when eu was made, norway was a poor country. eu was made to make europa stronger so it could be more independent
from both usa and the soviet. eu is bad because it makes laws over our heads and its very anti-labour-unions.
so I am not against eu because I am afraid they will take my oil, I am against eu because it will take the power from my people. its undemocratic. we are allready under eu control with the eos. its says that we have to follow there laws or they will stop trading with us.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
it was you who started it with being nationalistic.
Obama or bush or whatever is not your problem, your problem is that to much power is at one place ( washington and wallstreet ). Its the same with eu, to much power in brussel. I can understand why you are not to found of a big federal goverment, I dont want my country to be a part of eu. I dont want a europeen federal state.
[/quote]
Your “btw” was the nationalistic beginning.
But, the rest of your post is spot on.
JeffR
P.S. You also have some beautiful fjords.
P.P.S. I identify with my man King Olav II. He and I see eye to eye on many things. I can see myself rocking the waterfall Sarpr. No doubt I would have also founded Borg on the spot. But, I have to believe I would have done better tactically at the Battle of Helgae. Oh, and there’s no way Cnut the Great would have taken my throne. NO WAY!!! CNUT WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN, HARD!!!
[/quote]
you know a lot more norwegian history than I. Our big viking king is harald haarfagre. he made norway one kingdome. the problem came in the 1400`s when we entered a union with the danish and sweds, its was called the calmarunion. well after some time we had danish rule and norwegian autonomi was history. + the plague killed almost everyone. So now we are a nation of few people.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
No problem, withdraw your troops from all over the world, stop the wars and deal with your shit at home.
As long as you have to draw the whole world into your little temper tantrums we cannot help but be involved in some way.
Got it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
it was you who started it with being nationalistic.
Obama or bush or whatever is not your problem, your problem is that to much power is at one place ( washington and wallstreet ). Its the same with eu, to much power in brussel. I can understand why you are not to found of a big federal goverment, I dont want my country to be a part of eu. I dont want a europeen federal state.
[/quote]
Good. Norway should try, as much as much possible, to avoid subsidizing the lazy countries. The EU was set up to loot northern Europe, to weaken it by forcing it to prop up the weaker members.
[/quote]
No, it was set up to make the production of coal and steel an international affair in order to prevent future European wars.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
No problem, withdraw your troops from all over the world, stop the wars and deal with your shit at home.
As long as you have to draw the whole world into your little temper tantrums we cannot help but be involved in some way.
Got it?
[/quote]
If we withdraw, you and yours have shown yourselves incapable of controlling the basest urges.
We tried to withdraw at Versailles in 1919.
You and yours couldn’t control yourselves.
Oh, at least we have little “temper tantrums.” Your temper tantrums involve the killing, raping, and torturing of MILLIONS.
JeffR
The patriot act is the most unpatriotic pile of shit ever made.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
No problem, withdraw your troops from all over the world, stop the wars and deal with your shit at home.
As long as you have to draw the whole world into your little temper tantrums we cannot help but be involved in some way.
Got it?
[/quote]
sign me up for a world without a world police 
and the soviet freed the northern part of norway. It doesnt make the soviet invasion of afganistan legit.
same as it doesnt make americas invasion of afganistan legit.
as you stated, “british, american and norwegian soldiers freed oslo”. so it was not one country who did it all.
America is problably the most powerfull country today because WW2 was not happening on us soil. except pearl harbor. The rest of the world was in flames, our citys and industri where ruined. So we needed to buy all our stuff from usa. In retrospect was that a good thing for your country.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
and the soviet freed the northern part of norway. It doesnt make the soviet invasion of afganistan legit.
same as it doesnt make americas invasion of afganistan legit.
as you stated, “british, american and norwegian soldiers freed oslo”. so it was not one country who did it all.
America is problably the most powerfull country today because WW2 was not happening on us soil. except pearl harbor. The rest of the world was in flames, our citys and industri where ruined. So we needed to buy all our stuff from usa. In retrospect was that a good thing for your country.[/quote]
If you think we helped liberate your country strictly for economic reasons then you don’t understand history very well.
As far as “so it was not one country who did it all” and Afghanistan let me remind you the Canadians and British join us there.
Also, if you are ignorant enough to try and equitably compare the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with what the US is doing there then you and are done with this discussion. I won’t waste my time with dunces.
“The rest of the world was in flames, our citys and industri where ruined.” This was no fault of ours. You Europeans haven’t gotten along with each other for millenia. We tried to isolate ourselves from your squabbling bullshit twice in the 20th century (we succeeded in the 19th) and were dragged into the fray both times to bail out your quarrelsome asses.
Then you had to soak the American taxpayer for for 46 years, keeping the Bear out of your western European living rooms.
Another tidbit for you in the discussion of WWII in the Pacific in terms of US soil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign[/quote]
I never said america joined the allies for later to sell them tv etc. I said the outcome was that america was the strongest country after WW2. I did not say america burned our citys. I said after 6 years of war, europa was pretty fucked up. it was a warzone. by the way I study history.
We had to big animals on each side of us, both imperialists readdy to attack if something got in there way.
I am against occupation of another country, I dont care who does it, its plane wrong. My country is also in afganistan, and I wants my country out of there. So this is no “we are better then you” arguments. I see my country as part of the western imerium who rules the world.
modern imperialisme is not colonialisme. soviet or us did not try to take countries and make them colonies.
Usa wanted to conserve capitalisme in europa because they needed to have a marked to sell to. Soviet wanted to expand there system to europa. So it was a clash of interrest and it was all about who dominated europa and the rest of the world.
there both imperialists, but maybe not the same type. Usa is imperialist in a way that they invade and replace goverments not of there liking and replace them with another who serves there interrest better. Soviet needed to expand to secure the revolution, its was part of the trotski wiew of the revolution.
An example of american imperialisme is pinochet.
btw my country is also imperialistic, because we are your allied.
ps. I study history even do I dont chare your historic wiew. history is very subjectiv.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
…soviet…did not try to take countries and make them colonies.
[/quote]Dead wrong.
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussia
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kirghizstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldavia
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Defacto colonies:
Afghanistan
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
East Germany
Mongolia
[/quote]
Yes you are so right, but because people from these countries did not assert disporportionate influence over the Soviet Union…they were helpless puppete states to a Russian Empire?
This is why the Georgian Jew Stalin, butchered 20 million plus ethnic Russians, and expanded Georgia to it’s greatest modern territorial size ever, at the expense of the Russian SSR and other republics?
You’re idea of colonization and conquering is so misled, next you’ll be telling us that Black Slaves ran the Confederacy or something.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
…soviet…did not try to take countries and make them colonies.
[/quote]Dead wrong.
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussia
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kirghizstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldavia
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Defacto colonies:
Afghanistan
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
East Germany
Mongolia
[/quote]
Yes you are so right, but because people from these countries did not assert disporportionate influence over the Soviet Union…they were helpless puppete states to a Russian Empire?
This is why the Georgian Jew Stalin, butchered 20 million plus ethnic Russians, and expanded Georgia to it’s greatest modern territorial size ever, at the expense of the Russian SSR and other republics?
You’re idea of colonization and conquering is so misled, next you’ll be telling us that Black Slaves ran the Confederacy or something.[/quote]
You need to check your oil. I think you’re running a couple of quarts low. If you think Georgia ran the USSR your rear main bearing is leaking despite the fact that Joe was Georgian.[/quote]
Next are you going to tell me that Jews were an supressed minority in the Soviet Union, like eveyrone else does doing the Soviet bashing?
Why are and were Russian Jews the wealthiest and most powerful segement of society then?
Russia asserted large cultural influence as a republic of the Soviet Union, but, the Soviet Union was NOT an extension of a Russian Imperalist design. Russia population wise, and culturally dominated many aspects of the Union, but, it cannot be said to be hegemonic ethnically or even culturally. The Soviet ideal, was one that exceeded ethnicity, culture and race.
Your opinion of Soviet Union as Russian empire, is as misguided as calling the United States a grand East Coast- 13 Colonies empire over a conquered and colonized subcontinent or, the EU as being an extension of a German Empire, because German people constitute the great plurality of its members.
Alot of post soviet states, like to play some ethnic sob story of the whole Soviet experience, now that everything is said and done. This polemic however, is entirely untrue, it’s only basis is the Russian language being the pervasive one of the union. Which is reasonable considering the historical role of Russia in the region.
In the EU, English has an over important role, and if tghere were an American Union, you would probably find that English & Spanish would over take French & Portuguese in importance as national languages.
The language of the Soviet Union is not indicative of a natinoalist or ethnic imperialism. If you have some VALID reason to say that is, please share.