"I don't think they have as much to do with foreign policy as the UN, or other international organizations. It would be like America, Canada and Mexico declaring their stance on Iran or North Korea under the NAFTA banner."

Hear hear! Draginol seems to think the EU is a government. It is not in the same way that the Americas are not a government.

Hear hear! Draginol seems to think the EU is a government. It is not in the same way that the Americas are not a government.

That does not make sense. Are you saying they are not a government? (They are, just more of a confederation instead of a strong central one). Or are you saying that they are not like the American Government (in which case I would agree)?

Or are you saying the EU is like North America - just a bunch of governments with a common waterfront?

This American begs to differ. Saddam is gone, but he's apparently the only reason Iraq wasn't in a civil war for all those years. Am I glad he's gone? Of course. But the cost of him leaving is worse than if he were still in power.

Iraq is not in a civil war right now.  The media in this country would like it to be though.

None of us know why there hasn't been an attack. It could be because they're hiding in caves, or it's because they're still planning something. I'd go with the latter. Even if Iraq is the reason we haven't been attacked, is Iraq less worthy of stability? Did tens, if not a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians deserve to be sacrificed to save the lives of a few thousand Americans? Is an American life worth more than an Iraqis?

I'd say it's because we are actively seeking them out.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/the_miami_plot_editorial_.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07109951.htm

If you are so caring about Iraqi lives now, were you so caring when Saddam was gassing people, starving his own people so he can send payments to the U.N., and just torturing people for fun?

"That does not make sense. Are you saying they are not a government?"

The EU is not a government, it has no power to enforce any legislation over any of its members(members have the choice to sign up to laws), the EU is a trading bloc made up of several differents goverments. Member states make voluntary contributions to the EU budget, individual governments tax their citizens but the EU has no power to harmonise tax laws over any of the member states. Any member state can pull out at any time, and last year an European constitution was voted down by several member states, so the EU will remain a trading bloc for many years to come.

There is no United States of Europe, as yet.

"I'd say it's because we are actively seeking them out."

A fresh attck is inevitable really, it is just the law of averages. Al Qaeda is neither under-funded nor under-recruited.

There is no United States of Europe, as yet.

That I agree.  But it is more than just a trading bloc.  It is not going to become the United States of Europe tomorrow, but the EU has a central commitee and a currency.  The only thing they lack (as did the US back in 1783) is the strong central authority, and that may come soon enough.

"Iraq is not in a civil war right now."

The Sunni are at war with the Shia, hundreds are dying every day. If this were happening anywhere else but Iraq the US would consider it a civil war, it cannot because it opened up the barn doors for the civil war.

I am familiar with the structure of the EU. 

I find it ironic how some Europeans find it convenient to treat the EU as a nation state when it suits them ("The EU has a bigger economy than the United States") but other times it's just a trading bloc ala NAFTA.

The EU represents specific states in Europe and is regularly used as a diplomatic block:

"EU agrees to last-ditch nuclear talks with Iran"

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/060302091313.qri7q12q/

"US, EU, must pressure Russia, China"

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpbus224791123jun22,0,5607310.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

"EU calls for restraint"

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/lebanonisraelhezbollahislamterrorismwar77480713.html

In other words, some of you are splitting hairs in what appears to be an attempt to deflect the issue.  That would be like me saying "Well it was the FTC that imposed fines on Microsoft, NOT the state department, therefore it's two different things." The bottom line is that the EU (that would be the European Union) is quick to advocate sanctions against software companies but loathe to advocate sanctions against terrorist states.

If you are confused or don't understand that the EU plays a role in international diplomacy, try using Google.com. You can put in the letters "EU" and other words like "Iran", "Negotiates", "Supports". And you will discovery, apparently to your shock, that the EU has been engaging in foreign policy behavior for some time now. I hate to be the one to bring this shocking news to you but there it is.

Are you lot mixing up the term for "Europe" and "European Union"? It' seems somwhat confusing to what you are refering to. Not all countries in Europe are part of the European Union.

Yes, now you know how Americans (and by that I mean people who live in the middle nation state that exists in the Northern hemisphere of the American group continent) feel.

"Europe did nothing at all during the rise of Hitler or when it became obvious what was happening to the Jews. " I can't believe this American re-writing of history (as usual). Perhaps you watched some hyper-patriotic Hollywood movie but America only entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan. Joseph Kennedy, US emissary to Britain at the time was a anti-semite and predicted the Nazis would be in Buckingham Palace within two weeks. America was perfectly willing to live with Hitler while he conquered Europe so get off your high horse.

I didn't write the original item you quoted nor do I agree with it fully.  However, it is worth noting that the United States made Germany the priority over Japan despite the fact that it was Japan that attacked the United States and represented the most immediate threat.  The US did not have to sacrifice hundreds of Americans of soldiers to liberate Europe.  It only seems inevitable to people who live in Europe who think "Well of course Hitler had to be taken out" at which point a purely cynical United States could have simply kept arming the Soviets and British and stayed on the peripheral while concentrating on Japan.  Luckily, back then, there wasn't a UN of today to complain about "no blood for French wine". But that's a different topic.

I take it that comments like "Europe is being weak on terrorist states" that the implication here is that the EU doesnt go to war over intelligence that is later proved to be wrong or have any WMD's been found ? Bear in mind all you US nuts the UK invaded Afganistan and Iraq with you and all of us in the UK are members of the EU too.........

The problem with most people who were against the US invasion of Iraq really never understood what the actual motivation to go into Iraq was.  Here's a clue: The US did not invade Iraq because we thought Iraq had warehouses full of mustard gas.  We invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein -- regime change.  Similarly, we did not invade Europe because we thought Hitler was developing an atomic bomb (which we thought he was but our intelligence was wrong).  We invaded Europe to remove Hitler -- regime change.

What good is a government that can't walk outside with out being shot?

Bahgdad is not Iraq.  Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the United States, but it's still (theoretically anyway) a government.  Iraq, in general, according to all reports, is actually reasonable safe. Just certain parts of it are problematic.  By your argument, there are a LOT of countries in this world that are not governments.

None of us know why there hasn't been an attack. It could be because they're hiding in caves, or it's because they're still planning something. I'd go with the latter. Even if Iraq is the reason we haven't been attacked, is Iraq less worthy of stability? Did tens, if not a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians deserve to be sacrificed to save the lives of a few thousand Americans? Is an American life worth more than an Iraqis?

There HAVE been attacks since 9/11. Just not against the US.  I kind of suspect if Al Qaeda could hit the United States, they would have done so in the past FIVE years.  As for "Iraqi lives", according to the anti-war/anti-sanctions people prior to the war, over 100,000 Iraqi children were dying -- each year -- because of sanctions.  Saddam liquidated thousands of his own people each year. 

But let's take your logic to its conclusion -- was 2.1 MILLION Japanese civilian deaths in World War II justifiable for the 2,500 or so Americans (mostly military) who died at Pearl Harbor?  Were the nearly 2 million German civilians that American bombers and armies killed justified in response to Germany simply declaring war on the United States after its ally had?  Is an American life worth more than that of a German or a Japanese?  How about the tens of thousands of French men, women, and children that died to allied bombing and subsequent invasion? What had they done to us? Vichy France was the legitimate, recognized government of France.

As for the EU, I think they're completely misguided with Microsoft. As I've said before, the price of success shouldn't be punishment. But as some have said, I don't think they have as much to do with foreign policy as the UN, or other international organizations. It would be like America, Canada and Mexico declaring their stance on Iran or North Korea under the NAFTA banner.

As I pointed out above, the EU DOES have a foreign policy. Frankly, I'm rather stunned at the lack of awareness that the EU has taken an active political role. It has not behaved like a NAFTA.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0711/iran.html

The European Union said it was disappointed by talks with Iran today on an offer of incentives to halt uranium enrichment and rejected Iranian assertions it had failed to clear up questions on the package.

'The meeting was disappointing,' Cristina Gallach, spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, said after his talks with chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

I wouldn't rub this in so much but some people were being pretty smug.  If you're going to play the "If you disagree with my political views it's only because you're an ignorant American" card you need to make sure you're right. (not saying you're doing that but some people clearly are).

Getting back to the point -- the EU is very quick to impose significant sanctions on software companies that represent no real threat to the citizens of the European countries they represent but seem to have endless patience with countries that are a definite threat. 

From outside Europe, we don't make the kinds of distinctions on the EU that I think people in the EU make. To use, the EU is the EU just as people see all US actions as a single, coordinated policy.

"The only thing they lack (as did the US back in 1783) is the strong central authority, and that may come soon enough."

This is why it is not a government, curse the day there is a President of Europe.

"the EU is very quick to impose significant sanctions on software companies that represent no real threat to the citizens of the European countries they represent but seem to have endless patience with countries that are a definite threat. "

The US is pretty good at economic protectionism too, but reaps the benefits of a globalised world.

"The US did not have to sacrifice hundreds of Americans of soldiers to liberate Europe."

I think by this stage the US had woken up to the evil of Nazism and realised that if Hitler had Europe he would not hestitate to attack America.

America did not, and does not do anything unless it can profit from its' actions abroad. The great American skill since WWII has been to convince the world and itself that America can do no wrong.

"The young British historian Niall Ferguson, for example, had no doubts.

"The United States," he said, "is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn't recognise itself as such."

He called it "an empire in denial."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3430199.stm

The Sunni are at war with the Shia, hundreds are dying every day. If this were happening anywhere else but Iraq the US would consider it a civil war, it cannot because it opened up the barn doors for the civil war.

And did you know that this type of violence was common when Saddam was in power?  The only difference is now we have a biased media who report it as such.

"The US did not have to sacrifice hundreds of Americans of soldiers to liberate Europe." I think by this stage the US had woken up to the evil of Nazism and realised that if Hitler had Europe he would not hestitate to attack America.

Well I guess then the US simply woke up to the evil Saddam and Bathism before most continental Europeans had.

America did not, and does not do anything unless it can profit from its' actions abroad. The great American skill since WWII has been to convince the world and itself that America can do no wrong. "The young British historian Niall Ferguson, for example, had no doubts. "The United States," he said, "is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn't recognise itself as such." He called it "an empire in denial." news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3430199.stm

That's nice.  But to assert that nations states are nothing but cynical is myopic.

Incidentally, you may want to look up what the EU is:

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

It is not just an economic trading bloc. Nor has it been for some time.  It isn't quite a full fledged nation state as most define it but then again, many countries are really arguably not truly nation states if one wants to split hairs. The EU has a parliament with the power to pass binding laws.

And did you know that this type of violence was common when Saddam was in power?  The only difference is now we have a biased media who report it as such.

Not to mention this kind of thing happens all over the world. If the media weren't fixated on the US in Iraq, what is going on there would barely make the news. Take a trip to Columbia, the Phillipines, Pakistan, most of the countries in sub-sahara Africa or heck, southern Russia. 

Pre-Iraq, civil wars involved..you know..battles of some kind.  But for Iraq, the press makes a special case where terrorists blowing up cars in a city every week or two or laying mines on a road constitutes a "civil war".  Israel, apparently has been in a civil war for the past 40 years and didn't even know it.

The EU has a parliament with the power to pass binding laws.

Yes that's true, but member countries are still allowed to decide on their foreign policy and internal laws. they have to chanmge their laws to EU directives if for example it limits the equality of trade between members of the eu.

EU's directives are handled by the EU parlament (and minister council) and they are "forced" in all member countries. However those laws can be fitted to or delayed to a specific country's situation or it's previous national law. (for example it's legal to sell chewing tobacco in Sweden, but not in other countries).

There's no common obligatory military force and countries can decide to join EU's crisis control forces case by case. I tighter interaction is a decision every country takes by itself. My homeland has a very strong consensus to opt out of every military alliance, even if some political parties are driving us to nato and tighter political EU.

When EU makes a statement (about Iran for example) it's usually a result of all member countries' foreign ministers meeting and agreement. The pressure Eu can put to another country is purely political and economical. Crisis control troops are equivalent to UN peace keeping forces, EU doesn't invade another country. Member countries are "free" to do so though.

As of the original article, I think it's a far strecth to compare EU's Iran policies and EU's anti-trust offices actions. I don't see anyone comparing your steel trade protectionism to be active against Iran either.

That's because different ministries have different focuses I guess in USA too?

Also MS has a monopoly more or less, EU want's to make sure all (mostly european) software companies can have a fair shot in the competition. Without published apis or sourcecode there's no way they don't change the minute MS sees a threat against it.

SD is a bunch of smart people (even if you seem to suffer from the success of GC, or mainly OD is) and that's why you have managed to make cools things in Windows. I think your products would have been even better if you had more information about Windows. Removing Media player would mainly help media player companies, I don't see a lot of those in Europe so it's not directly helping any specuific EU country's companies.

This "second" step requires MS to give detailed information how to interact with MS operating systems to prevent the situation that every single SW maker to make such a SW has a fair change and doesn't need to change the software when a small incompatibility change is intoduced by MS possibly when competition heatens or becomes a threat for it.

Maybe Brad you should think about the "free" lunches MS is offering you at Redmont and make up your own mind instead, I'm sure you weren't this happy about MS when you made first GC for OS/2

PS. I'm sure the english I'm writing isn't perfect, I'm from EU.

Talking about apples and oranges here, Brad. Or in other words: drivel. There is a big difference between economic policies and political ones.

So what are you trying to say here, that the EU is purely economic and not influenced or driven by politics? Bullshit, absolute, total Bullshit! The EU was created by political figures, not just as an economic bloc, but as a means to further, consolidate and protect their agendas, power bases and political survival. Furthermore, its creation essentially serves a minority of wealthy businesses, not the majority of those who are struggling....and certainly not average European consumers, whose choices are being targetted/minimised by political influences/misguided economic aspirations, as is evidenced by the EU's attack on Microsoft. Should MS decide withdraw from Europe altogether, as a result of these grossly exhorbitant fines, based on nefarious complaints, imagined anti-trust violations, the ordinary consumer would not be the only injured party. Businesses would also be adversely affected, and the backlash against the EU would be much greater that it expected....

Microsoft would be quite within its rights to tell the EU to go get effed and close its European operations down, and quite frankly, I hope it does. The EU has gotten too big for its britches, exercises too much swathe over piddling issues while sweeping higher priorities under the carpet, and needs bringing down a peg or three, if for no other reason than restoring some semblance of dignified life to those average Europeans who live in 'third world' conditions as a result of ludicrous EU policies. The sooner people stop defending and making piss weak excuses for the EU the better, particularly for those suffering at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

So, how do I reach such conclusions all the way down in Australia, I hear you ask.... because I hear what recent European migrants are saying...because I listen to the concerns of people who still have family and loved ones residing under the umbrella of the EU. Their stories are all different yet all the same...misery induced by social and economic strangulation.

Okay, the EU can claim it is not a singular government, and is comprised of member states to form an economic bloc, but in reality, it is not too dissimilar to the U.S. (Australia also), which is made up of member States with individual State Laws, yet exist under a Federal umbrella which can enact policies for the entire group. Seems to me the EU wants its cake and eat it too, in that it can attack an international corporation with voracious tenacity, yet when it comes to tackling a 'foreign' government, issues of concern to the whole world, it doesn't have the balls or brains and pussyfoots around with semantics and half assed diplomacy, essentially to do nothing. Truth is, if they really wanted to, the member states of the EU could unite politically to formulate policies that mirror their economic convictions...fact is they don't want to, no it's much easier and less effort to bundle Microsoft into court and fine them...."Let's line our coffers so we can throw around a few token gestures, God knows we need to repair our tarnished reputations somehow."

The EU needs to pull its head out of the sand, before more and more Europeans under its control become third world citizens. Protectionism is not the answer to its economic woes/inadequacies, mass unemployement and failing social standards, nor is it a substitute for effort and innovation. Fact is, tariffs and protectionisms only serve to eventually weaken economies, and the EU's fining of Microsoft, etc will only serve in part to create a false economy/sense of security by driving trade away - filling its coffers with non-inexhaustible Court revenues which cannot adequately be replenished via higher employment registers driven by fair trade.

Why do I dislike politicians so intensely (also add religious fanatics)? Because they all too often create oppressive and/or deplorable circumstances, and when consequences of their actions or others erupt elsewhere, they send our sons/brothers/fathers off to war, not necessarily to defend a better way of life, but all too frequently to protect preferred power bases, oust others and fix their cock-ups. There is no right or wrong in war...it's all wrong, too many unnecessary military and civilian casualties, and when stronger measures are required to help prevent war, needless deaths, the EU is sitting on its hands, bumping it gums with half-assed insincere diplomacy for fear of rocking its own boat. Thing is, the U.N.'s Security Council and diplomats are no darned better...given they're merely puppets of their respective political leaders. They too are as useless as tits on a bull...toothless tigers who are subservient, in some cases, to war-mongering political entities at home...or alternatively they're openly or covertly supporting rogue nations with nuclear aspirations, etc. Meanwhile, the average joe, regardless of race, colour or creed, is taken ever closer to the brink of war, hostility and poverty...all in the name of politics, religion and greed for economic/political power.

Someone once said to me, regarding terrorist acts: "It's just the pigeons going home to roost.", and in some ways I can agree with that sentiment. When people feel oppressed and short changed enough, they fight back in the only way they know how, with violence because it's the only affordable means at their disposal...their votes count for nothing because their politicians are piss weak and/or tarred with the same brush of corruption. No, it's not right, but it's understandable. Here in Australia I'm watching basic human rights and family values being eroded, devalued by policies and decisions of the Howard Government: the result being greater urban crime/violence, families being torn apart and increased juvenile crime/homelessness, the health and social systems falling apart at the seams. It may or may not lead to greater levels of anarchy as desperation escalates, but in other, worse off countries, where the standard of living is already abysmal, the anarchy is prevelant and spilling over international borders. Why, because they're the have-nots who see the haves as their enemies, being their wealth and good fortune is the cause of their own poverty/misfortune, thus we have terrorist groups using the name of religion and etc to wage war to get some...the fewer haves means there's more to go around for the have-nots. Okay, that's rather a simplistic explanation, but it's the crux of it, and if the world's self-serving politicians were actually working for the common good of all mankind, we'd be living in a more peaceful, equitable world.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein's regime was corrupt and evil, but there are many lower profile leaders who are no better, morally or otherwise. Okay, they migthn't be enacting Saddam's brand of genocide, but nonetheless they're still grinding their people into the dirt. There's evidence of this even in so-called civilised and democratic Western societies....they mightn't be to the extremes of Saddam's evil regime, but atrocities in the name of politics/religion still occur, thus we have a whole world in decline, nations suffering because moral and protective law has been replaced with greed and economic law. It's all around us, seek and ye shall see it.

Regarding the EU vs. MS business, I think the EU is using Media Player as an excuse to 'punish' Microsoft. If it wouldn't be Media Player, it would be something else - all pretty stupid.

I just don't understand, Brad, how you could compare this to the 'war on terror' the US is currently engaged in - that was very troll-like, since it is always a hornets nest as you know very well. So I can only come to the conclusion that stirring a hornets nest is what you wanted.

When 9/11 happened, the US had the world at their feet. There wasn't a single soul on this planet, except for the terrorists themselves and their 'friends', who did not sympathize with the US and felt their pain. Amazing then, how the US managed, in such a short time, to turn from the 'good guys' into the 'bad guys' for everybody else in the world. This might come as a surprise to some self-centered Americans, who will quickly react by saying they don't care and pointing out how the US saved Europe (and the rest of the world by proxy) 60 years ago. However, the fact that I was a good guy 60 years ago does not mean that I am now entitled to go and blow the brains out of everybody I feel like.

The problem, as usual, is people being mislead by their leaders (although they do have some responsibility, since THEY were the ones who put them there - and, in this case, twice in a row).

Lets see if you recognize this simple statement:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Does this sound familiar? It's actually a quote of Hermann Goering - history repeats itself, only this time it's the American leaders applying this principle, not Hitler. With 9/11, fear is being unleashed NOT just by the terrorists, but especially by the American government itself, as a justification to the invasion of other countries and to the restraining of civil liberties that cost our ancestors so much blood and sweat to conquer. The US is turning into a police state, were their own people cannot travel freely, authority cannot be questioned, people can be held in prison without the right to a fair trial, privacy can be invaded for 'security reasons' (which don't have to be disclosed because of, err, well, 'security reasons') and I could go on. All the signs are there for everybody - who is not blind - to see. Any moderate, or 'voice of reason', is discredited as un-patriotic.

With Russia gone, the US leaders felt free to do basically whatever they wanted (hmmm, kind of - you don't see the US playing the same kind of stunts with North Korea, for instance, but only because China would fall on them like a ton of bricks). However, they did not see fit to 'release' East Timor from Indonesia, for instance - nothing there for them. By invading Iraq with two lame excuses, one of which turned out to be completely untrue, the US indeed became the 'Empire' Niall Ferguson talked about. Except they are not ready yet to admit that they are acting as an Empire. I say lame, by the way, not because of the validity of the excuses themselves, but because that is all they were: excuses.

Saddam Hussein was fully supported by the US when it launched its war on Iran in the time of Ayatollah Khomeini, although he was already a sadistic dictator for many years. This, however, did not stop the US from supporting him because it fit the US needs at the time. Now, you, Brad, justify the war on Iraq - and the thousands of Iraq victims, not to mention inocent American soldiers who are only doing their job - in the name of bringing down a blood thirsty dictator - please! Get off your high moral ground. US foreign policy - except at the time of Benjamim Franklin, where at least God was bought into the equation - was never about morals, but self interest.

The US *is* THE country which WAS supposed to lead the rest of the world into a golden age - unfortunately, their leaders are blowing it, and its people are letting them. Such a shame.

The US is turning into a police state, were their own people cannot travel freely, authority cannot be questioned, people can be held in prison without the right to a fair trial, privacy can be invaded for 'security reasons' (which don't have to be disclosed because of, err, well, 'security reasons') and I could go on. All the signs are there for everybody - who is not blind - to see. Any moderate, or 'voice of reason', is discredited as un-patriotic.

The U.S. is not turning into a "police state".  Not even close. 

I'd also like you to cite when the government has labeled someone "un-patriotic".

I'd also like you to cite when the government has labeled someone "un-patriotic".

Oh, just did a quick search on the net, and the first link that came up stated:

"
Republicans Attack Those Who Dare Question the Bush Administration
March 8, 2002

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (duly elected from the state of South Dakota), along with Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., dared to question the Bush administration's demand for huge increases in military spending without an explanation of military goals. As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd has the responsibility of asking just such questions.

Republicans quickly responded with a barrage of name calling, personally attacking the Democratic leaders rather than addressing the issues of military strategy or spending. The attacks were reminiscent of Attorney General John Ashcroft's congressional testimony in December. Ashcroft said that people who raise concerns about the impact of the Justice Department's actions on civil liberties ("those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty") actually "aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies."

Good enough?   

The U.S. is not turning into a "police state". Not even close.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/NoFlyList.asp

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/623818.stm

Just start reading outside the normal US media and you will find plenty of examples.

Anyway, this is the type of discussion that would go on for ever and ever. The key here is for each individual to take the time to research about this with an open mind - and limiting yourself to reading the US edition of CNN ain't going to help much, btw - and then make an *informed* guess at what is trully happening.