What's new

North East Asian Union? Exploring the potential of an NEA integration

There is a reason why from the start of the topic i tried to avoid using 'UNION' . This word might lead to the unnessary meanings/complications. Instead on the NEAU concept, i prefer to use the concept The Greater East Asia.

Now Go back on the topic.

You lost me on your quote: "I am not saying EU was form without consideration of Economic partnership, but unlike what you said, EU is not simply an organisation that transformed from and Economic Union into a supranational institution. Quite contrary, EU is the other way around, it was a supranational institution and later focus and emphasis on Economic Cooperation."

First:are you serious regarding The European Union, core interest, history etc? Wikipedia can only bring you so far. So much loopholes and easy picking something as European Movement and just throw it in other context.

Second: you might want brush your European Union knowledge. You failed hard.Read the first chapter of the link below. It is the core interest of the European Union and summed up what the European Union is all about.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

Three pillars of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not sure if i want discuss EU topic with you though, too much fanciful posts. You randomfully picked EU articles that you think could back up your view.

I am not talking about European Union, I am talking about THE NEED to form the European Union, it were never financial in mind.

The formation of European Union is to prevent Europe to be drag into another world war in mainland Europe, where the seeking of European Nation to united as one to expel the any enemy as once. And that enemy in 1947, is Soviet Russia

European Union (The actual Union that formed in 1967) today is a very different than the reason why they were formed, mostly because SU dissolved in 1990. The Three Pillar of EU starting AFTER the Soviet Russia is dissolved.

Funny you did not bring up Treaty of Rome, which was consider the treaty that was being the backbone of European Union. And by the way, you still got it wrong if you were to talk about the EU today, EU did not run on the Three Pillars system anymore, Treaty of Lisbon have replaced all that. So, aren't you also randomly putting article that support you in the argument??

This is the excerpt from the EU own website, now that you don't like Wikipedia source (Funny, as you yourselves quoted Wikipedia) tell me where in the History section of EU own website cited the Formation of EU is due to Economic Factors?

EUROPA - The history of the European Union: 1945 - 1959

The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founders are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands

European eventually morphed into a economic union, that why I said, EU formed due to the collective security concern, and shift its focus to Economic, when you said, the EU was formed for collective financial concern, which along with ASEAN and SAARC, then it can change to a Security Cooperative. Hence I said you got the EU the other way around.

I am not even sure if you are serious or just want to debate for the sake of debate. Chery pickings is not really scientific way to do. I could easily defuse your other arguments (if you insist) but i prefer to spend my time on my report in dutch about ''the parliamentary immunity within the European Union member states" which needs to be submitted on 15 March 2016. Not a topic i would like to do, but with the rising right wing politician in the European Union, the upper echelon in the European Court of justice want to be prepared and have the legal means to keep those politicians under pressure.

Well, LOL. I found that you are a funny individual.

First, you are the one who gone off and reply to my post and then you accuse me of disliking you post, then you accuse me of randomly "Cherry Pick" information to suit my own argument while you bring out an Outdated information your own to try and justified your point. And now you are telling me you "COULD" defuse my point while you cannot be bothered.

Well, you should probably select your stance, and then stand on it. If you can't be bothered to "defuse" my point, then why you reply to my post in the first place?

Whether i am Hong Konger or not is really a good question. My mother (my bother and i) emigrated to the Netherlands, after she found out my biological father was still having love affairs with at least 2 women she knew. Tired of the broken of promise of fidelity, she made sure all contacts with him were definitely broken when i was about 11 years old. I grow up here and really grateful for the opportunity Holland provided me so far. So yeah i am not sure if i am Hong Konger myself. Sure my aunt, cousins etc live in Hong Kong, but i have other relatives in Singapore, Taiwan(Kaohsiung) and China(Fujian) as well. If someone asked me what my ethnicity is, all i can say is based on my appearance:"i am (han) chinese". So if you guys start throwing insult in local chinese slang or something like that, then you need to forgive my ignorance. I would love to drop my Hong Kong flag and instead replace it with the flags of Greater China, but its unfortunately unavaible....

I don't really care about your family history, I just amazed that you said you are from Hong Kong and you don't know the word I said, someone else have deciphered it.

I don't care if you use a flag of Mars. It's your provocative.

But you have misplaced your flag, your Hong Kong flag is in the location slot, which mean you are in Hong Kong.

well, i guess we all have to get used to, since there have many different voices in the world. I come here to learn, so seeing both sides of argument doesn't hurt. Even I do not agree with jhungary , but he does have some good points i have to think about.

People here don't like me because I have a different view than what they see China, I remember the Webmaster once ask me why I hoist the flag of China (After numerous complaint) when I was so Anti-China?

I said to him, I was never Anti-China, I dispraise the government, (I left Hong Kong and went back to US because of Tung Che Hwa) Under the right circumstance, I could easily be the most intense Chinese Patroit out there.

I mean, government comes and goes, but the country stays forever, you can be pro this government but anti the next one, but who has the right to judge one opinion? Maybe the next generation that came after us would be the one that judge us. Who knows?
 
.
I am not talking about European Union, I am talking about THE NEED to form the European Union, it were never financial in mind.

The formation of European Union is to prevent Europe to be drag into another world war in mainland Europe, where the seeking of European Nation to united as one to expel the any enemy as once. And that enemy in 1947, is Soviet Russia

European Union (The actual Union that formed in 1967) today is a very different than the reason why they were formed, mostly because SU dissolved in 1990. The Three Pillar of EU starting AFTER the Soviet Russia is dissolved.

Funny you did not bring up Treaty of Rome, which was consider the treaty that was being the backbone of European Union. And by the way, you still got it wrong if you were to talk about the EU today, EU did not run on the Three Pillars system anymore, Treaty of Lisbon have replaced all that. So, aren't you also randomly putting article that support you in the argument??

This is the excerpt from the EU own website, now that you don't like Wikipedia source (Funny, as you yourselves quoted Wikipedia) tell me where in the History section of EU own website cited the Formation of EU is due to Economic Factors?

EUROPA - The history of the European Union: 1945 - 1959



European eventually morphed into a economic union, that why I said, EU formed due to the collective security concern, and shift its focus to Economic, when you said, the EU was formed for collective financial concern, which along with ASEAN and SAARC, then it can change to a Security Cooperative. Hence I said you got the EU the other way around.



Well, LOL. I found that you are a funny individual.

First, you are the one who gone off and reply to my post and then you accuse me of disliking you post, then you accuse me of randomly "Cherry Pick" information to suit my own argument while you bring out an Outdated information your own to try and justified your point. And now you are telling me you "COULD" defuse my point while you cannot be bothered.

Well, you should probably select your stance, and then stand on it. If you can't be bothered to "defuse" my point, then why you reply to my post in the first place?



I don't really care about your family history, I just amazed that you said you are from Hong Kong and you don't know the word I said, someone else have deciphered it.

I don't care if you use a flag of Mars. It's your provocative.

But you have misplaced your flag, your Hong Kong flag is in the location slot, which mean you are in Hong Kong.



People here don't like me because I have a different view than what they see China, I remember the Webmaster once ask me why I hoist the flag of China (After numerous complaint) when I was so Anti-China?

I said to him, I was never Anti-China, I dispraise the government, (I left Hong Kong and went back to US because of Tung Che Hwa) Under the right circumstance, I could easily be the most intense Chinese Patroit out there.

I mean, government comes and goes, but the country stays forever, you can be pro this government but anti the next one, but who has the right to judge one opinion? Maybe the next generation that came after us would be the one that judge us. Who knows?

You are really thick in your skull. If countries were asked to give up their total sovereignty in order to create bigger entity as the European Union , the answer would be NO. But if they were asked to cooperate in somekind of international trade organization like the European Coal and Steel Community, they would agree, its win-win situation. They keep their own independent sovereignty and concede only on some trade agreements. Step 2) After the economic harmonization, the second step would be the politic,security,social etc.
The 3 pillars system didnt existed anymore, duh,i am awared of that. I was trying to show you that gradually an organization changed and they will integrate more ambitious tasks like common justice, security etc and will discard the old system, on contrary with your garbage talks that EU was first supranational organization with all mechanism that has all institution in place and that later focus on economic cooperation. ???????

EUROPA - The EU in brief

EU creation was never really to avoid war between European Nations, After all most western european countries were members of NATO hence the European Union could focus on the economic integration.

The European Coal and Steel Community (trade cooperation) > The European Union 2016 ( the whole 9 yards) . There is no such thing as whole 9 yards at the start. It all starts with 1 step, gradually if the fist phase is a success then step 2, step 3 etc will be implemented. Same with all new kind of international organization.

Let me repeat this myself: The core purpose of the European Union is the harmonization of the internal market.
The treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon, the replaced system of the 3 pillars have already been mentioned by me by giving you the link below. Its all there. REad the first chapter of the link below.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

You cant read legal consolidated protocols, can you? The nerve of a fake chinese american to lecture me (citizen of the EU) about EU law even though i am more well-informed than the average citizen of the EU is making me speechless.

Regarding the flags issue, i find it ironic you gave comments about my flag while you have Australian flag instead of USA one. You do live in USA, dont you?
 
Last edited:
.
You are really thick in your skull. If countries were asked to give up their total sovereignty in order to create bigger entity as the European Union , the answer would be NO. But if they were asked to cooperate in somekind of international trade organization like the European Coal and Steel Community, they would agree, its win-win situation. They keep their own independent sovereignty and concede only on some trade agreements. Step 2) After the economic harmonization, the second step would be the politic,security,social etc.
The 3 pillars system didnt existed anymore, duh,i am awared of that. I was trying to show you that gradually an organization changed and they will integrate more ambitious tasks like common justice, security etc, on contrary with your garbage talks that EU was first supranational organization with all mechanism that has all institution in place and that later focus on economic cooperation. ???????

Dude, the ECSC is only ONE Part of result of the formation of EU, resulting directly from Treaty of Paris, which contrary to what you think it was established to ease the reconstruction effort in Europe. It is by no mean a Economic Treaty like today.

And No, the grand result for Treaty of Rome is not just the ECSC, but the wider responsible of European Community, which, along with the Merger Treaty in 1967, seen as the "Federalisation" of Europe. That is before the 3 pillar systems even went into effect in EU (In fact, no such thing as EU exist then)

The rest of your post is just Garbage of your thought.

The European Coal and Steel Community (trade cooperation) > The European Union 2016 ( the whole 9 yards) . There is no such thing as whole 9 yards at the start. It all starts with 1 step, gradually if the fist phase is a success then step 2, step 3 etc will be implemented. Same with all new kind of international organization.

Let me repeat this myself: The core purpose of the European Union is the harmonization of the internal market.
The treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon, the replaced system of the 3 pillars have already been mentioned by me by giving you the link below. Its all there. REad the first chapter of the link below.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

Again, as I said, I am not debating the European Union itself to you, rather the REASON why EU was formed in the first place. Meanwhile you keep putting reference on What EU is today, which is irreverent.

It's like you are using UN as an organisation today and debate what they were before it was form, it's a completely different entity today then it was formed in 1950. What happened now does not equal to what they were and why they were at that point in time.

We are debating the "FORMATION" of NEAU, not what is NEAU.

I can read legal document fine, but apparently, you cannot read Simple English.

You cant read legal consolidated protocols, can you? The nerve of a fake chinese american to lecture me (citizen of the EU) about EU law even though i am more well-informed than the average citizen of the EU is making me speechless.


lol, now with the name calling, an ultimate sign that you are losing an argument.

Just so you know, I am a British and Swedish Citizens (As well as being an American Citizen, an Australian Citizen and a Hong Kong Citizen). I got my British Citizenship in 2002 by automatically converting my British Overseas Citizenship (I suppose, not sure if this is the name) with the New Immigration Act in 2002, my mother whom acquired BOC during her stay in Hong Kong were not of Chinese National, hence I was not converted to British National Overseas and was Granted British Citizenship in 2002.

I also married to my wife of Swedish Descent in 2006, and granded Swedish Citizenship in 2010. So, if you think about it, I am more EU than you, at least I got 2 EU passport, not one.

Also, I used to work for EU as part of EU Battlegroup as part of Training and Deployment Team after my separation from the US Army. My wife was a Swedish Defence Force major whom used to work for EU Council as a Lawyer for committee of Legal Affair
 
Last edited:
.
Dude, the ECSC is only ONE Part of result of the formation of EU, resulting directly from Treaty of Paris, which contrary to what you think it was established to ease the reconstruction effort in Europe. It is by no mean a Economic Treaty like today.

And No, the grand result for Treaty of Rome is not just the ECSC, but the wider responsible of European Community, which, along with the Merger Treaty in 1967, seen as the "Federalisation" of Europe. That is before the 3 pillar systems even went into effect in EU (In fact, no such thing as EU exist then)

The rest of your post is just Garbage of your thought.



Again, as I said, I am not debating the European Union itself to you, rather the REASON why EU was formed in the first place. Meanwhile you keep putting reference on What EU is today, which is irreverent.

It's like you are using UN as an organisation today and debate what they were before it was form, it's a completely different entity today then it was formed in 1950. What happened now does not equal to what they were and why they were at that point in time.

I can read legal document, but apparently, you cannot read in Simple English.




lol, now with the name calling, an ultimate sign that you are losing an argument.

Just so you know, I am a British and Swedish Citizens (As well as being an American Citizen, an Australian Citizen and a Hong Kong Citizen). I got my British Citizenship in 2002 by automatically converting my British Overseas Territories Citizenship with the New Immigration Act in 2002, my mother whom acquired BOTC during her stay in Hong Kong were not of Chinese National, hence I was not converted to British National Overseas and was Granted British Citizenship in 2002.

I also married to my wife of Swedish Descent in 2006, and granded Swedish Citizenship in 2010. So, if you think about it, I am more EU than you, at least I got 2 EU passport, not one.

Also, I used to work for EU as part of EU Battlegroup as part of Training and Deployment Team after my separation from the US Army. My wife was a Swedish Defence Force major whom used to work for EU Council as a Lawyer for intra-national affair

I dont really care about your family history, but at least i understand now why you are so pro USA. Whether my post is garbages or not, or why my posts even rekt your nerve is up to you. It is your problem.

Reread your previous statements and my posts regarding to them. I got the feeling you didnt bother to read the links and my comments at all and that somehow you blame my disfunctional english for your lack of EU (law)knowledge. If i dont know better i might as well throw my legal degree and join EU Battlegroup and USA army to compensate my lack of EU law knowledge.

Who mentioned 8 inch in Cantonese earlier? You were the one for insulting me at first, ergo you were losing the conversation.

This conversation will go nowhere as you seemed incapable to understand what i was trying to say.
 
.
I dont really care about your family history, but at least i understand now why you are so pro USA. Whether my post is garbages or not, or why my posts even rekt your nerve is up to you. It is your problem.

AGAIN, YOU QUOTED MY POST FIRST in #207. I was talking to @William Hung and you simply bugged in, did you have dementia?? Or may even be Parkinson??

You reply to my post which is not addressed to you, and now you claim your post rekt me?

News Flash, NO, YOU DON'T. I hear you keep saying you can "Defuse" my post before but all I hear is this, your answer is repetitive and of no substance. And you still yet to answer my question on where in the EU own webpage mentioned financial as a motive for such union to form in the first place?

Reread your previous statements and my posts regarding to them. I got the feeling you didnt bother to read the links and my comments at all and that somehow you blame my disfunctional english for your lack of EU (law)knowledge. If i dont know better i might as well throw my legal degree and join EU Battlegroup and USA army to compensate my lack of EU law knowledge.

Dude, it's a "Law" degree, not a legal degree.

Your EU (Law) is not of the point here, as I said and claim so many time. Beside you have no address any of my point but keep telling me to go read the "LAW" which have nothing to do with this argument in the begin with.

Typical Chinese pretend to be an EU citizens

Who mentioned 8 inch in Cantonese earlier? You were the one for insulting me at first, ergo you were losing the conversation.

This conversation will go nowhere as you seemed incapable to understand what i was trying to say.

It's 8 Chi, not 8 inch.

And in Chinese, that sentence would roughly be translated to "Don't be silly" or "Don't be a fool" or at worse "Don't be stupid" How is it offensive and insulting to say don't be silly? You claim you are from Hong Kong, yet you don't speak the language or know their slang?

If you are indeed a law student, well, just look at your comprehension skill......And you try to argue your case like you try to argue with me here? Then all I can say is "good Luck to your potential client"
 
.
English is not my native language, why rekking your nerve so much? You see the link below? The good thing about EU is that english is not the sole language to communicate. I can choose dutch and still find and read the relevant articles and jurisprudence in dutch instead of soley in english. Btw stop lying you could read directive and regulations. The link below only show you the first layer. EU law is layer upon layer etc.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

I have already produced legal annotations and assisted lawsuits (6 win-3 lost) a few time and so far i am doing fine. Sure my mentor didnt always happy that i never bother to expand my view outside the legal world but overall he was satisfied.
I dont need your goodluck wish if i get the privilige to work at Brauw & Blackstone after i finish my current research paper.

Werken bij De Brauw - Home

I could tell you why my Cantonese is lacking, but i am pretty sure you are not interest in my family history.
 
.
English is not my native language, why rekking your nerve so much? You see the link below? The good thing about EU is that english is not the sole language to communicate. I can choose dutch and still find and read the relevant articles and jurisprudence in dutch instead of soley in english. Btw stop lying you could read directive and regulations. The link below only show you the first layer. EU law is layer upon layer etc.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

I have already produced legal annotations and assisted lawsuits (6 win-3 lost) a few time and so far i am doing fine. Sure my mentor didnt always happy that i never bother to expand my view outside the legal world but overall he was satisfied.
I dont need your goodluck wish if i get the privilige to work at Brauw & Blackstone after i finish my current research paper.

Werken bij De Brauw - Home

I could tell you why my Cantonese is lacking, but i am pretty sure you are not interest in my family history.

I don't think anything is your native language.

Also, you have a lousy rate to present your argument, even to make your argument, basically all the contribution you did in this thread is to provide the EU law which define the legal definition of European Union, which as I said is irreverent. Let me help you out with your own argument

Your whole thesis is based on the exist Economic Cooperation that current exist with numerous Asian Country and somehow they can ascend into a Union with a single, supranational governing entity. While you argue your case by linking such economic cooperation exist and European Union is build on the same background as first being a Economic cooperation between the 6 founding European Country.

However, you are using the European as an complete entity as a proof that such relation exist. Logically, your argument is the same as the you are arguing since 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 must come from 2 + 2. This is a logically wrong statement, in a court of law, it was called "Argumentative", it would be fine if this is the focus of argument, it would not be if you use it as a proof, as you cannot prove a reason of an existence on something that had Already exist, you case must be build on the reason why something was created BEFORE said thing came into existence, working backward does not support your argument, as EU can be formed by the need of many, one of them are economic cooperation, but you can not provide, without reasonable doubt, that the EU is solely based on the Economic Cooperation, had you not considered all the possible scenario.

Then you build your case on this arbitrary logical flaw of EU exist because of Economic Co-operation, which you have not examine enough of other avenue, which basically build your whole case of a NEAU existence (Which NEAU not actually existed yet) on the illogical argument.

My counter-argument to you, which is actually not my base argument on the issue with NEAU to begin with. Is that EU was build on the security co-operation that Europe is coming out after WW2. By providing an evidence as written on EU own webpage (Which you have yet to cross examine) and the reason of the threat is build on Cold war as supported by many nation that was part of EU, but not NATO. Which basically poke hole into your thesis on EU is solely build on Economic Cooperation simply because IT IS a economic cooperation today. Which an argument exist beyond the scope of economic, and a fact (not just an argument) you have not disprove.

My main argument, (Which you have not cross-examine, nor rebuttal, even tho you claim you can defuse my argument in minutes) for the failure to establish of NEAU is build on the country trust and need, where it would require a extranational entity enemies for North East Asia to form themselves as an Union. With the people who purposed that extranational entites being the United States.

Which my argument went on to provide.

1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?

And additional argument is that forming an NEAU would simply trigger the formation of other Union in the region to try and counter balance it first, beside the US, which it mainland sit 12000 mile away, there are two large country namely India and Russia next to China, what would they think if such union would come into existence? NEAU would be more of a threat to them then the US. Which again, negate the power of balance of NEAU. Rendering it useless.

You can go along and try to throw insult at me all you want, but if you want to argue, and you are using its tone like this to argue in a court of law, it would be amaze if you were not held in contempt, let alone winning a case, your argument is both irreverent and repetitive. Unless you have anything to say to the point I just raise, I rest my case.

@Blue Marlin argue much more like a lawyer than you. And I know lawyers, my wife is one

by the way, are you a law student or a lawyer (QC/SC or OC) if you are not a lawyer, you don't have a record.
 
Last edited:
.
I don't think anything is your native language.

Also, you have a lousy rate to present your argument, even to make your argument, basically all the contribution you did in this thread is to provide the EU law which define the legal definition of European Union, which as I said is irreverent. Let me help you out with your own argument

Your whole thesis is based on the exist Economic Cooperation that current exist with numerous Asian Country and somehow they can ascend into a Union with a single, supranational governing entity. While you argue your case by linking such economic cooperation exist and European Union is build on the same background as first being a Economic cooperation between the 6 founding European Country.

However, you are using the European as an complete entity as a proof that such relation exist. Logically, your argument is the same as the you are arguing since 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 must come from 2 + 2. This is a logically wrong statement, in a court of law, it was called "Argumentative", it would be fine if this is the focus of argument, it would not be if you use it as a proof, as you cannot prove a reason of an existence on something that had Already exist, you case must be build on the reason why something was created BEFORE said thing came into existence, working backward does not support your argument, as EU can be formed by the need of many, one of them are economic cooperation, but you can not provide, without reasonable doubt, that the EU is solely based on the Economic Cooperation, had you not considered all the possible scenario.

Then you build your case on this arbitrary logical flaw of EU exist because of Economic Co-operation, which you have not examine enough of other avenue, which basically build your whole case of a NEAU existence (Which NEAU not actually existed yet) on the illogical argument.

My counter-argument to you, which is actually not my base argument on the issue with NEAU to begin with. Is that EU was build on the security co-operation that Europe is coming out after WW2. By providing an evidence as written on EU own webpage (Which you have yet to cross examine) and the reason of the threat is build on Cold war as supported by many nation that was part of EU, but not NATO. Which basically poke hole into your thesis on EU is solely build on Economic Cooperation simply because IT IS a economic cooperation today. Which an argument exist beyond the scope of economic, and a fact (not just an argument) you have not disprove.

My main argument, (Which you have not cross-examine, nor rebuttal, even tho you claim you can defuse my argument in minutes) for the failure to establish of NEAU is build on the country trust and need, where it would require a extranational entity enemies for North East Asia to form themselves as an Union. With the people who purposed that extranational entites being the United States.

Which my argument went on to provide.

1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?

And additional argument is that forming an NEAU would simply trigger the formation of other Union in the region to try and counter balance it first, beside the US, which it mainland sit 12000 mile away, there are two large country namely India and Russia next to China, what would they think if such union would come into existence? NEAU would be more of a threat to them then the US. Which again, negate the power of balance of NEAU. Rendering it useless.

You can go along and try to throw insult at me all you want, but if you want to argue, and you are using its tone like this to argue in a court of law, it would be amaze if you were not held in contempt, let alone winning a case, your argument is both irreverent and repetitive. Unless you have anything to say to the point I just raise, I rest my case.

@Blue Marlin argue much more like a lawyer than you. And I know lawyers, my wife is one

by the way, are you a law student or a lawyer (QC/SC or OC) if you are not a lawyer, you don't have a record.

I was not sure after reading this vague arguments of yours, if you were trolling me with such lenghty text, but you get for now the benefit of the doubt. Unlike you who has plenty of free time, i am very busy man who needs to submit my report soon to the board of committee. I guess i will make some free time and give you last try.

"Your whole thesis is based on the exist Economic Cooperation that current exist with numerous Asian Country and somehow they can ascend into a Union with a single, supranational governing entity. While you argue your case by linking such economic cooperation exist and European Union is build on the same background as first being a Economic cooperation between the 6 founding European Country".


My answer is yes, your assumption is correct.

"However, you are using the European as an complete entity as a proof that such relation exist. Logically, your argument is the same as the you are arguing since 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 must come from 2 + 2. This is a logically wrong statement, in a court of law, it was called "Argumentative", it would be fine if this is the focus of argument, it would not be if you use it as a proof, as you cannot prove a reason of an existence on something that had Already exist, you case must be build on the reason why something was created BEFORE said thing came into existence, working backward does not support your argument, as EU can be formed by the need of many, one of them are economic cooperation, but you can not provide, without reasonable doubt, that the EU is solely based on the Economic Cooperation, had you not considered all the possible scenario".

You want to talk about the figure 4? fine, lets see 1+3=4, 5-1=4, 24-20=4, etc, They all end with 4 and not just with the only combination of 2+2=4.
On a serious note, I can prove that the EU is soley based on the Economic Cooperation and yes i already considerd all the possible scenario's. But you see, what i know about the many historical (non economic)reasons why (former)EU were created hardly matter, because all that matter is what states agreed on the core objective when they first signed the treaty and extensively mentioned in the sentences of the relevant EU treaty and not the silly chit chats before. The most important core objective the former EU members had in mind, were displayed in the first sentence of the treaty and that was and is still the harmonization of the internal market. Without integrated economy in the EU, there would be no EU. Poor eastern europe countries, which joined the EU instead of somekind of poor Russian led organization, were all soley motivated by wealth/trade/money. If wealth/trade/money was never the only factor, why bother to join the EU? For security? ohh pls ever heard of NATO? Those poor eastern european countries already joined the NATO for their protection.

NATO - Member countries

Same with Turkey. Why doesTurkey try so hard to join the EU if it is not for the vast internal market of the EU which means trade>money>wealth? Knowing you, you will probably spin it like this: "Turkey was part of the Greco-Romanian empire, so it is more than justified that Turkey try to be member as the EU. Trade only would not be the decisive factor but other factors like european brotherhood, culture, bloodrelated etc are other relevant factors too. You see most turks in Turkey looks like southern european and so it is naturally they want to connect to their lost southern european countries." BIG LOL

Bottomline is, it is all about trade/money/wealth. NATO already provided the security on the European continent. Money moves the world, in this case money moves the members of the european countries to be part of the EU and not the culture,security social factors. All other factors came later when the EU feels confident enough and base on the consensus in the European Council, more and more tasks are included like the monetary policy. The first thing every new member of the EU had in mind was:"show me the money".

Proof number 1: The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict.

See second sentence of the link below. If we assume economic cooperation was never the focus from the beginning, why bother to emphasize trade from the beginning, why not cultural exchange or militaire cooperation between the EU countries?

EUROPA - The EU in brief

Proof number 2: ask your so called swedish lawyer wife to read the core of the EU treaty. I even put 3 language english, dutch, swedish for you. It should be easy for your swedish wife. Have fun because we both know you cant read directives, regulation +the reference to the essential jurisprudence to make the many layers of the treaty clear and sound. Try find the relevant C-numbers. If you really could read the whole EU treaties and what is the core of it (put in link below) you would already stop this conversation over the essence of the European Union.
I personally find it sad, that you take this discussion of EU law based on your wife knowledge who is specialized in militaire affair instead of based on your own legal knowledge. It is like someone who is bragging from hear saying.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

What is the connection between the EU and the Greater East Asia? Reread my previous posts again. Next one.

1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?


1)There is different kind of threats.
1) The obvious threat is war between countries for instance the World War 2
2) the not so obvious threat like arab springs revolution, central asian color revolution ,the Crimea revolution etc ( iam too lazy to sum them all up). Where USA usually pull the strings for regime change if you dont obey the USA. USA might be far away but somehow their dirty claws reach far. USA might not use their miltary power, but they hell sure wont stop their NGO, diplomats from making mischief by supporting the ''freedom fighters''.
One need not to go further than recent events. Ask the Russians how they feel about the USA meddling in Ukraine which ended up with the loss of Crimea to the Russian. Or asked Assad how he felt when the whole world learnt of the USA training moderate rebels. How would your lovely USA feel if China is starting to train Texas freedom fighter, or Hawaai freedom fighter?

U.S. Starts New Training for Syrian Rebels - WSJ

Imagine Tianmen square 2.0 in China. What do you think economically and politically will happens to China? It would be isolation again, maybe not enough to make immediate threat to China, but it will hurt China on the long run. Asked Putin how the the sanction taste.
The problem is that you have the military mind chip on your shoulder. The military see "hammer" as solution for every problem. So you are not fit to understand the finesse of art of deceive by NGO, diplomats, lawyers etc.

2) If the USA pull out of the asian theather, there is still purpose for the Greater East Asia Project. The synthesis of these countries would give this organization so much power, prestige, knowledge in all aspects that universe litterally would be the limit. I dont know what declining Russia or overpopulated India would do, but franky i dont care. They could form somekind of union with each other or with others. If they feel threatened, they could always try to pull off some stunt against this organization but the repercussion would be severe for them. While India or Russia still figuring what to do, the development of the Greater East Asia in all aspects will leave them biting the dusts. The future consequence after the formation of this organization is that we could be form outer post or satellite states around the Greater East Asia. Sometimes, one needs to stop thinking and just do it. If you keeping thinking what if this, what if that, you might aswell want to end your life.

On a side note, dont use NEAU=North East Asian Union. I hate that. The word "Union" implies whole as something like1 body/entity without difference. The first phase is crucial.The moment you mentioned Union, no proud nationalistic east asian country is going to sign the founding treaty because of the high nationalistic sentiments. They would asked themselves: "what Union"? Union based on my special characteristic of my country or based on the others special traits? By using the name i have invented ''Greater East Asia" , the impression would be that each still keep their own special traits and yet happy to have organization that binds them together.

Beside anything else, maestro? I mean how could i ever get it in my head to ever doubt your comments about the history and purpose of the European Union and her core activities. I mean you, a military personnel with huge geopolitic knowledge, would naturally know more than me about the European Union treaties, the anti-trust policy, the monetary policy, the European Competition Law and Regulation and last but not least the Principles and foundations of European Union law. You even talk like if you know how a dutch court works from the inside, the procedure, the dicretion of the court etc. But i have to admit you saw through my fake intelligent though. Ok, i admit. i am not legal scholar who is specialized in (EU)state and administrative law. I brought my diploma for 10 euro, ordered it via online cursus. guilty as charge. Can you sleep better now you know i am fake?

Btw I dont need to insult you. How can i insult you for who you really are?
 
. .
I was not sure after reading this vague arguments of yours, if you were trolling me with such lenghty text, but you get for now the benefit of the doubt. Unlike you who has plenty of free time, i am very busy man who needs to submit my report soon to the board of committee. I guess i will make some free time and give you last try.

lol, your funeral.

My answer is yes, your assumption is correct.

Ok, continue to the next phase.

You want to talk about the figure 4? fine, lets see 1+3=4, 5-1=4, 24-20=4, etc, They all end with 4 and not just with the only combination of 2+2=4.

On a serious note, I can prove that the EU is soley based on the Economic Cooperation and yes i already considerd all the possible scenario's. But you see, what i know about the many historical (non economic)reasons why (former)EU were created hardly matter, because all that matter is what states agreed on the core objective when they first signed the treaty and extensively mentioned in the sentences of the relevant EU treaty and not the silly chit chats before. The most important core objective the former EU members had in mind, were displayed in the first sentence of the treaty and that was and is still the harmonization of the internal market. Without integrated economy in the EU, there would be no EU. Poor eastern europe countries, which joined the EU instead of somekind of poor Russian led organization, were all soley motivated by wealth/trade/money. If wealth/trade/money was never the only factor, why bother to join the EU? For security? ohh pls ever heard of NATO? Those poor eastern european countries already joined the NATO for their protection.

NATO - Member countries

Same with Turkey. Why doesTurkey try so hard to join the EU if it is not for the vast internal market of the EU which means trade>money>wealth? Knowing you, you will probably spin it like this: "Turkey was part of the Greco-Romanian empire, so it is more than justified that Turkey try to be member as the EU. Trade only would not be the decisive factor but other factors like european brotherhood, culture, bloodrelated etc are other relevant factors too. You see most turks in Turkey looks like southern european and so it is naturally they want to connect to their lost southern european countries." BIG LOL

Bottomline is, it is all about trade/money/wealth. NATO already provided the security on the European continent. Money moves the world, in this case money moves the members of the european countries to be part of the EU and not the culture,security social factors. All other factors came later when the EU feels confident enough and base on the consensus in the European Council, more and more tasks are included like the monetary policy. The first thing every new member of the EU had in mind was:"show me the money".

Proof number 1: The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict.

See second sentence of the link below. If we assume economic cooperation was never the focus from the beginning, why bother to emphasize trade from the beginning, why not cultural exchange or militaire cooperation between the EU countries?

EUROPA - The EU in brief

Proof number 2: ask your so called swedish lawyer wife to read the core of the EU treaty. I even put 3 language english, dutch, swedish for you. It should be easy for your swedish wife. Have fun because we both know you cant read directives, regulation +the reference to the essential jurisprudence to make the many layers of the treaty clear and sound. Try find the relevant C-numbers. If you really could read the whole EU treaties and what is the core of it (put in link below) you would already stop this conversation over the essence of the European Union.
I personally find it sad, that you take this discussion of EU law based on your wife knowledge who is specialized in militaire affair instead of based on your own legal knowledge. It is like someone who is bragging from hear saying.

EUR-Lex - 12012E/TXT - EUR-Lex

First of all. Your argument is to proved that EU formed with "SOLELY" economic cooperation, not SOLELY security cooperation or WITH security cooperation. As you already said in previous point, that is your assumption. Notice the keyword : SOLELY.

So, have you prove the point? No. Why? Let's see

Argument 1. The title of the article immediately said

The EU is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 European countries that together cover much of the continent.

So, it already break your point, let me reiterate it again. Your point being, and it's with your own word, not mind.

I can prove that the EU is soley based on the Economic Cooperation

Because the very first sentence on this reference called EU a unique economic and POLITICAL partnership. So it was both economic AND political, then it would NOT be solely. (By the way, you spell solely wrong.)

Also, on the exact script you quote. Notice this Bolded part

The EU was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that countries who trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to avoid conflict.

I don't know about you, in Plain English, it would mean the action of foresting economic cooperation is to avoid conflict. So basically, the action of forming EU can also be interpret as simply "to avoid conflict" Hence not "SOLELY" on economic cooperation.

Argument 2

LOL. Quoting a law database on directive and regulation prove anything? No.

Look at the same directive and regulation, have you notice something called Solidarity clause?

Again, let me remind you that your argument is this

I can prove that the EU is soley based on the Economic Cooperation

Which is the EU is solely based on Economic Cooperation. Which if this is true, then why there are also political and military cooperation, directive and regulation? When EU have law regarding other aspect in mind, then the term will not be SOLELY.

I don't know what kind of lawyer are you (one post you claim you are a student, another post you claim to be an actual lawyer) It don't need my wife to take your argument apart. And it's quite obvious that you not even know what the hack were you arguing about.

What is the connection between the EU and the Greater East Asia? Reread my previous posts again. Next one.

1.) US is too far to physically threaten any country in Asia.
2.) The reason to form a NEAU is contradictorary, the establishment of NEAU would require the US to relinquish all American Overseas Territories in Asia-Pacific and thus pull out of the effective influence of Asia, and if that can be happen without NEAU, then what NEAU is for then?


1)There is different kind of threats.
1) The obvious threat is war between countries for instance the World War 2
2) the not so obvious threat like arab springs revolution, central asian color revolution ,the Crimea revolution etc ( iam too lazy to sum them all up). Where USA usually pull the strings for regime change if you dont obey the USA. USA might be far away but somehow their dirty claws reach far. USA might not use their miltary power, but they hell sure wont stop their NGO, diplomats from making mischief by supporting the ''freedom fighters''.
One need not to go further than recent events. Ask the Russians how they feel about the USA meddling in Ukraine which ended up with the loss of Crimea to the Russian. Or asked Assad how he felt when the whole world learnt of the USA training moderate rebels. How would your lovely USA feel if China is starting to train Texas freedom fighter, or Hawaai freedom fighter?

U.S. Starts New Training for Syrian Rebels - WSJ

Imagine Tianmen square 2.0 in China. What do you think economically and politically will happens to China? It would be isolation again, maybe not enough to make immediate threat to China, but it will hurt China on the long run. Asked Putin how the the sanction taste.
The problem is that you have the military mind chip on your shoulder. The military see "hammer" as solution for every problem. So you are not fit to understand the finesse of art of deceive by NGO, diplomats, lawyers etc.

2) If the USA pull out of the asian theather, there is still purpose for the Greater East Asia Project. The synthesis of these countries would give this organization so much power, prestige, knowledge in all aspects that universe litterally would be the limit. I dont know what declining Russia or overpopulated India would do, but franky i dont care. They could form somekind of union with each other or with others. If they feel threatened, they could always try to pull off some stunt against this organization but the repercussion would be severe for them. While India or Russia still figuring what to do, the development of the Greater East Asia in all aspects will leave them biting the dusts. The future consequence after the formation of this organization is that we could be form outer post or satellite states around the Greater East Asia. Sometimes, one needs to stop thinking and just do it. If you keeping thinking what if this, what if that, you might aswell want to end your life.
[/quote]

lol that's your best shot??

Point 1. )I just want to ask you this, had there are no Syrian Rebel, could US train Syrian rebel to begin with?

Civil war broke out of a country is not a third party fault,. If a Civil war broke out in Syria, the root cause would not be because the US have been meddling. Unless it's the Bay of Pig style intervention which US was directly involve in (like carry out an actual assassination or what not, but then they would not be third party, the US would be a belligerent.

The notion that you blame the US for a civil war is funny at best, pathetic generally. The third party as a non-state actor would not have contribute to the non-state action had there are no action to have in the first place, and that's in military term. in civilian term. It basically means this had Assad have not done what he had done to have a separatist movement, US would not be able to allegedly penetrate into it. Simply because the US cannot ask Assad to do what he did in order to have a civil war. The US can fan hatred on the rebel part, but as always, it takes two to tango, you cannot have a civil war at hand if Assad does not play along. Hence your basis falls apart.

Point 2. ) So effectively, you are saying once US is move out of the way, the next step of NEAU is universal domination. Quoting your own word "Universe is (the) limit"

First of all, that's not the scope of "North East Asian Union"

Second of all, that does not actually answered or challenge my point. My point is not what NEAU could do after they push the US out. It's for NEAU to form, they need to push the US out in the first place (Or unless you want to form the NEAU with Japan and South Korea still have US troop stationed in it?)

If the US can be pushed out, before the formation of NEAU, then why exactly NEAU should be formed. Now I know, it's for world domination.

On a side note, dont use NEAU=North East Asian Union. I hate that. The word "Union" implies whole as something like1 body/entity without difference. The first phase is crucial.The moment you mentioned Union, no proud nationalistic east asian country is going to sign the founding treaty because of the high nationalistic sentiments. They would asked themselves: "what Union"? Union based on my special characteristic of my country or based on the others special traits? By using the name i have invented ''Greater East Asia" , the impression would be that each still keep their own special traits and yet happy to have organization that binds them together.

Beside anything else, maestro? I mean how could i ever get it in my head to ever doubt your comments about the history and purpose of the European Union and her core activities. I mean you, a military personnel with huge geopolitic knowledge, would naturally know more than me about the European Union treaties, the anti-trust policy, the monetary policy, the European Competition Law and Regulation and last but not least the Principles and foundations of European Union law. You even talk like if you know how a dutch court works from the inside, the procedure, the dicretion of the court etc. But i have to admit you saw through my fake intelligent though. Ok, i admit. i am not legal scholar who is specialized in (EU)state and administrative law. I brought my diploma for 10 euro, ordered it via online cursus. guilty as charge. Can you sleep better now you know i am fake?

Btw I dont need to insult you. How can i insult you for who you really are?

Umm, again, do you actually know what were you arguing?
 
. .
Agree but those countries still dont have a stong Nationalist ideology among the masses, otherwise no Syrian would kill his compatriot over stupid reasons such as sects.

What happen in Syria and Libya are due to hegemonic power of a family, Assad family and Gadafi family. Religious tendency is due to support given by Iran and Hisbullah in the early war. This makes AQ comes.

Not really different with what happen in old Europe in which hate were also happening that make them hang their kings to give the way for democracy to rule in Western Europe or communism to rule in Russia.
 
.
Yes, free trade area is possible regardless of political differences.

Excellent appraisal! Perhaps this sheds light in the assumption that political differences is the bottom line; not the case. In fact economic integration eventually leads to political integration.
 
.
What happen in Syria and Libya are due to hegemonic power of a family, Assad family and Gadafi family. Religious tendency is due to support given by Iran and Hisbullah in the early war. This makes AQ comes.

Not really different with what happen in old Europe in which hate were also happening that make them hang their kings to give the way for democracy to rule in Western Europe or communism to rule in Russia.
Yeah but Europe was in industrialisation period at that time, ME on the other hand looks like a doomed place with no hope for future.
 
.
According to Freud's theory, people's mind can be divided into two parts: the conscious mind (or the ego) and the unconscious mind. The former is developed through the process of “growing up” via the form of education and life experience: people are taught righteousness, ethics,right/wrong, norms,rules of laws etc; the latter refers to the mental processes of which individuals make themselves unaware. So for the part of the development of the unconscious mind, people's race,religion,history,culture,or even food, all play big part in that process. In a broader sense the phrase “you are what you eat” says it all.

Freud's conscious and unconscious mind theory can explain lots of incidents in real life when people acted or behaved irrationally or even anti-socially, that is when there is a big discrepancy between the two minds, given certain circumstances people lose control of the conscious mind and resort into what the unconscious mind is telling them to do. The ways to make irrational rational, or to bridge the discrepancy of the two, are that you either change those factors forging your conscious mind, or change your way of life,the culture,etc to fit into the world with certain rules, or combination of both.

Do nations also have the unconscious mind? Well if they don't, it will be harder to explain the rationale behind numerous incidents while nations were acting irrationally.

So what can Freud's unconscious mind theory enlighten us in our discussion about NEAU here? I think first we can better understand the motivation behind many nations' drive for a multi-polar world, because the international norms and rules developed and forged chiefly by the UK/US,according to their sets of values, are no longer adequate to handle the reality that many nations like Russia and Japan are resurging and nations like China and India are rising.

Secondly, if the US understands Chinese unconscious mind, the US will know China is telling the truth that China does not want to be the world sole super power no mater how strong it is or will be. The Chinese people are not really interested in our people's affairs, (other people meas those people outside the traditional Chinese culture sphere), our ancestors even built a great wall in more than a thousand years to circle China.

Thirdly, even many American pundits agreed that the current internal framework actually benefits China a lot, even China repeatedly told the US China doesn't want challenge the US to overthrow everything, the US chose not to believe. Perhaps this irrationality can be explained by the state of the unconscious mind of the US.

Fourthly, what does Japan's unconscious mind tell it to do? Since I am not Japanese so I should leave it to the Japanese members to ponder. My observation, however, is that although Japan has undergone a hundred years Westernization Process, it keeps lots of old oriental values and traditions. That alone should mean something.

Lastly, put NEAU notion into this context, the biggest obstacle maybe from the conscious mind of the participants: China has a very different political system than the others. However, looking back 40 years in time, China has changed enormously and is till changing. Like Francis Fukuyama's book “The End of History and the Last Man”, the claim that China will not change will not hold up to the test of time. Thousands years of written history has proven that the Chinese people are very pragmatic people, we are capable and flexible to make adjustments when facing new challenges and problems. If this NEAU reaches the stage that all country needs to make some adjustments for it to happen, upon the valuation of the greatest good that it can bring, I am sure the descendants of the Confucius beliefs including China can do it again.

Like normal people at a crossroads, nations need to look back on the past in order to make wise decisions about their future path. In 1972, the world renowned Italian film director Michelangelo Antonioni was invited by the then Chinese PM Zhou Enlai to make a documentary film about China. In his documentary named “China”, Antonioni recorded a true China through his camera lens and from his angle, which later earned him much criticism from the Chinese government, the film was labelled unti-China and banned. I remembered as a little boy about entering primary school in Beijing, we all chanted “安东尼奥尼,是个大坏蛋”- “Anotnnioni is a big bastard” for several years. In 2004, China government formally apologized to him and made the film to the public viewing for the first time. Nowadays this film turned out to be one of the most valuable documentaries about the real China in that era. When I watched it, I felt so real and had the feeling that those people in the film could be me, my family,my neighbours, my friends,or any people I knew.






off topic, why was the film banned initially?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom