think while many countries are free riding on the NATO scheme if we could work together to make it so all countries had a target they could meet that would be better, e.g. a certain % of the wealth of each country so more wealthy ones weren't at an advantage so to speak.

Of course the EU's purpose is to help rural France, why else was it created? Haha

"...the only EUROPEAN members of NATO that meet their spending requirements under NATO rules."

Japan is not a member of NATO. France or Belgium could leave NATO without fearing that China or North Korea would take advantage of them.

Oops sorry missed the "European" part.
Also I knew Japan isn't part of it, but wouldn't we protect them if their islands were taken by China?

Late to the party here so only skimmed many of these. Nice to see civil discussion on the matter.

Brexit was more of a referendum on immigration than anything, IMO. GB had a generous welfare program, so were getting a large influx of people coming in to take advantage of it. Such a policy will cripple the wealthier nations involved in the open borders of EU policy.

If we want to get our conspiracy hats on, EU seems to have become more of a platform for socialist globalism rather than capitalist nationalism. Glad the people of GB were wise enough to recognize this despite the overly obvious media bias trying to convince them otherwise.

I'm glad you mentioned the media bias as it was so annoying. I wanted to see both sides but all I got was the message saying Brexit will cause a recession in the UK and our lives will basically end. It took a bit of research to get proper arguments for both sides. I voted out, however I don't believe this will effect immigration. I imagine a lot of people did vote because of immigration, but I also think (and hope) the majority were smarter than to vote on one thing. I do believe immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with as no matter how unfair it seems a country has its limits. GB can not sustain the population it is heading towards and instead of solving the problems for these people in the long term it is just a solution for the present day. (A whole different matter here, but, I think the fact people don't look beyond what will effect them immediately is very annoying and possibly a major flaw that could cause our inevitable demise as the dominant species on this planet. Obviously some do, but I fear not enough. Anyway that's a different conversation so I won't go into it)

• It is common EU propaganda to say that the EU subsidizes rural France. The fact is that France gives, each year, more than 23 billions euros to the EU and the EU gives back, each year, 14 billions euros of subsidies to France. That means that, when France will leave the EU, it will still be able to give the same subsidies to its own population and that, in addition, it will have 9 more billions euros.

• Claiming that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran (et al.) are a threat to global peace is Western propagnada. The truth is that the USA and NATO, their military tool, are the real treat against peace. NATO has been fighting illegal wars for decades. And the USA have been fighting illegal wars for even much longer. The wars against Yougoslavia, Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Syria, just to name a few, were illegal wars of aggression.

• NATO is a USA's political tool for the domination of Europe and a military tool for world domination. Please read the book "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski' (who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson and who was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor) or listen to George Friedman who founded Stratfor and who is one of the best US experts on geostrategy.
For example, in "The Grand Chessboard", Brzezinski wrote (on page 88 of my French edition) that Western Europe is USA's vassal.

• TheWorldCouldBeSoDifferent wrote :

"military alliances prevent wars"

Once again, that is something that has been repeated ad nauseam by the media but that is false. Indeed, alliances are the best way to bring wars, just like it happened in 1914. On the contrary, the best way to guarantee peace is the Vienna System (also know as the "Congress System", or the "Concert of Europe") which consists in balance of powers.
TheWorldCouldBeSoDifferent, and everybody else who reads French, please read this excellent article about this question published 10 days ago by the MIB : "Le dangereux principe des alliances automatiques" ("The dangerous principle of automatic alliances") :

http://mib-pib.jimdo.com/2016/08/07/le-dangereux-principe-des-alliances-automatiques/

@The World... I don't think that the Japanese would be holding their breath for European assistance in the event of a conflict with China.

@Retillion Well, I saw journalism amid all of the anti-Brexit pablum which stated that the UK and Germany were the only two net contributors to the EU before arguing almost hysterically for Remain. I take that to mean that the point about net fiscal contributions is beyond dispute. but I will admit that I have never looked into the specifics of EU fiscal policy on that level.

You need to specify what "illegal" and "aggression" mean. Member states of NATO are all signatories of "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" as was Yugoslavia. That genocide was occurring and did occur in both Bosnia and Kosovo is not generally disputed. The government of Afghanistan knowingly provided refuge to non-Afghans who used the country as a base from which to murder thousands of US citizens through repeated attacks over half a decade. The government of Afghanistan refused to turn the leaders of this group over and were then overthrown by internal enemies with whom they had been fighting a civil war since before the then current government had been in power. The invasion of Iraq as a matter of legality was an extension of the 1991 war and was based on claims that Iraq had failed to fulfill the terms of the original ceasefire. The government of Iraq acted purposefully over the course of decade to promote the impression among both its neighbors and its people that it was not fulfilling these obligations in order to be more feared thus reinforcing its position. But actions of the people involved on the Coalition side demonstrated that they clearly believed that the government of Iraq was intentionally evading the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. You would see that the USA followed France into Libya if you examined the events a little more closely. US involvement in Syria is not particularly prominent as compared with Turkey or Russia or Iran (or I suspect Saudi Arabia).

I would be willing to wager money that if we were to examine the original English text of Dr. Brzezinski's writings that we would find that the word "vassal" does not appear and is instead an artifact of the translation. I would also suggest that you study the history of the 1950s and early 1960s a bit more closely. The USA largely forced the European NATO powers to release their colonial possessions. If the "purpose" of NATO was world domination, then acting against the members of NATO to reduce the domination of the world by the NATO members seems odd. The Suez Crisis comes prominently to mind.

I cannot think of a diplomatic history of Europe that I have read which did not acknowledge a high probability that Russia and Austria would have fought a war against each other earlier had Germany not entered into a defensive alliance with Austria. Most analysis then points to a Crimean War type scenario in which all of the major European powers would have been sucked in. You are also overlooking the fact that NATO preserved a democratic Europe against Soviet domination through until the Soviet Empire collapsed without armed conflict. Given that the most common argument advanced by the pro-EU forces is that Europe's natural state is to be viciously murdering one another without end, NATO would seem to be entitled to at least a little credit for the absence of a European shooting war for the last several decades.

Retillion, can I ask where you're from? You seem very anti NATO and appear to either be extremely well informed or completely uninformed.

Also the subsidizing rural France was a joke...

I don't think the west needs to do a lot of work on propaganda (and in England they cover these stories as little as possible and some news stations won't even mention it) to portray the actions of Russia and China as... Not so good shall we say.
I'd also like to point out that North Korea are going to be slightly unhappy as a high ranking political official just defected to South Korea.

Also as Gopher pointed out there are non-NATO countries that are far more involved in Syria than NATO, as Russia is one of them it's just another tension that is in place between Russia and the west.

Also if NATO was after "world domination" as you say, I think they'd have not given back the colonies (GB being the largest ever empire proceeded to allow the countries their independence) and would have struck on the rest of the world before they got powerful. If you were planning to attack someone who isn't ready to defend them self you wouldn't wait for them to be prepared would you?

The point about alliances causing wars... Alliances between eastern countries only and western countries only will cause tensions and maybe lead to war. Alliances where you're either allied to someone or you're allied to someone who is allied to someone you're not mean you can't attack anyone without breaking an alliance and therefore everyone turning on you as they all keep their alliances. This would prevent war.

• The only two cases in which a war is legal are :

1° If a country is invited as an ally by another country in order to bring help. For example, Russia's miltitary actions in Syria are legal because Russia was invited by Syria in order to help for its defense. On the contrary, USA and NATO were NOT invited by Syria and their actions there were illegal. When, in the Western media, they keep repeating that "Bashar al-Assad" must go away, it becomes clear that the Western countries are making an aggression war against Syria.

2° If a military action is decided by the United Nations Security Council.

• It is true that France seemed to be first more active than the USA against Libya but France is now completely under the orders of the USA. France is not a sovereign country any more. Think of that kind of question with a Diplomacy player's point of view.

• gopher27 wrote :

"The government of Afghanistan knowingly provided refuge to non-Afghans who used the country as a base from which to murder thousands of US citizens through repeated attacks over half a decade." Blah, blah, blah, ad nauseam.

You seem to know perfectly well the usual USA and Western propaganda. In the last 15 years, USA's actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Irak and Syria have caused more than 1.5 MILLION deaths. USA are the aggressors.
The USA are the country that has been the most at war throughout all its history.
We all know that Wikipedia is not an accurate historical source but this will give an idea of what I am talking about :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th_century_wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

The USA are the most wars making country in the world. They claim that they fight for freedom and democracy but they fight for their own imperial interests.

• gopher27 wrote :

"I would be willing to wager money that if we were to examine the original English text of Dr. Brzezinski's writings that we would find that the word "vassal" does not appear and is instead an artifact of the translation."

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for writing that comment !
Indeed, instead of checking by yourself if what I wrote is true, you simply state that you are ready to wager money that I am wrong. That attitude is an act of faith and is absolutely not a neutral attitude that aims to find the truth.
A 5-second research on Google would have given you the original English version of Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard :

http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf

A simple CTRL+F with the word "vassal" in that document would have shown you that this word appears 11 times in that book !

The sentence I was referring to can be found on page 59 of that book (that is on page 67 of the .pdf document) and it says exactly :

"The brutal fact is that Western Europe, and increasingly also Central Europe, remains largely an American protectorate, with its allied states reminiscent of ancient vassals and tributaries."

• The reason why the USA wanted the European countries to give up their colonies is because the USA wanted to weaken the European countries, especially the UK and France, in order to improve their control on the European countries.

--------------------

TheWorldCouldBeSoDifferent wrote :

"Retillion, can I ask where you're from? You seem very anti NATO and appear to either be extremely well informed or completely uninformed."

I am from Brussels, Belgium and my native language is French. I am indeed completely anti-NATO.
The fact that you write that I appear to either be extremely well informed or completely uninformed shows that you have an open mind about what I am writing.
I am not going to write here in this forum who I am but I can tell you that I am closely related to both the French Union Populaire Républicaine (UPR) and to the Belgian Mouvement pour l'Indépendance de la Belgique (MIB). These two organizations have excellent experts about those questions (the EU, the eurozone and NATO). For example :

- François Asselineau, the founder and president of the UPR, is Inspecteur Général des Finances in France.

- Vincent Brousseau (who has two PhD's in Mathematics and in Economy) has worked 15 years for the European Central Bank. During the last 6 years, he worked at their Monetary Policy division. He was first totally convinced that the EU and the euro were good things but he gradually understood that these were in fact castastrophic for the European countries. He finally resigned from the ECB.

- Colonel Régis Chamagne is an expert in military questions and in particular in Air Force questions. By the end of his military career, he was the commander of the French Air Base of Bordeaux.

- French Vice-amiral Michel Debray, now retired, is another military and geostrategy expert of the UPR. He was the commander of both French aircrafts carriers : the Foch and the Clemenceau. He was also the president of the Institut Charles de Gaulle.

- Mike Werbrouck, the founder and president of the MIB, is the Belgian expert about Belgium leaving the EU, the eurozone and NATO.

I know personally three of these men, one of them very closely.

As a conclusion, don't simply believe what I write : please stop believing blindly the main media, think by yourself, read books about those questions. And for those who read French please read :

upr.fr
mib-pib.jimdo.com

"For example, in "The Grand Chessboard", Brzezinski wrote (on page 88 of my French edition) that Western Europe is USA's vassal."

"The brutal fact is that Western Europe, and increasingly also Central Europe, remains largely an American protectorate, with its allied states reminiscent of ancient vassals and tributaries."

"...[R]eminiscent of ancient vassals..." is very different from "...Brzezinski wrote that Western Europe is USA's vassal."

I suspect that most reasonable people would actually judge that point in my favor. I was actually paying you respect in presuming that you were not intentionally misrepresenting what was actually said. I was mistaken to have given you that benefit of the doubt.

So your general claim is that the US's actions are driven by a desire to dominate Afghanistan. Why would that be a goal worth expending blood and treasure to achieve?

- "Vincent Brousseau (who has two PhD's in Mathematics and in Economy) has worked 15 years for the European Central Bank. During the last 6 years, he worked at their Monetary Policy division. He was first totally convinced that the EU and the euro were good things but he gradually understood that these were in fact castastrophic for the European countries. He finally resigned from the ECB."

Uh, so the fuck what? I have graduate degrees in Math and Economics, and I have worked for the Federal Reserve. I would not list having worked for the FED as being a reason to believe anyone I might cite on any topic. I have known many naives, fools and idiots who have worked for the FED. If you believe that the people behind the curtain possess some divine insight, I feel for you. And for the record almost every monetary economist (including Robert Mundell and Milton Friedman) predicted the failure of the euro for exactly the reasons that it is now having trouble. Thomas Sargent's Nobel Prize lecture was about why the EU was doomed from the start.

https://youtu.be/Cl0QYkez-BE?t=1005

@gopher27 :

• Regarding the quote from Brzezinski's book, I am now in vacation and travelling. My books are of course at home and I quoted from memory but the spirit of the book undoubtedly is that Europe is USA's vassal. For your information, many highest ranked French military officers have named that book "Mein Kampf".
Instead of rejecting my comment, please read the book and make your own opinion.

• You wrote :
"So your general claim is that the US's actions are driven by a desire to dominate Afghanistan. Why would that be a goal worth expending blood and treasure to achieve?"

1° Do you really believe that the US leaders, like the leaders of most other countries, care about blood ? If you don't understand the various reasons why it is important to control Afghanistan, read, for example, The Gran Chessboard.
I am rather surprised that some experienced Diplomacy players still don't understand that world leaders play for real their own game of Diplomacy on the planet.

If you want me to give you some of the advantages for the USA to attack Afghanistan, here are a few elements :
- Making war in order to make money.
- Making war in order to test new weaponry in reality.
- Making war in order to give a common enemy to the US population so that it is distracted from the fact that there is more and more poverty in the USA.
- Completing the encirclement of Iran.
- Improving the encirclement of Russia and of China as well.
- Controlling the opium production : since the USA are in Afghanistan, the opium production has reached its maximum level.
- China and Iran are excellent allies. China needs the Iran oil and occcupying Afghanistan helps to separate China and Iran.

Were you really unable, as a Diplomacy player, to find some of these reasons ?

2° Regarding the treasure part, wars cost a lot of money to the average citizen but allows the military-industrial complex, and the banks as well, to make a lot of money. War is a perfect tool to make money transfers.
Regarding wars, what can you say about the fact that the USA have been making wars almost every year since they exist ?

• I know about all those economists who stated that the euro is a catastrophe : Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Thomas Sargent, Christopher Pissarides, James Mirrlees, Amartya Sen, Milton Friedman and Maurice Allais, for example.

So, have I understood you well : do you agree with me about the fact that the euro and the EU are doomed ?

Retillion, your politics are more messed up than your Diplomacy ethics, and that's saying quite a bit

RUFFHAUS 8, it would disappoint me if you said something good about me.

- Making war in order to make money.

Please explain specifics here. This is a stupid and hackneyed assertion. State specific individuals and mechanisms through which they personally made this money.

- Making war in order to test new weaponry in reality.

What specifics "new weapons"? These presumably would have been weapons which had not yet been developed in 1999 when NATO bombed Serbia? The actual war in Afghanistan last how many weeks? What would have been the practical value of "test" these weapons over but a few days against a fairly primitive enemy but two years after a more technologically sophisticated engagement?

- Making war in order to give a common enemy to the US population so that it is distracted from the fact that there is more and more poverty in the USA.

In 2001, by essentially every measure, "poverty" was at a near all time low in the US. This was especially true in terms of comparisons to Europe by virtue of exchange rates. But it was also true in terms of the relative wellbeing of American Blacks both in comparison to their time series and against whites in the cross section. So the obvious question becomes why 2001 when your logic would seem to imply 2001 to be the least relevant moment?

- Completing the encirclement of Iran.

Dear God, you incredible dumbass. If the purpose of the war in Afghanistan was to encircle Iran, then please explain why Iranian intelligence actively aided the US in attacking the Taliban? Iran quite actively assisted the US diplomatically on the international level and in organizing the within Afghanistan opposition to the Taliban. Iran's political leaders feel less encircled by enemies today than they did in 2001 as Khatami has repeatedly states publicly.

- Improving the encirclement of Russia and of China as well.

Afghanistan is not particularly valuable by either measure. China is far more concerned about Salafist influence in their western provinces than they are about Americans being in Afghanistan. The Russians in 2001 were flat on their backs and were more pliable than any of the Europeans states you assert are US vassals.

- Controlling the opium production : since the USA are in Afghanistan, the opium production has reached its maximum level.

Where to begin? Opium production only very briefly declined at the very end of the Taliban period and took a few years post-Taliban to get back to production levels from the main period of Taliban rule. I have a cousin who actually worked on opium eradication in Afghanistan. If there are any Game of Thrones fans, Youtube vlogger "Preston Jacobs" also worked in Afghanistan on US opium eradication efforts. Total US spending on anti-opium cultivation efforts actually exceed the pre-war Afghan GDP.

- China and Iran are excellent allies. China needs the Iran oil and occupying Afghanistan helps to separate China and Iran.

Iran and India had and have significantly stronger ties than Iran and China. China gets significantly more oil from Saudi Arabia than Iran. Anyone paying attention to what has been going on in oil markets over the last two years should be well aware of this. I worked as a commodity broker in Texas for several years before becoming an economist. The current slide in oil prices were driven in part by the Saudis signing what in effect were long term supply deals with China to block Iran's attempts to gain access to Chinese oil markets. China is also in the process of planning extensive infrastructure projects to link their far west to Pakistan by land. All commentary
on this effort make clear that such projects were not possible when the Taliban governing Afghanistan.

"Completing the encirclement of Iran.
- Improving the encirclement of Russia and of China as well."


These are the 2 I don't agree with most. The USA/ Europe don't want to start a fight, but most obviously aren't interested in controlling Afghanistan. If they were they would already control it. People just see the fact we're at war and don't look closely enough, the amount of men we committed to Afghanistan was pathetic, if we had the desire to control it we'd send in mass forces and just stampede our way through. If we intended to attack Russia we would have done it years ago, as I said before we wouldn't wait for someone to build themselves up before striking as that would be plain dumb.

It's intriguing to see how 2 people effectively on the same side can argue such different points. This is why you will rarely get a true majority belief as within each major argument there are many smaller ones. This is why true democracy is so hard to achieve. Also the average person switches side whenever the side they're on upsets them, which is just pathetic. You will never agree with everything a group says which is why votes need to be done for every specific points, however this isn't feasible so you have to accept compromise.

"- Making war in order to make money.
- Making war in order to test new weaponry in reality.
- Making war in order to give a common enemy to the US population so that it is distracted from the fact that there is more and more poverty in the USA."

In these points there is some truth, however they are not "making" war, they are simply getting involved in wars that aren't theirs to be involved in. This is partly for those reasons above, but it is also because people think as we are more developed we should help them fix their problems. I am of the belief that these atrocities must happen in other countries for them to finally reach the stage of development we enjoy. If someone does your work for you because you don't understand it, you won't be able to deal with it when the problem arises again. I think developed countries should stick to managing themselves, sadly the majority of people won't accept this and complain if we do nothing thus governments get involved in wars sometimes they don't want to be in just to satisfy the public. We didn't get to our stage of development without some atrocities in our history, no country can, so why do we try to progress these could tries before they are ready? In my opinion this will hold them in their undeveloped state for longer. Yes, I am saying that some people have to be killed/displaced before things get better. If you can point out a country that developed without this I'd love to see it.

I am really enjoying this discussion, but I think some people are doing personal attacks on people. If you think someones point of view is wrong feel free to voice yours, however try not to call people names please as we are not children. I enjoy civilised discussions not slating matches.

Once again and as always thanks for replying and I hope we get to keep talking!

@gopher27 :

I do not allow you to call me names.
If you were talking to me face to face, you would not act like that.
If you do that again, I will stop communicating with you.
Whatever thoughts or feelings I may have when I read what you write, I always answer you without vulgarity. I expect the same politeness in return.

@gopher27 :

You wrote :

"The invasion of Iraq as a matter of legality was an extension of the 1991 war and was based on claims that Iraq had failed to fulfill the terms of the original ceasefire. The government of Iraq acted purposefully over the course of decade to promote the impression among both its neighbors and its people that it was not fulfilling these obligations in order to be more feared thus reinforcing its position. But actions of the people involved on the Coalition side demonstrated that they clearly believed that the government of Iraq was intentionally evading the terms of the 1991 ceasefire."

To me, it sounds that what you wrote is just mainstream media "justification" whose only purpose is to manufacture the consent of USA's polulation.

In order to be sure that I have understood you well, do you estimate that the invasion of Irak by the USA in 2003 was legal ?

Do you know that the United Nations clearly stated that this war was illegal ?
For example, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in 2004 :

"I have indicated it [the invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Regarding the fact that the USA is a country that creates wars :

USA Four-star general Welsey Clark publicly stated that the war against Irak was decided around the 20th of September 2001. By 2001, the USA had already planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years : Irak, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXUBfL3r_9s

You do not really have the power or capacity to "not allow" anyone to call you anything they choose.

When people say particularly stupid and baseless things to me in person (ie they act like dumbasses), I do in fact feel little restraint in telling them that they are being dumbasses to their faces. Would "moronic donkey" be less grating on your tender sensibilities?

You claimed that a series of actions directed against one party were in fact a hostile act directed against a third party, when that third party was actively involved in planning the series of actions and directly aided their completion. That, sir, is either astounding idiocy on your part or profound ignorance. And yes, you merit being called out for that and you deserve ridicule for it. Would you like to claim that the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was an aggressive act designed to encircle Great Britain?

You "always answer" me in a particular manner? Over the set of like three times we have ever had any interactions? I find the practice of people resorting to strong universal statements terribly odd in nearly all cases, but here you are doing so after hardly a handful of lifetime responses. But your behavior is "always" possessing of certain characteristics?

The other day I held the door open on the bus preventing the driver from leaving so that a woman running for the bus could get on before the bus left. Since that was my only such moment involving that random woman, I could accurately say that I "always" hold the bus for that woman whenever I see her running for the bus. However, such a statement would be rather ridiculous.

Kofi Annan is not the UN. Things which he says as an individual are essentially meaningless. But of even greater significance is the fact that I have never endorsed your unilaterally declared definition of "legal".

And Wesley Clark is a politician who ran for President. His little story was a bit of political theater when he was trying to build a base of support within the Democratic Party. As a random aside, a guy I knew when I was in junior high school actually played a fairly significant role in running Mr. Clark's campaign for President in 2004.

If the point of this discussion is to dissect the "legality" of the war in Iraq, then the key points would be that the ceasefire in 1991 included a set of conditions, which the Baathist regime purposefully behaved publicly as though they were violating, the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse the removal of the Baathist regime as a point of American foreign policy and the US Congress vote again to approve military action against Iraq. That is a greater level of "legality" than either the bombing missions accompanied the eventual Dayton Process or those associated with Kosovo's quasi-independence. I notice that you sidestepped the original point of discussion by asserting that the UN possessed a kind of mythic and ultimately monopolistic power in terms of "legal" authority when the Convention on Genocide is endorsed by the UN.

As for your cribbing Noam Chomsky, he is a carnival barker, much like Edward Said was. There is no internal intellectual consistency to his positions except that he fixates against the US in kind of caricatured reverse-chauvinism. This is a man who called the survivors of the Khmer Rouge liars and CIA agents (I think the phrase for that is "Holocaust denial"). He stated in an interview once that as a young man he believed at the time that the US was sending troops to Europe during WWII in order to prevent a Communist Revolution in the UK....but that he had sense changed his mind. This is a man who stated that his advocacy for Turkish Kurds and disparagement of Iraqi Kurds was rooted almost solely in the groups differing relationships towards the US and "the American Empire". Chomsky claimed not too long ago that Slobodan Milošević was targeted for removal because he was standing in the way of neoliberal economic policies. Basic checking of the book Chomsky cited as the source of his explicit accusations showed no similar statements. He was just lying.

@ gopher27 :

You wrote :

"Would "moronic donkey" be less grating on your tender sensibilities?"


You keep using insulting vocabulary towards me. Are you really unable to stay polite ?
If you were for real in front of me, or in front of most persons in the world, you would not allow yourself to insult me, or them, because things would become physical rather quickly and you would risk to have your face smashed. Of course, I understand that you feel like a computer warrior with a thick skin, safe behind you computer screen.

I simply refuse to communicate with insulting people. After this message, I will comment two more things that you wrote : don't think that it will be an answer for you, it will be written for other readers' possible interest. I don't have the time nor the desire to answer all the warmonger nonsense that you wrote but these two are really gems !

People like you make me sick : your country has been waging wars throughout the world for many decades, killing millions of people, using torture against human beings and you all can do is to repeat, like a brainwashed parrot, the so-called "justifications" broadcasted by your mainstream medias.

gopher27 wrote :

"Wesley Clark is a politician who ran for President. His little story was a bit of political theater when he was trying to build a base of support within the Democratic Party."

Have I understood well ? We shouldn't believe what Wesley Clark stated because he "is a politician who ran for President" who told a "little story" in order "to build a base of support within the Democratic Party." ?
What does that mean ? Must people who run for the USA's presidential election be considered to be liars ?

By the way, Wesley Clark is not the only one who stated that the attack against Syria was planned many years before it actually started. Roland Dumas, who has been the French Ministre des Affaires étrangères for years publicly and repeatedly declared too that the war against Syria was planned many years before it actually started.

For example,

1° On June 14 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eswnzEv0Nz8

2° On September 24 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is8o-wiRY4s

Roland Dumas was by that time, and still is, retired from politics. He can afford now to tell the truth about what he knows.

gopher27 wrote :

"the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse the removal of the Baathist regime as a point of American foreign policy and the US Congress vote again to approve military action against Iraq. That is a greater level of "legality" than..."

All countries, like for example the USA, have the sovereign ability to make laws that are valid in their own territory and nowhere else. The fact that the US Congress voted to approve military action against Iraq does not make that action legal on an international level !

It is incredible that some people think that the wars made by their own countries could be legal because they voted themselves the "legality" of the wars that they plan to start ! That kind of "logic" is so insane that it tells a lot about those who believe it.

Well, sir, I was taught many years ago as part of having a mother and growing up in a civilized society that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," so no, I understand the difference between words and violence. But I do thank you for providing me the information I needed to update my Bayesian prior so as to have an even lower opinion of you than I had previously. I also happen to be a rather larger than average man in the prime of life. I have never felt at risk of having my "face smashed" by random loudmouths spouting idiocy.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you may suffer from narcissist personality disorder? Your self-assessment of rather pedestrian internet comments, as yet unmade, to be worthy of extraordinary admiration plus your rather swiftly resorting to threats of violence when denied deference from others makes you seem a bit fragile in the ego department.

"Screw you, guys, I'm goin' home," is of course a sure sign that someone is winning an argument.

BTW, in English, the word "media" is the plural of the word "medium". Given that I have not owned a television in more than a decade and am somewhat frequently accused of being an intellectual snob out of touch with mainstream culture, I do find entertaining the idea that you would inform me that I am "brainwashed" by America's mass media.

You are free to engage in intellectual debate on whatever level you are comfortable with; however, I would be very reluctant to cite a politician actively running for public office as a reliable source of accurate information on hardly any subject. Think for a moment about what his story would imply in the real world. What would it even mean to "take down" the government of Somalia in 2001 or even today? Do you genuinely believe that the US was preparing a military invasion to remove Rafic Harari from power? To make the obvious point, it is the military's job in every country to make plans for potential conflicts of all sorts. I would be shocked if there were not war plans for an invasion of Canada within the policy planning departments of the Pentagon. The existence of such plans communicate little information. Even the existence of fairly extensive covert operations if proven would not be terribly convincing towards the point I believe you are trying to argue given all of the things that Syria was up to in the years leading up to the Arab Spring.

Really? Roland Dumas? There is a name from the past. I needn't watch either of your video clips. Roland Dumas has repeatedly been accused of actual crimes. As luck would have it, one of my somewhat distant relatives (I think he is one of my great-grandfather's brothers) used to be the CEO of Fina decades ago when it was an independent company. Roland Dumas was accused of being involved in the massive web of corruption scandals surrounding Elf Aquitaine. Elf effectively purchased the merged Total and Fina after which Elf changed its corporate name to Total because their public reputation for institutional corruption was so pervasive. I also believe that Roland Dumas was accused of stealing from the estate of the sculptor Giacometti while serving as a lawyer for the estate. So you seem to be citing a man who is particularly dishonest and corrupt even by the rather lax standards of French politics. And that does not even touch on his history of rather overtly anti-Semitic comments in public.

Next you will probably be telling me how efforts to remove the Assad regime from power in what seems like the only Arab country with no oil are all about oil. Within US policy circles, the Saudis have been fairly strong advocates for either aggressively isolating, actively destabilizing or removing the Alawite dominated Assad regime for decades with the Us generally being more reluctant than our regional allies. In what reporting I have seen as a casual observer, the return of Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud from the political wilderness in Riyadh was attributed to Saudi diplomatic efforts against Syria.

There is no meaningful concept called "legal on an international level". Laws are intellectual artifacts of states. States can enter into treaties that may govern or regulate their behaviors and actions but this still takes place under (or within) the state's legal constructions. The "kind of 'logic'" you judge to be "so insane that it tells a lot about those who believe it," is in point of fact what is called reality. In the absence of a Weberian hegemon, there can be no law in any meaningful sense of the word. Perhaps you could claim to be speaking in the Thomist sense, but you do not strike me as the Catholic Natural Law type.

Bravo gopher!

I'm English and still at school. Though too young to vote, my classmates had a variety of opinions. We had a debate in class - I won (being Remain) and only lost on one point - that we could only export haggis if we were outside of the EU. This was on the Tuesday. Furthermore, the Leave campaign had a 'few' misleading facts...

I sure that, in a public debate between professional politicians and media pundits, the "misleading facts" were limited entirely to one side.

"I am sure..."