The †roll Cave ®™

Off-topic
#4705

Say again? Not that US would have any say in what we do with someone in Czech custody.

Especially after using all the goodwill on this extradition case:

Well we have the Constitutional Court that will always have a final say in case that EU decision would violate Czech constitution. I understand that if you live in a country that doesn’t have any similar “emergency brake”, it can be pretty disconcerting.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

Say again?

Last time I checked efforts to have a state legislation violating national legislation led to a civil war in US. the worst that can happen in EU is a suit against state before the Court of the European Union, or the state leaving Union (which they can do any time they wish).

Now you must be kidding us. From FOPA through GW Bush Orwelian laws to the Obamacare, you must be fucking kidding us.

Only in the areas within which the states decided to delegate their powers to EU, which are mainly concerning the 4 EU freedoms.

We vote for EU parliament and we have all democratic national governments which in turn make the European Council. The two bodies make the 70% legislation @thedivineinfidel is talking about. Not that much different from your parliament, if you ask me.

It’s not Belgian values, but common European values - Britain has its judge there the same as the Czech Republic. But I get your point.

#4706

That’s what i was referencing when i said “unless our president once again brakes our 200 year rule of not negotiating with terrorists” That had Obama in very hot water, and for good reason.

?I thought you said he was in the custody of the U.S.

Most state laws are voted on by the state not the feds.

Things like, drug legalization, gay marriage, gun control ect are almost always voted on state by state. A state law could even conflict with federal law like weed for instance. In my state local police can’t arrest you for it but federal agents can.

Still not very common, it happens but usually the feds let states decide on things like that. I could do something in my state that is perfectly legal, that could get me arrested in another state.

#4707

Last time I checked the US Supreme Court took a different point of view as regards states’ ability to regulate gay marriage.

Nah, I said he is in Czech prison waiting for extradition to US. Czech courts said that US need to first provide assurances that he won’t be tortured once extradited.

Well it’s the same here. Growing own cannabis is totally legal in my country. Gun laws are prime example of differences between EU countries - from UK being one extreme to Czech Republic’s shall issue concealed carry on the other. People can for example legally fuck animals in the Netherlands, but not in my country.

The difference is that we didn’t give our union right to enforce anything through any other means than court judgements. There is no Fed like in US that could come arrest me (or @thedivineinfidel) for breaking EU laws. EU is only as strong as member states allow it to be. And looking at Russia today, I fucking hope that we will stand united. And honestly, better united without UK than divided with UK. Anyways, we know too well that when the shit hits the fan, UK can’t be trusted.

#4708

I never said they couldn’t pass federal laws. I said states usually decided on things like that. The supreme court decided that they were going to pass a law that only 17 out of 50 states wanted.

Why do they care if he’s tortured? He’s clearly scum. Everyone’s gone too soft.

The U.K is probably the most powerful country in the EU, and even then you would be fucked if Russia decided to invade. Your only hope would be surprise surprise Europe’s hated ally the United States.

Although i wouldn’t count on U.S support very much, NATO approval ratings are at an all time low, and the American public is very tired after 50 years of constant war.

1 Like
#4709

That is one of perks of our constitution. We lived for too long under Habsburgs, Nazis and Communists to now allow government - ours or any other - to torture people, as long as we can have any say in it.

It is one of the most powerful countries, but it by far is not the most powerful one.

#4710

That’s different. These people are mass murderers, or at least have planned mass murders. I don’t see why so many people think tourtering them for information is so wrong. Are we going to make deals with them? OR ask nicely for info?

Debatable. But without them you would probably have next to chance, and if the U.S wasn’t involved well kiss your ass goodbye. Younger ( at least i think they’re younger) Europeans should consider that they are driving a wedge between the U.S with their constant death to America chants.

Not to mention hardly any NATO country is keeping up its agreement on military spending which is really shitty. The U.S does not owe Europe anything, and isolationism is becoming more and more popular so i wouldn’t count on U.S support.

That would make countries like the U.K your last hope really. I really don’t see any other country in Europe more capable or more powerful than the U.K is.

I find it baffling how far Europe has cut it’s militarises could you perhaps explain why?

1 Like
#4711

According to whom? Last time I checked US couldn’t indict, not to mention convict, a single person in Guantanamo without having a monkey trials on par with Nazi justice.

You believe in FEMA death camps but suddenly when your government tells you that someone is a terrorist and needs to be tortured/killed, it is all fine? Really?

How about because it is inefficient and does not provide useful information?

That is what Habsburgs said about the Czech independence leaders in 1914 when they sentenced them to death.

We need to hear that officially so that we know why our soldiers bled in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we can stop having expeditionary force instead of defensive army and can rebuild it accordingly.

How about because we had all the armies on ready for 40 years in order to kill each other, and that reason became obsolete in 1990? Up until now when the bunch of idiots got to power in Russia and realized that if they can’t make economy better, they might keep their seats by promising “greatness” and “glory” to their country?

The operational plans for my country back in 1980s counted with the core of the army getting to France within a week - that is why we had 3.000 tanks. With ONE MILLION CASUALTIES. After that the Russians that were further back from the front-line were supposed to take over and continued all the way to the Atlantic.

#4712

Alright fair point.

Those wars benefited all parties involved other wise they wouldn’t have entered it. The U.S did not force them in the war. The only country that has supported us most of the way the last 50 years would be the U.K, how ever it was a huge stab in the back to not support us in Vietnam.

Don’t get me wrong i’m not anti Europe but its hard to support helping out Europe again, when its been a one sided relationship. I’m not trying to be cold hearted but would you want your country to get dragged down in a war thousands of miles away that really doesn’t affect you?

Like you told me we need to prepare for the wars of tomorrow. Cutting your militarises to nothing has made it to where you pretty much rely on us for defence which is not fair.

#4713

Nah, we could have sat back with our legs on the table, but once US applied article 5 of NATO treaty, we obliged and fulfilled our duties. We didn’t get anything from that, maybe apart from actual combat experience for our soldiers, which was paid in blood.

I agree with you. Just that we saw wars of tomorrow elsewhere and didn’t see Putin coming. My idea of my country’s military is also completely somewhere else than where we are now. The only ones seriously prepping right now are the Poles.

#4714

So you really don’t think the real reason NATO went into the middle east was for oil? Please. The soldiers were used like pawns and the governments got rich. Haliburton (which is no way connected to Dick Cheney and Bush) :wink: Made billions off those wars.

To say powerful people in all countries didn’t benefit is nonsense.

Well i hope the other countries step it up. American shouldn’t have to sacrifice thousands of lives, just because Europe can’t defend its self. Surly you can see the sense in that?

#4715

Iraq? Yes. Afghanistan? What the hell is in Afghanistan apart from Heroin? I need to get on public transport to get heroin, no need to get on chopper to Afghanistan :smiley:

I completely agree with that.

Nothing made me happier this week than reading this:

#4716

Arms dealers made billions off those wars. So once again would it really surprise you if some powerful people in your country made some cash off of that?

#4717

Still though even without their fancy crap, they’re a very serious threat. I like how the U.S said they have all this shit that they won’t use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want to save it for the Russians and Chinese :smile:

#4718

That all really landed up in US. We just cleared our army storages by donating our choppers, jets, tanks, ammo and RPGs

#4719

Well i don’t have hard evidence that other NATO countries made money , but its not hard to put two and two together. The U.S and U.K definitely did no question about that.

#4720

You crack me up . The UK has sacrificed and "saved " Europe 3 times , 3 fucking times our soldiers have crossed that channel bled and died for the freedom of Europe . What has your country done for europe ?

And if you had any knowledge of how NATO would deploy you would know how stupid your comment is . The UK and US lead the way the rest just follow and support .

Without the UK the US wouldn’t be keen in getting fully involved until our full support is assured and vise versa .
The US miltary know full well as do the US soldiers , when shit hits the fan only one country will stand next to it and fight and die for the cause . And that’s the UK

1 Like
#4721

4 if you count the crusades. Many people don’t know this, but the crusades were a counter attack after Muslims attacked Anatolia and butchering their way across the Byzantine empire murdering Christians and destroying holy sites.

#4722

Well, mate, you forget that UK first forged diplomatic alliance with Hitler, paving the way to WW2 by Munich Agreement. And that in situation when Germany was effectively already in undeclared war with Czechoslovakia, where CS had over 100 KIAs and over 2000 MIAs.

Also, UK was as much of Hitler’s target as any other European country, so you were saving your own asses too. So much for altruism.

#4723

You put down your weapons and accepted german rule . irrelevent of what some other country says there would be no way I would just accept a foreign country taking over the UK .

As a nation you agreed to the deal in your actions .

When ever Europe has called the UK has answered . A mistake was made by some liberal fuck tard in appeasing hitler , a deal supported by all other countries involved . But you seem to forget the sacfices made by British soldiers in liberating Europe . Many kil

#4724

We defeated his invasion attempts he had no others for the UK . When we landed on the beaches of Normandy we were in no real danger of being invaded .

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz