"It's too late for Germany" (but not for Poland)

*nods*

I presume then that means you agree?

I'm sure BB does agree,as I do too.

Now it strictly depend on Vatican and mix of power and influence that encompass Vatican`s and western European interests.

Why Vatican? It represent strongest `universalistic` option in Poland. Poles feel Slavic but its now marginalized feeling. Marginalized but still strong enough to be able to compete (at least virtually) with Vatican`s universalism.

Add more Vatican`s and western European input, add more input of the opposition from non-Catholic Slavic countries and you got it- Balkanization of Poland.

Seems a no brainer....to nearly everyone except Angela Merkel!
Boy this lady's clueless. Well-intentioned perhaps as she may be, she has managed to make
a rather horrid mess of things, hasn't she.

Yes, me nodding means I agree! :)

You may say its Angela but, I clearly see her role. She just have her role. You better ask what is Duda`s role.

See, Duda seams to me, represent `universalistic` option and that, as we all know, exclude patriotic option.

What brings that on? Haven't you been always rather a defender of her?

He now see that Merkel`s Jewish husband isn`t of some help. Or maybe he is.

While you all fear from Balkanization, EU would become like Israel.

youtu.be/GzMKgeESSu4
youtu.be/S2xNHknsQPI

French General Pierre Marie Gallois- Truth About NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia 1999

He explains in detail the role of Germany in arming the separatists & in the the break-up of Yugoslavia.

Yes, and brat Jerzy Robert Nowak spoke of it on Radio Maryja, too.

Rola Niemiec w rozbiciu Jugosławii >>> youtube.com/watch?v=9V2EB9GuCvI

Crowie...can't you take it to a more fitting thread please?

Its all connected. You can`t deny that.

We even have clear evidences that `universalistic` option in Poland facing strong resistance from Catholic Polish intelligentsia. That seams to be behind Polish-Pope misunderstandings. Let us hope that Pope isn`t stubborn or, God forbid, evil.

Mikis Theodorakis described well how perfid Bill Clinton ruined international world order, by supporting western European imperialism


Whatever. But its clear why is Germany there where it is. Those who are strongest today in the world, see German role in destruction of Yugoslavia as the last Germany`s mistake.

It was Tacitus who once again repeated the tried and tested lies & propaganda and he received a proper answer.

youtu.be/2ua1WB-fovQ

"Danke Deutschland"


Without German "assistance" the Yugoslav crisis would have been resolved like it was recently in Spain, the reason we did not see similar scenes over there was that there was no foreign power and its secret service that would arm the Catalans.

@Bratwurst Boy,

Understanding her motivation(s) and being for her misguided policies are two completely separate issues!

I don't think there's anything well-intentioned about her.... she's out of touch because she's been in office too long, no national leader is any use after 10 years in office.

Yeah...we should definitely limit the terms! It never ended well, not once!!!

I disagree. There is no need for a term limit in a parliamentary democracy, in which a leader can be displaced by either the voters or the voters (who can even vote all 4 years and not 5 like some other countries). If the voters, his/her party and a coalition believes that a leader should continue, then there is no reason for an arbitrary term limit.

@Crnogorac3


Yeah no, all evidence suggest the contrary. The people in Croatia and Slovakia overwhelmingly wanted independence (unlike the Catalans who are split about it) and Belgrad reacted in the worst possible way. There would have been bloodshed either way, as shown by later wars. Germany merely grasped the reality sooner than others. I am quite proud how the Kohl government stood on the right side of history on this decision.

@Crow

Nobody outside Serbia mourns for Yugoslavia. It died with Tito's death, Germany simply accelerated the burial of its' rotting carcass. It was a flawed, unsustainable creation to begin with anyway.

But you know that the longer the term, the more disgraced the leader always became....He/She could have left with an better image if he/she would had gone on her own time earlier.

Does it has to be always this way? That the party/the voters has to drag him/her out of the chancellory at last against his/her will? Do you think that's okay?

Especially in the german variant of the parliamentary democracy...where the voter don't directly elect the leader but the party. People can still sympathize with a party, and want to vote for her instead of her rivals, but still grow tired of it's leader. What are they gonna do?

That is usually just a momentary impression that fades with time. People always crave change and only later start to appreciate what they had earlier. This happened in the days of kings and now in the days of politicians.


If it is his decision, why not? Every chancellor (though we only have with Adenauer and Kohl had teo cases so far) made the decision to continue because they had something they believed they still needed to do. Adenauer wanted to finish his project of integrating the FRG into the West, Kohl wanted to introduce the Euro, and both succeeded. In Adenauers' case he also prevented Erhardt, whom he -rightfully- believed to be not up to the task from succeeding him for too long.


A mostly academical question. A party leader gets directly voted by his party. If you do not like the leader, you also disapprove with the party's decision and thus should not vote for him and his party.

And then what? Stay at home? Weakening the democracy through non-voting?

Or wouldn't that rather be the reason for the growing number of "Protest Wähler"? Voting for an enemy to show the party leader the finger, hoping to kick off a change in said party, so that the leader get's kicked out by the party because of the decreasing percents in the polls?

Is that really the best way?

I think the phenomenon of millions of non-voter and the rising numbers of protest voters are a consequence of an unlimited term...and the impossibility for the voters to change that in a election.

(Okay...that this unlimited term goes hand in hand with a repeated grand coalition plays also a big part in that. But that is also a consequence)

Parliamentary democracies should set a good example for the rest of the world.... Clearly stablished term limits (between 8 and 12 years as head of state) could help those in countries where they use your arguments to keep human excrement like Putin and Erdogan in power....

Being a head of state for over 10 years should be a mark of shame

@Bratwurst Boy


Vote for a different party, or vote for the same party. There are enough options available.

@mafketis


Nope, because there were safeguards like this in both countries, and both leaders found ways to circumvent them. Putin simply made his puppet president for one term. Erdogan's party AKP had a rule preventing any politician from holding an office for more than 3 terms. Erdogan simply became president and changed the political system to his liking.

It makes sense to establish safeguards like this in immature democracies, or presidential democracies, but not in a highly federalized parliamentary democracy in which there are so many checks on the PMs/chancellors power.


Well, Germany does have a term limit for its' head of state, the German president. The chancellor is the head of government.

Besides, at least in Germany, Adenauer, Kohl and Merkel received their 3rd terms for their remarkeable political achievements. Adenauer for rebuilding Germany, Kohl for reuniting Germany and Merkel for keeping the EU and Euro together.

Brexit and the dysfunctional Euro (which makes real economic recovery impossible for southern Europe) not exactly great achievements.... she's the most divisive leader in Europe, hardly a uniting figure.

Merkel is neither responsible for Brexit (yeah no dear Brits, you brought this on your own) nor for the underlining problems of the Euro. She did however keep the Euro together when many "experts" predicted its' imminent demise between 2010-2012. For that, she won the election in 2013.

Whether the Greeks loved her is irrelevant ( though according to polls, they did and still do trust her more than their own politicians).

That's true too...one can blame Merkel for alot of things but she is no wonder woman! :)

She made no compelling argument to stay in the EU (that is her performance and her policies did not)

And the whole idea of the EU is supposed to be good relations rather than forcing countries to live in eternal penury while being preached at. Who needs that crap?

Merkel literally cannot leave office soon enough.

Will Britan then come back?

Why would you want them back, the UK has never been an enthusiastic member.... give them a status similar to Switzerland and Norway and move on....