View Full Version : Why can't Europe defend itself?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-12-2010, 18:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Militaries_of_Member_States
The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to €200.2 billion ($260.4 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[2], second only to the US military's €477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008 defence budget, which represents 4.5% of United States GDP. The EU figures include the spending for joint projects such as the Eurofighter and joint procurement of equipment.
You mean to tell me then the EU can not defend itself? I mean, Why do we have to fight all the wars and keep bases all around the world. Do the Europeans love their softy Pension benefits from the Government they can't defend themselves if the big ban Russian/Chinese/Arab come knocking?
Oh, we can.
However, we are not as, how to put it? "Eager" - to get into conflicts.
China has a lot of ground to cover before they reach us.
Russia can not tackle us.
Arabs... You got to be joking?
Arabs... You got to be joking?
Hey now, we've spent upwards of two trillion in the last nine years taking it to the Arabs. And ... uh ... look at how well that's turned out!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/VID.jpg
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2010, 18:45
Oh boy.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-12-2010, 18:49
Hey now, we've spent upwards of two trillion in the last nine years taking it to the Arabs. And ... uh ... look at how well that's turned out!
And look at England in Afghanistan in the 1800's. Well over a 100 years prior and even then the English, the most powerful nation in the world got whoop by them. Mongols got crushed by the Egyptians in 1260's.
Don't underestimate them.
How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....
Sasaki Kojiro
10-12-2010, 18:50
They can't afford it; they spend all their money on firefighters.
rory_20_uk
10-12-2010, 18:54
"Defend" is different to invading / pissing off the locals.
I agree that Europe has become complacent in its defence and has a very poor organisation in terms of strengths and duplication.
America uses its defence policy as part of it's Pork Barrel orders to placate areas whose industries are failing.
~:smoking:
Cute Wolf
10-12-2010, 19:03
Europe has gonna weak... all they do is condemning fights anywhere... maybe an alien invasion will teach them a lesson or two...
Lord of Lent
10-12-2010, 19:19
We can just think of a better use for that 3 trillion dollars...
They can't afford it; they spend all their money on firefighters.
:laugh4:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2010, 19:40
Nice quip Sasaki-san.
My answer would be that Europe chooses to defend themselves with a network of alliances and economic ties along with a good deal of "jaw-jaw."
Since, aside from the Balkans in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, there hasn't been a lot of harm done to the Europeans, it is pretty hard to say they've got it wrong.
Should NATO be disbanded there would need to be a shift in the approach, but right now it works well.
“maybe an alien invasion will teach them a lesson or two...” Or maybe the 1,357,000 names written in the 36,785 towns and villages' Monuments from the WW1 and the 238,000 from the WW2 taught (Europe) France a lesson or two as to stop to fight each other and to stop to attack others.
So we learned our lessons: War is bad.
As foreign invasion, I am the first generation that didn’t seen one, thanks you. I have still time, but hopefully it won’t happened.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2010, 20:00
And look at England in Afghanistan in the 1800's. Well over a 100 years prior and even then the English, the most powerful nation in the world got whoop by them. Mongols got crushed by the Egyptians in 1260's.
Don't underestimate them.
How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....
You mean "Great Britain".
In any case - the Afgans didn't "whoop" the Empire, they just faught it to exhaustion. Or, more to the point, they did what they are doing to America now.
Can we defend ourselves?
Yes, but we dod not have long-range Force projection, the whole of Europe has three Aircraft Carriers between all its nations. How many does the US have these days? 12?
That's where your money is.
Sarmatian
10-12-2010, 20:26
How can you prove Russia won't? Overran you guys (part of Europe anyhow) once before....
More than once, actually, but since Russian GDP is waaaay smaller than EU's, they really can't do it, they'd get spanked. And they have no reason to. Since they can't and they don't want to, there is no real reason to afraid, is there?
China, kind of similar to Russia.
Arabs, now that is a joke...
You mean "Great Britain".
Wouldn't you rather say "The United Kingdom"? I'm feeling sorry for all the soldiers from Man being left out of it all.
Tellos Athenaios
10-12-2010, 20:51
You mean to tell me then the EU can not defend itself?
Erm, according to that excerpt the EU represents the 2nd largest military budget (after the USA). And unlike the USA the EU doesn't make a point of annoying the people of Okinawa on a semi predictable basis. Instead we prefer to deal with Somali pirates which is less expensive and more useful altogether. :shrug:
I mean, Why do we have to fight all the wars and keep bases all around the world. You do know that the USA chose to do that. There was no military need for the USA to invade Iraq, it just felt like it. You can agree or disagree with the motives but the point remains that as long as the USA continues to remain a meddlesome power it is going to get tied up in all sorts of regional conflicts. That's not so different from the EU but what is different is that as long as the USA's approach to exerting influence is by sending in its armed forces the USA is going to be tied up in all sorts of regional wars. It's much cheaper to supply a conditional bilateral loan than to spray a country with bullets and not get what you want either. :shrug:
Do the Europeans love their softy Pension benefits from the Government they can't defend themselves if the big ban Russian/Chinese/Arab come knocking?
They won't. For starters who's going to finance the Russians, Chinese, and Arabs if they did? Right now it's the Europeans (well the Arabs not so much, the USA pumps in lots of money there as well). But especially China has no interest in killing off the market which fuels Chinese growth and provides China with cheap capital; Russia has its own problems to deal with -- and both China and Russia are conveniently preoccupied with the USA because both would dearly love to tell the USA to suck it up.
The one thing they do is stealing IP. But no army is going to stop that from happening, as the USA has been beginning to realise in the past few years: guns don't buy you much on the Internet.
Rhyfelwyr
10-12-2010, 21:00
Wouldn't you rather say "The United Kingdom"? I'm feeling sorry for all the soldiers from Man being left out of it all.
That's just how it is, we're the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency, they have their own government, with the Queen as Head of State, although they still have have British citizenship.
The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency
That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?
That's just how it is, we're the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The Manx are not part of the UK, they are a crown dependency, they have their own government, with the Queen as Head of State, although they still have have British citizenship.
Intriguing.
We don't like to defend ourselves, seeing how we're cheese-loving surrender monkeys. Not just the French, all of us.
Louis VI the Fat
10-12-2010, 21:45
Only corrupt countries - state power used for private gain - spend more than 2% on defense. Such as the basket cases of socialist Greece, mobster-ran Bulgaria, and neoliberal America. :smug:
Massive defense spending is just a means to get one's snout in the through filled with taxpayer's money. Nobody militarily threatens Europe or America, and one does not need to fight a mule powered Taleban with an aircraft carrier.
(Rather, if you use a $1.5 trillion dollar of equipment to fight somebody with $22,50 worth of equipment, and you don't win instantly, then obviously you are not getting your money's worth and you need to spend it all more wisely.)
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2010, 21:52
The EU has learned the lesson that war is not supposed to be encouraged and supported at the drop of a hat. Also, there are no more great enemies or rivalries to be fought out. The world was consolidated into two spheres, and now with free market capitalism coming out as the dominant, the world is connected to the point where everyone is supporting each other economies. We support the Chinese, the Chinese support someone else and etc...all the way until it reaches back to us. Anyone who says the Chinese will attack us is wrong. Anyone who says that Russia will attack us is wrong. China needs to sell crap, Russia needs to sell natural gas.
Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.
Tellos Athenaios
10-12-2010, 22:13
Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.
Well mostly from a combination of internal instability, and Western interference. See if you are upset about the local dictator abusing his power and having his “police”/intelligence service harass you every time you speak out against him, then if you learn that he's supported by some foreign power some of your feeling of frustration, aggression and hatred is going to be redirected onto that foreign power. As it happens, that power is often the USA and (less visibly) the EU.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-12-2010, 22:15
All of your self-entitlement programs don't help match ethiter.
Arab threats all stem from the Isreali-Palistinian conflict, it serves as the great tool for recruiting destabilizing terrorists. If we simply manage to come to a peaceful solution to that conflict, the world will be likely be safer then it has been for a long time.
Oh, well then, any minute now world peace will break out. 'Cause the Israelis and Palestinians are such reasonable people.
Tellos Athenaios
10-12-2010, 22:33
All of your self-entitlement programs don't help match ethiter.
Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.
Tellos Athenaios
10-12-2010, 22:41
That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?
First you cut off your tail. Second you find some ancient military conflict which you then resolve by you ceding your formal independence from the Crown in exchange for substantial de-facto autonomy. Next you continue to be utterly insignificant in every way you can and you do not challenge Great Britain in any respect. If you're lucky nobody notices you and your status becomes one of those old relics of the past and nobody will bother with the trouble of reorganising your domain.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-12-2010, 23:00
"World domination aspirations" :/
Rhyfelwyr
10-12-2010, 23:20
The world was consolidated into two spheres, and now with free market capitalism coming out as the dominant, the world is connected to the point where everyone is supporting each other economies. We support the Chinese, the Chinese support someone else and etc...all the way until it reaches back to us. Anyone who says the Chinese will attack us is wrong. Anyone who says that Russia will attack us is wrong. China needs to sell crap, Russia needs to sell natural gas.
They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.
That sounds like a sweet deal. How do I go about applying to be a "crown dependecy"?
There's nothing you can do about it, you blew your chance so it's up to us now if we want to take you back. And we're still in a huff with you after 1776, so don't get your hopes up...
Louis VI the Fat
10-12-2010, 23:36
http://i.cdn.turner.com/pga/cs/sites/cdnassets/events/rydercup/2010/europe/img/scoring/snippet_europe_left.png
:knight:
http://www.rydercup.com/2010/europe/
:knight:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/pga/cs/sites/cdnassets/events/rydercup/2010/europe/img/scoring/snippet_europe_left.png
They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.
The problem here seems to be that the two states that could threaten us the most finance their armies by selling stuff to us. If they attack us, they will run into great financial problems. And if you look at history, many times when Europe as a whole was under attack, it managed to work together and fend of the attackers, the Austrians alone didn't drive the Ottomans back for example, neither did the spanish do their reconquista solely with spanish soldiers. Except the USA perhaps, I don't see anyone successfully invading a Europe that stands united unless they use nukes. Another question would be why? What ressources? Since when has Europe got any ressources left? Russia surely doesn't need any more land than it has right now, China could find a lot of easier targets to expand, so why would either of them attack the hand that pays them? The results would be devastating, first they'd lose their army, then they'd go bankrupt and to top it off, some 12 US carriers and 3 european ones might start bombarding their homeland if they hadn't already surrendered at that point.not to forget that other countries might side with Europe, I'm not sure China has all that many friends in Asia either, some wannabe-autonomous regions could rebel, some neighbors try to side with Europe to get a piece of the Chinese cake. Russia isn't even as much a threat as China, the cold war is over, i wouldn't even think they have any interest in attacking Europe at all, they want to be influential and get a say in this or that, but I think they're too clever to actually bite. We also helped them out when they're in trouble, maybe that doesn't do a lot to a pragmatic leader, but can such a leader start a very dangerous war against the will of a large part of the citizentry?
Europe isn't half as defenseless as few here seem to think, next I'm going to open a thread called "Is america unable to build decent guns or why does the Abrams tank use a 120mm Rheinmetall gun from Germany?" ~;)
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 01:00
I don't see why we are talking about europe being able to defend itself or whether anyone is going to attack it (although the OP starts on that point it seems like we can leap beyond that...). It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?
Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.
Well, there are people even in the US who think an isolationist policy and letting other states deal with their own matters without interference is the best way to go. The world would look different, for example less people in South America would be angry at the US for installing puppets in their country, there would be no Palestinia-Israel conflict ( :mellow: ) and less people in Arabia would turn to terrorism to oppose US bases in Arabia, South Korea might be North Korea now, Vietnam might be North Vietnam now but then how is that any of our business? If the soldiers of Korea want to worship their "great" leader while their families starve, that's their decision. As Afghanistan shows, some people just don't value their freedom a lot when you force it onto them. :shrug:
Rhyfelwyr
10-13-2010, 01:16
@Husar: Much of what you said is circumstancial. There is real competition for resources and China is pushing its weight in the new scramble for Africa. As for the practicality of war, that has been shown to be a very changeable thing throughout history, depending on various changes in relations between society/politics/the military, which are far too complex to predict. I agree the circumstances right now make war unlikely, but so what, things change more than ever these days, only seventy years ago we had the first truly total war. Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.
It seems like the more contentious issue has to do with being able to project power around the world and contain aggressive dictators. Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of. So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?
While such measures might protect western strategic interests, I'm not convined they will spread democracy and create a lasting peace. The strength/roots of democracy lie in society, not in the political system itself. There are many social preconditions for democracy, like a strong middle class, an industrialised economy,centralised government etc. There can't be created overnight, and they weren't created overnight in South Korea either.
Of course, you could point out the state of affairs in North Korea, which was historically always one with the south, but I would argue that things have only been able to get the way they have done there because of international influence, artificially propping up the regime. Unfortunately things are now so bad you can't take away the food aid without everybody dying, but again that's because of foreign influence, hindering the natural deveopment of the state.
Having American troops running round having 'regime changes' seems superficial to me.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 01:16
Oh, well then, any minute now world peace will break out. 'Cause the Israelis and Palestinians are such reasonable people.
I said the solution is simple: get a peaceful end to the conflict. I didn't say that implementing it would be simple. Getting a peaceful solution will be the most difficult diplomatic achievement in human history.
They used this exact same argument about economic interconnectedness making war improbable right before the First World War. Improvements in technology have made states today more capable of being self-sufficient than at any time in the past, there's really no reason to be complacent that a war won't come about over conflicts of interest.
1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.
Rhyfelwyr
10-13-2010, 01:27
1. The level of economic interconnectedness wasn't on the same level as we see today.
2. I would think that having your empire encompassing enough land across the world to be roughly the size of Europe itself would make you pretty damned self sufficient as well. Today, countries do not have such an advantage to the same extent.
1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?
2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 01:47
1. True, but why do you presume that we are heading in a straighforward direction of increasing economic interconnectedness? History shows that it seems to fluctuate wildly. After the development of free trade in the 16th century, the absolute monarchs restricted it with mercantilism with the political desire for self-sufficiency. Then you had Adam Smith and the free market 18th century etc. But then there was enlightened despotism and a revival of protectionism even in more liberal states like Britain. And then there was the free market again, but then there was the First World War, and the concept of fascism brought the heyday of economic self-sufficiency and the obliteration of international trade with the far-left/far-right. And fair enough we know are in a period of more economic interconnectedness, but so what, who says this time it will last?
2. You would be surprised, there's an emerging consensus among historians that imperialism was actually purely fuelled by abstract values eg nationalism, and colonies were in fact quite a financial drain on their imperial overlords. Furthermore, the nature of production in the colonies would make them pretty irrelevant to the resources demanded for warfare.
1. Modern economics arguably didn't start until Adam Smith. So the 16th century wasn't learned from due to the fact economics as a social science had not progressed to the point where people were actively discussing it on the level needed to improve human knowledge about economies. From the 18th century until the 19th the despots and enlightened states alike didn't know that economics wasn't a zero sum game, the influence of economists wasn't where it should have been. Rulers learned from that in time. Then in in the twentieth century, rulers put ideology and nationalism above economic theory, twice. They have now learned from that as well. Now there has been 70 years of uninterrupted free trade between the US and the EU and about 25-30 years of relatively uninterrupted free trade across the entire world, including Russia and China and the overall world economic has been growing at an incredible rate (until recently). Leaders know this. Nothing says this time will last if we elect people who put their ideologies above what is actually practical. (unrelated)This is why the Tea Party scares me on some level.(/unrelated) However, by simply putting in people who do listen to the economists, we can be assured that protectionism won't be advocated ever again.
2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 01:52
2. I will need to read more about that consensus before I can comfortably comment on your statement.
iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.
@rhyf: I don't know if it's even so much about spreading democracy...as in preventing aggressive wars. Like north korea attacking south korea.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 01:59
iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.
Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?
Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 02:09
Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?
Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.
Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...
Things might have reversed since then but there's no reason to assume that trend will continue.
So you think there will be a nuclear war over ressources and we'll all die in the end? Because that's kinda the only way for China to beat the US, and incidentally will lead to destruction of China as well, it's a MAD scenario, also incidentally a lot of western nations are moving away from ressource-based economies. Whether that is a good or a bad idea is for another topic, but at the moment we don't seem to have a lot of incentive to compete with China over steel, in fact we're selling them our steel production facilities. Oil may be a factor but sooner or later electric cars are going to become more normal I hope and some guys in Saxony or so have found a way to make plastic from wood, hah! I just think there are many factors to such things and there isn't all that much of a reason to assume things will change as well.
In a nuclear war, having a huge armed force won't help Europe either. And if we actually need a huge force, we can still stock up, at the moment though a lot of nations have a tendency to go for smaller, better equipped and more specialized force, of course you can claim to know better than the defense minister of Germany for example, but I'm not sure I would believe you. ~;)
Those smaller forces are also meant for things like proxy wars, but I doubt we'll get something like a carrier anytime soon, more likely the forces would be flown into a friendly country nearby.
gaelic cowboy
10-13-2010, 02:56
I remember reading a paper on the internet some while back about the likely senario of a China/USA nuclear war and how it might end.
The author came to the conclusion that while China would lose but they could deal a crippling blow to the USA with less than a dozen nukes and USA would crumble due to her reliance on the major population centers for economic and industrial strength.
Match who or what and why? There's just no compelling military threat to Europe. Our armed forces are quite capable; we simply do not have world domination aspirations just yet.
Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-13-2010, 03:27
.... Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.
Clearly, I would not enjoy Thanksgiving dinner at your house....
Couldn't resist.
The Russians a threat? I heard the Poles are developing a new weapon that will stop any Russian invasion: Cluster Vodkas. Of course some pesky Islamic countries are trying to ban it for being a Weapon of Mass Consumption.
Or something like that...
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 04:44
Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...
Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.
The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 04:50
Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.
Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.
The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.
The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 05:02
Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.
So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?
The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.
I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 05:08
So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?
That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...
I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?
If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.
I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.
The modern global economy is doing more importing/exporting than ever so we rely more on each other. The wildest China has done recently was to cut off Japan from some rare minerals and that lasted a few days IIRC. Among the greater powers no one is saber rattling like we saw a hundred years ago in Europe.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 05:16
That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...
Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.
If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.
So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 05:29
Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.
I have only heard the theory in passing. Seems plausible though.
So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.
It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2010, 05:33
It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.
Well I think that is a bit extrapolating. I'm sure there would have been moderates who would have been pacified by the gesture and that the only ones left would have been the ones who were looking for a reason in the first place. Would those die hard people have rallied everyone anyway? Possibly. All I know is that there would have been no harm in giving them the representatives if it was a rebel or rebel situation and the benefit would have been the ability to keep taxing a rich region for while longer.
Nukes kinda made standing army's absolete.
gaelic cowboy
10-13-2010, 11:36
I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.
Indeed there is the real reason the colonies cost Britain money it was because of tarriffs levied against it's own colonies never mind France or Germany.
No wonder it cost Britain money to have colonies they were trying to tax colonial industry to be more expensive than at home
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 12:56
Does anyone have an idea what the world would look like if the US didn't have that ability? What would south korea look like? That's the only concrete thing I can think of.And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.
So the question seems to be, should Europe shoulder its share of that, or can they just shrug it off as "world domination aspirations"?
Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.
Whether you agree with the US's current attempts is irrelevant, unless you want to argue that all such attempts are necessarily bad in the way you argue they are.
I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 13:12
It's worse than not necessary - a large conventional army is expensive to move around, liable to cause bad press (killing locals or dying) and often ineffective. Intel-led special forces along with high tech backup isn't the silver bullet but is comparatively cheaper, harder for the enemy to hit and a lot easier to withdraw.
America and Americans appear to be incapable of understanding that their wants may not be the best for the rest of the world.
~:smoking:
This topic seems to have grown a bit, so time for a more in-depth reply.
The question of Europes to do, and not to do in world politics is imho closely attached to USA's.
USA have by now a long and quite often not so proud history of meddling in world affairs. Colonies has been mentioned, and that is of course also tied in.
Europe has, contrary to USA, a long history. And as luck has it, we once in a while learn from it. We have long since learnt the cost of having colonies, and now do what we can to cut our losses. "Fortress Europe" has been mentioned as the new EU policy in world affairs, right or wrong I do not know.
The EU has the golden opportunity to let the USA handle the fire zones and get the ill will, while Europe lean back and take the morale upper ground while still getting the better of the financial outcome.
When the US is to stupid to understand that they are on a down hill tendence, there really is no need for Europe to spend much on defense. Could this come back and beat the EU in the behind? Well, possibly. But the world would have to change a lot, and rapidly, for that to be a problem. Attacking the EU as a whole has never really been done, and it would be extremly hard. One big benefit the EU have is that various regions are very well suited for defense, with an army that both will have high morale, as well as good gear and local knowledge.
Thus, the EU has no need to spend much on defense, and even less on offensive military power as the US is doing the job for them.
InsaneApache
10-13-2010, 13:20
Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.
You're asking to have it both ways. :dizzy2:
Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.
As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".
The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.
Makes more sense if you think about it.
:book:
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 13:24
Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?
Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.
As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.
Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?
Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.
No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.
Kagemusha
10-13-2010, 13:36
The original question of the thread is already wrong. Europe can defend itself from any regional threats. China is too far away to be a threat and Russia being a trade partner and with a GDP similar of Spain is not a serious threat to Europe anymore. In conventional forces Europe is stronger then Russia and the Nuclear arsenal of France and UK will assure that Nuclear war would mean the end to Russia also. So the only country that could hypothetically be a military threat to Europe is USA. Are you suggesting we should start a arms race with US? The truth is that Europe doesnt need a bigger military spending we already have and even those costs could be reduced by cutting off overlapping spending via more integrated military structure on EU level.
Huh, sounds like much the same old “I'm of nationality $x. The $x army is the only model of an army in the world worth considering. These heretics are not following the One True Model, therefore they are weak and useless.” cue being proven wrong time and again.
As for the rest, may I borrow your time machine some day? It's almost a copy of the 20's-50's military thinking. That's been debunked so thoroughly before now, but in case you hadn't noticed: we live in the 21st century. The big Russian army contains 3 components:
(1) New Russian high tech. Start ups from the 1990s/early 2000s now making a splash. Good but nothing exceptional, and given the lack of money in the Russian army nothing that will wow us.
(2) Thoroughly corrupt military chain of command, and a lot of young people who simply join the army for the food and shelter; lot's of typical bootcamp “games”. Not really an effective fighting force, just a large one.
(3) Lots of old equipment. Lots and lots of it. No money to maintain it. Kursk.
Don't believe me? Believe the utter military fiasco (in terms of time, money and people required) that is Chechen. A few people with AK's and some home-grown DIY bomb tech manage to occupy the Russian army for how long now?
No we bought her off: she's been Queen of the United Kingdom for some time now. It's you who must fear the rabid 100 year old grandmother now.
First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.
Second of all, you are completely forgetting Russians two main advantages:
1. A stockpile of nukes so big they could obliterate Europe.
2. They know that Europe is scared of conflict, and would cave in at even the threat of a full scale nuclear war. They on the other hand are very willing to fight.
Furunculus
10-13-2010, 13:54
Only corrupt countries - state power used for private gain - spend more than 2% on defense. Such as the basket cases of socialist Greece, mobster-ran Bulgaria, and neoliberal America. :smug:
needless to say i disagree with you.
2.0% should be the minimum a country spends, at least if they are a NATO member.
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 14:00
Nukes are good to have a few of, but frankly their unlikely to be ever used in a state to state setting as the gains are less than the losses.
Europe has enough nukes to make MAD a reality. In total there's a couple of hundred warheads.
The principles of warfare have been radically altered over the last 100 years, unless you're using very vague principles. WW1 especially shows the fallacy of "nothing has altered". One modern destroyer could single-handedly smash entire fleets from only a few decades ago; nice big tank collections can be scrapped within hours with weaponry mounted on troops / planes / hum-vees / helicopters. Nothing can be made heavy enough any more, which was certainly far less the case not so long ago.
~:smoking:
Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance? You say that Russia would not be able to invade Europe...that is BS. Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it would only take the threat of using them to bring all of Europe quivering to its knees. Russia could probably take most of Europe in a few months, and it would be a great opportunity for them to get American armies (coming to aid their worthless European allies) onto the European mainland, so that they could do considerable damage without having to seriously fight the American Navy. Of course if that did happen, they would no doubt have China as an ally, which would really ruin America and Europe's day. If such a scenario, the only serious hope that America would have would be in getting India as a military ally. With such a large population, and funded and aided by America, it could prove to be quite a distraction to the Chinese.
You are out of your minds if you really think that Russia is not a threat to Europe. They are extremely capable, have experience, and have a lot of nukes.
When it gets down to it, it really does not matter per say how big the military is, but the quality of the citizenry (from which military personnel and decision makers will be drawn). Strong people will hold out, weak people will not. Western Europe could be taken over by a rabid 100 year old grandmother with a butter knife.
:laugh4:
So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?
:laugh4:
So you think Europe is full of weak people? So what? America is full of fat people, and China is becoming fat, too. No challenge for a healthy european population.
If you think nukes are a problem for Europe, then what about nukes being a problem for Russia? The UK and France have nukes, Germany and possibly others have US nukes stationed on their territory(I don't really need to explain why we don't have our own, do I?), it's not completely one-sided.
Another question is who will Russia extort with their gas prices after nuking all their customers?
Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 14:41
First of all, history shows what makes a good military and what doesn't. Technology changes over time, but basic principles generally do not.
Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.
What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...
After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.
Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.
If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 14:43
Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.
This is hilarious.
Funniest thread of the day.
Europeans being scared of conflict, probably, also much better at war because of it, nobody wants to die. Europe is a continent with an insanily bloody history, the US a place of peace.
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 15:01
the US a place of peace.
Perhaps, it certainly does a good job of fighting its battles on foreign soil, thereby avoiding the need to do so at home.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 15:03
And what would Iraq look like? Or Vietnam, or the middle east at large? See for every good there's also a bad to mention there. You are forgetting that this was not just the USA being generous in supporting the “good cause” it was (certainly later on) as much if not more the USA acting in what it believed to be its self interest.
What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.
Europe does not have to act in the USA's best interests. Just like the USA does not have to assist the UK either. And for what it's worth Europe is plenty often involved in “its share of that” at the USA's request. But why should we buy into this whole “big armies” thing now? For simply projecting force it is sufficient to have a few highly trained corps and some relatively expensive kit; loads of grunt power is not necessary.
I'll leave the military argument aside because saying what kind of force is needed is too big a question for me :book:
But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.
I'm not even saying the current situation is that bad. What I'm saying that there are alternatives which so far seem to work equally well or equally bad but do not require as much day to day management of scrapheaps and are cheaper due to that. So why should we copy the USA to no gain?
What alternatives work well?
Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.
If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:
How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?
The EU has the golden opportunity to let the USA handle the fire zones and get the ill will, while Europe lean back and take the morale upper ground while still getting the better of the financial outcome.
Yes, that is the accusation made of Europe. It may be a golden opportunity economically, but is it justifiable?
***********
Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 15:05
The US is a place of historical peace as all the locals were slaughtered in relatively quick order by invaders / current populace and have left scant records of their history. What there was of it indicates they were not peaceful per capita.
Domestic deaths in the USA from weaponry would put the death tolls of some minor conflicts to shame.
~:smoking:
Capable of what? Smoking cigarettes, being out of shape, shooting their allies, and running at the first sign of resistance?
Why are you bringing the American military up?
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 15:16
What kind of self interest? Well that's a big tangent probably. But you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up.
But how is this about Europe acting in the USA's interests? Surely it is about Europe acting in the worlds best interest. You have to answer up to that.
Bear in mind we're discussing a theoretical point in which large western militaries are an important preventative and policing force. The question of whether it is good or possible in reality is kind of hardcore.
There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.
Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.
How is it about "ruling the world"? If some muscular guy said he was going to try and stop a woman being raped would you say that you were too busy going on vacation in your unburnt house with a cellar full of heinaken?
Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.
It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" :brood: (though luck if you forgot to pay your 75 $ :tongue:) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.
Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.
Unfortunately though the war in Iraq was clearly all about oil, there are still those that think that the US, UK, etc, went in there to "liberate" people from an evil dictator with (nonexistent) WMD.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 15:26
There are cases where the US has arguably intervened in the interests of "world peace" and global good. These are arguably thinner on the ground of late. I would say the more positive examples lie around 50+ years ago, with the possible recent exception of Balkan missions e.g. Kosovo.
Do you really think the prime motivational factor for the US' adventurism since WW2 has been anything other than in its own interest, or that of its ideology? If it has and continues to claim the motive of "world peace", it has always been world peace on the USA's terms.
This argument is self defeating like tellos's unless you are just talking about the tangent or arguing for a "power corrupts..." kind of thing.
Is it in the USA's self interest to live in a world with less dictatorships? That's why I don't get arguing for "self interest". Do you mean "selfish interest"? i.e. it's bad for other people but good for us?
Listen if we can wage a 40 year moral war on drugs, you don't think morals are a big part of our foreign policy too?
Some would argue that that woman is not being raped but merely enjoying kinky sex and that the muscular guy is calling it "rape" because he's a macho who thinks kinky sex is wrong and who's also wanting to show the bystanders that he has muscles.
It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" :brood: (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way :tongue:) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.
Clearly you've been brainwashed. What kind of totalitarian regime do you have in belgium? Why haven't the other European countries liberated you? I guess it'll be the US's job again :undecided:
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 15:37
The USA had NO problem with dictatorships as long as they leant towards the right direction. Latin America to the Middle East through Asia dictators were feted as long as they didn't go red.
USA liberating Europe again? Do we have to wait 4 years this time too?
~:smoking:
Well, if we can have more or less the same level of freedom and wealth under whatever new overlords, then, frankly, I don't care about which macho type tries to tell me he is ruling the world and that I'm a weakling. If that's what makes him happy, let him. I'm happy with my house, my car, my fridge full of food, my cellar full of wine and beer, some money on my savings accounts, firefighters nearby and enough free time and money to go on a holiday every once in a while.
If working your butt off with no holidays and no social security to maintain an awfully expensive army that needs to wage war every once in a while to justify its' existence is what makes you happy, then by all means, carry on. As long as you keep said army out of here (unless for defending me on your expenses), it's all fine by me ~:cheers:
lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.
Indeed. All Ivan needs to do is show Marius, Marcel and Franz some Cold steel and they'll run crying to the atlantic.
What time machine have you stepped out of? What on earth is all that guff verging on "superior races"...
As I said, I am not talking about weapon specific principles.
"superior races"? I would love to see how you came up with that considering that I never mentioned race. (and in fact, majority of Europeans are of the same race as majority of Americans)
The difference is simply in values and character. Most Europeans do not believe that Freedom is sacred and would not be willing to fight for anything but their right to strike, get free health care, or in some other way avoid work and leave things to the more industrious. Europeans are for the most part lazy, and cowardly. No one likes work, and no one likes fighting, but the difference is that some realize that they need to be done and have the courage and industry to step up and do them for their own good, and others like living in a dream world where they think that everything will take care of itself with no effort from themselves.
I am sorry to say it, but I have no respect for someone who is not willing to work and for someone who does not believe that somethings are worth fighting for. Such a person is a willing slave, and as such, does not ask for respect and is not worthy of it.
I am not saying this about you or anyone in particular, and I understand that there are many Europeans who do value work and are willing to fight for things they hold sacred, but they are a minority.
How can a society unused to work and unused to fighting ever hope to survive the horrors and hardships of a sustained war that would test the resolve of the toughest?
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 15:51
How many wars have Europeans fought to the bitter end from the start?
How many wars have Americans fought to the bitter end from the start?
Hmmm.......
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 15:53
Europe only fought WWII because it was in their self interest :mellow:
Hey, don't let such trivialities as facts get in the way of the gung-ho rhetoric being spouted in this thread.
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 15:54
This argument is self defeating like tellos's unless you are just talking about the tangent or arguing for a "power corrupts..." kind of thing.
I'm not sure I see how this is a self-defeating position. I just said that the US is, despite the beliefs of some (mostly its citizens) out to help itself as best it can -not the world as a whole.
Is it in the USA's self interest to live in a world with less dictatorships?
Yes, as long as the dictators are replaced with capitalist "democracies", not (shudder) socialists. Capitalist democracies will get on much better with the US and be better markets & trading partners for the US.
That's why I don't get arguing for "self interest". Do you mean "selfish interest"? i.e. it's bad for other people but good for us?
I'll grant that it doesn't have to be against other peoples' interests, but the prime motivator for US intervention is not to make the world a better place for everyone, but primarily US citizens.
Listen if we can wage a 40 year moral war on drugs, you don't think morals are a big part of our foreign policy too?
hmm, how to do this without opening a can of worms re the morality of the war on drugs... I'll side step it and say: The "war on drugs" is most certainly mostly about the US self interest. Surely you'd agree the "morality" of the endaevor is based on a US focused consideration?
How many wars have Europeans fought to the bitter end from the start?
How many wars have Americans fought to the bitter end from the start?
Hmmm.......
~:smoking:
You are talking ancient history now Rory. Europeans used to be tough, hard working people, but that is not the case now.
I already talked about personality and European posters in this thread have just confirmed what I said. Even physically though, when I was in Europe I was shocked by how pathetically weak and unused to any type of manual labour people were. The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
Try shopping for a shirt in France as an American. The necks on them are all so tiny that your struggle will be just finding one that fits and American neck. :P
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 16:02
I'm not sure I see how this is a self-defeating position. I just said that the US is, despite the beliefs of some (mostly its citizens) out to help itself as best it can -not the world as a whole.
Oh, just because we are discussing whether such intervention can do good. If it can, and the US is doing a bad job, then Europe should step up and do a good job. But shibumi et al are arguing that it is better for Europe to save their cash and let the US do it.
Yes, as long as the dictators are replaced with capitalist "democracies", not (shudder) socialists. Capitalist democracies will get on much better with the US and be better markets & trading partners for the US.
I think the sheer cost of war belies any attempt to make it "all about the [money]".
I'll grant that it doesn't have to be against other peoples' interests, but the prime motivator for US intervention is not to make the world a better place for everyone, but primarily US citizens.
Why do you think that? I think if that were true, we would be more isolationist. Indeed that seems to be Europe's idea. 3 trillion on the war or something? Or it might be 1 trillion directly spent with another 2 in costs, I don't remember.
hmm, how to do this without opening a can of worms re the morality of the war on drugs... I'll side step it and say: The "war on drugs" is most certainly mostly about the US self interest. Surely you'd agree the "morality" of the endaevor is based on a US focused consideration?
I wasn't very clear...I don't think the war on drugs is just. I meant it is moral in the sense that moral beliefs are the driving force. If you think it is about the US self interest then I'm confused about what you mean by self interest :inquisitive:
rory_20_uk
10-13-2010, 16:03
The rates of obesity and general ill-health are far greater in the USA than anywhere in Europe.
Americans mentally have never had hardship in war since probably the American Civil War, and even then it was sporadic.
Most weaponry does not require a 18 stone wall of muscle to use. AKs can even be used by children effectively. I think one of the German Emperors was the last person to try to get giants to fight as a unit (the father of Peter the Great). They were useless and slaughtered by cannon and shot. Things have advanced since then.
Although as I say above, the wide neck is more usually going to be encircling a vast amount of fat.
~:smoking:
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 16:04
The difference is simply in values and character. Most Europeans do not believe that Freedom is sacred and would not be willing to fight for anything but their right to strike, get free health care, or in some other way avoid work and leave things to the more industrious. Europeans are for the most part lazy, and cowardly. No one likes work, and no one likes fighting, but the difference is that some realize that they need to be done and have the courage and industry to step up and do them for their own good, and others like living in a dream world where they think that everything will take care of itself with no effort from themselves.
I am sorry to say it, but I have no respect for someone who is not willing to work and for someone who does not believe that somethings are worth fighting for. Such a person is a willing slave, and as such, does not ask for respect and is not worthy of it.
I am not saying this about you or anyone in particular, and I understand that there are many Europeans who do value work and are willing to fight for things they hold sacred, but they are a minority.
How can a society unused to work and unused to fighting ever hope to survive the horrors and hardships of a sustained war that would test the resolve of the toughest?
Have you ever been to Yur'p? I think you'd be surprised how similar t
Sorry to finish so abruptly, it's just that I've now done my 35 hours for the week/its time for my siesta/time to make cheese and wine/eat cabbage/make love like a dirty venerialy infected latin.
The rates of obesity and general ill-health are far greater in the USA than anywhere in Europe.
Americans mentally have never had hardship in war since probably the American Civil War, and even then it was sporadic.
Most weaponry does not require a 18 stone wall of muscle to use. AKs can even be used by children effectively. I think one of the German Emperors was the last person to try to get giants to fight as a unit (the father of Peter the Great). They were useless and slaughtered by cannon and shot. Things have advanced since then.
Although as I say above, the wide neck is more usually going to be encircling a vast amount of fat.
~:smoking:
Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter. ~;)
Strike For The South
10-13-2010, 16:09
Because they like soccer
Kagemusha
10-13-2010, 16:20
You are talking ancient history now Rory. Europeans used to be tough, hard working people, but that is not the case now.
I already talked about personality and European posters in this thread have just confirmed what I said. Even physically though, when I was in Europe I was shocked by how pathetically weak and unused to any type of manual labour people were. The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
Try shopping for a shirt in France as an American. The necks on them are all so tiny that your struggle will be just finding one that fits and American neck. :P
Have you ever even been in Europe or are just talking about your imaginative stereotypias concerning Europeans?
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 16:21
@Sasaki: you are confusing me. Anyway it's fairly simple:
- If the USA acts in its self interest good. If the USA acts for “the good of the world”, even better.
- Ditto for Europe.
- There's no requirement on either to act for “the good of the world”, so self interest is what you are going to get.
- There's no requirement for Europe to assist the USA or vice versa. So common interest is as much as you can ask for.
- Observably, both the USA and Europe primarily act in their self interest and not for “the good of the world” or even some championed “ideal”. There's always that self-interest,
even if it sometimes is mixed with a genuine belief in ideals.
- The USA has taken the approach of having a worldwide network of military bases to interfere where they want to.
- Europe has taken an approach of bilateral economic ties/strings which can be leveraged after the colonies were dismantled (so military bases were out of the question to begin with). In addition Europe maintains a military of similar technological capabilities as that of the USA, but far smaller in raw numbers. (Incidentally a lot of the USA budget on military expenses ends up in Europe due to the USA's main suppliers of some of the tech being European.)
- Primary threats to Europe are gone, so the cold war style armies are too. We find it saves us a lot of money, and collectively time that we can spend on something worth doing.
- Neither can don the cloak of moral righteousness and expect the world to follow their every word. Neither can intimidate far smaller parties into complying with demands either.
- Apart from that it's laughable that either China or Russia should invade their primary export markets.
- Especially when China and Russia are perfectly content focusing on eroding the power of the USA.
Now tell me where the need for Europe arises to have more of an army? Now tell me how Europe cannot defend itself?
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 16:24
Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter. ~;)
Do you know something quite fascinating about endurance? In terms of resistance to true hardship, like famine, people with a lower calory intake will out-survive those who require a larger one. A grisly example of this is to be found in this book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-Envy-Lives-North-Korea/dp/1847080146/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286983348&sr=8-2), where a mother outlived her 20 something boxer son who could simply not get enough food to sustain his athletic and resource hungry body.
Plus, you big oafish americans make larger targets.
Vladimir
10-13-2010, 16:27
Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.
You're asking to have it both ways. :dizzy2:
Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.
As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".
The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.
Makes more sense if you think about it.
:book:
I nominate this for the Post of the Thread award. :2thumbsup:
Oh and:
Quote Originally Posted by Andres View Post
It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way ) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.
I was offended by this as well.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 16:29
@tellos: that's just realpolitik basically? I'm suggesting that sometimes countries should act against selfish interests and act on behalf of other people in the world (and not just through economics). So need and requirement and self defense don't come into it.
Let's drop self interest as a term...it seems like people are using it in the psychological egoism kind of way.
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 16:36
but size does matter. ~;)
If you are going to talk stereotypes:
The French by virtue of their small size and excitable nature combined with superior écoles will be excellent military commanders.
The Vikings will provide us with physical fitness the likes of which will make the Americans realise how very fortunate they are that Eric the Red et all kicked the habit.
The Germans will ensure our military machine runs efficiently.
The Italians that we have good food.
Dutch and English will ensure that there is money and weapons for all.
You stand no chance.
Seriously, though: size matters, but you get tall French (I've seen a couple) as well as small Americans. On a population of millions such averages matter little: you simply get to be selective. In fact, on average you'll find the tallest people in Scandinavia and the Netherlands -- but incidentally some of the most aggressively downsized armies are to be found there as well.
Strike For The South
10-13-2010, 16:36
Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter. ~;)
Are you drunk?
Did you really just say American bodies are fitter than European ones?
Most Americans can't run 400m much less do anything you just posted. Tough people who can cope with hardships? Most Americans can't get control of there own bodies and waddle around crushing there organs under fat and diabetes.
Most Americans do not take care of there bodies mentally or physically. No attempt is made to learn or excersise simply to wallow.
The fact you actually belive the above post is sad not surprising but sad none the less.
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 16:39
Are you drunk?
Did you really just say American bodies are fitter than European ones?
Most Americans can't run 400m much less do anything you just posted. Tough people who can cope with hardships? Most Americans can't get control of there own bodies and waddle around crushing there organs under fat and diabetes.
Most Americans do not take care of there bodies mentally or physically. No attempt is made to learn or excersise simply to wallow.
The fact you actually belive the above post is sad not surprising but sad none the less.
And I thought that was just stereotypes!
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 16:42
@tellos: that's just realpolitik basically? I'm suggesting that sometimes countries should act against selfish interests and act on behalf of other people in the world (and not just through economics). So need and requirement and self defense don't come into it.
Yes fine, and I agree: sometimes countries should show that they, collectively, got something of a “soul” as well as a wallet or a gun.
But a large army doesn't come into it.
This thread is now starting to remind me of one of those "my country's army is better than your country's army" threads that you would expect to see in a gaming forum prior to the launch of the next in the series...
Strike For The South
10-13-2010, 16:43
And I thought that was just stereotypes!
You don't know the half of it son. The real kick in the nuts though, is that most still strut around brimming (weezing?) with confidence.
That's what you get when you live in a nation descendant from peasents
Vladimir
10-13-2010, 16:45
[off topic]plEASE GOD ANYONE IF YOU'RE READING THIS I NEED A GIRLFRIEND I NEED ONE RIGHT NOW ANY WILL DO I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE
I'd change your signature before Louis sees it.[/off topic]
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 16:51
You don't know the half of it son. The real kick in the nuts though, is that most still strut around brimming (weezing?) with confidence.
What is saturated fat?
http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution
That's what you get when you live in a nation descendant from peasents
I'm afraid I resent this. Peasants are great. They have nice ruddy cheeks and quaint blood feuds. Europe, which as we all know is the pinnacle of civilisation and social progress, is itself based on the ruddy cheeked fellows. Where else do the two pillars of society (cheese and a petty mindset) originate from?
Kagemusha
10-13-2010, 17:36
About the size:
Country Average Male Height
Netherlands 182.5 cm
Denmark 181.5 cm
Switzerland 180.5 cm
Germany 180.2 cm
Croatia 180.0 cm
Norway 180.0 cm
Sweden 179.6 cm
Iran 178.7 cm
Austria 178.2 cm
Finland 178.2 cm
Czech Republic 178.0 cm
Romania 178.0 cm
South Africa 177.4 cm
Zimbabwe 177.2 cm
Australia 177.0 cm
Canada 177.0 cm
United Kingdom 177.0 cm
Greece 176.8 cm
France 176.6 cm
Ukraine 176.5 cm
Iraq 176.3 cm
Lebanon 176.2 cm
Ireland 176.1 cm
Zambia 176.0 cm
Russia 175.9 cm
Belgium 175.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm
Uzbekistan 175.4 cm
Poland 175.3 cm
Egypt 175.0 cm
New Zealand 175.0
Senegal 175.0 cm
Portugal 174.6 cm
Saudi Arabia 174.6 cm
Argentina 174.4 cm
Uruguay 174.3 cm
Brazil 174.0 cm
Cuba 174.0 cm
Peru 173.8 cm
Thailand 173.6 cm
Spain 173.4 cm
Korea, South 173.3 cm
Paraguay 173.1 cm
Syria 173.0 cm
Chile 173.0 cm
Morocco 173.0 cm
Turkey 172.5 cm
Tunisia 172.3 cm
Colombia 172.3 cm
Algeria 172.2 cm
Mexico 171.8 cm
Cameroon 171.0 cm
Indonesia 170.0 cm
China 169.7 cm
Pakistan 169.3 cm
Japan 168.3 cm
Mongolia 168.0 cm
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 17:52
About the size:
France 176.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
Actually considering this is over a population of millions with good statistical data, 1.1 cm is a *lot*... It suggests that the French are a lot healthier than the Americans (length is roughly a function of health, especially during childhood) with access to far superior food and living conditions.
If you are going to talk stereotypes:
The French by virtue of their small size and excitable nature combined with superior écoles will be excellent military commanders.
The Vikings will provide us with physical fitness the likes of which will make the Americans realise how very fortunate they are that Eric the Red et all kicked the habit.
The Germans will ensure our military machine runs efficiently.
The Italians that we have good food.
Dutch and English will ensure that there is money and weapons for all.
Belgians will stay home and drink beer to ensure, ehm, things.
Strike For The South
10-13-2010, 18:14
What is saturated fat
http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution
Are you asking me?
I'm afraid I resent this. Peasants are great. They have nice ruddy cheeks and quaint blood feuds. Europe, which as we all know is the pinnacle of civilisation and social progress, is itself based on the ruddy cheeked fellows. Where else do the two pillars of society (cheese and a petty mindset) originate from?
meh
This thread is now starting to remind me of one of those "my country's army is better than your country's army" threads that you would expect to see in a gaming forum prior to the launch of the next in the series...
Yes but I still think we aproach the concept of war diffently, it's something that comes to you and leaves huge scars to Europeans, aka absolutely and ugly serious business that should never be underestimated. I think the European is much more dangerous, much more hardened, it's in our DNA.
lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.
So, you're saying my cellar is filled thanks to your insanely expensive army shooting some starved Arabs in some far away country?
Thank you, Vuk :bow:
And I do value freedom, not so sure about Freedom (tm), though.
Also, last time I watched the news, there weren't Russian tanks driving through the streets of Paris or Brussels, so I guess your information about an ongoing Russian invasion is incorrect.
I think the European is much more dangerous, much more hardened, it's in our DNA.
Ah, the Dangerous European. Interesting. I know a Dangerous European. He usually lies dangerously on his sofa, watching television and enjoying beer in a most threatening way.
gaelic cowboy
10-13-2010, 18:44
The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
not according to your own CDC your not
Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.
Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.
Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:
Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
For women, the near opposite trend occurred:
Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:
The average weight for a 10 year-old-boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.
The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.
A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.
A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.
According to the report, average heights for children increased as well over the past four decades. For example:
The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.
The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.
In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).
Average BMI for children and teens has increased as well:
In 1963, the average BMI for a 7-year-old boy was 15.9; in 2002 it was 17.0. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 15.8 to 16.6 over the same period.
In 1966, the average BMI for a 16-year-old boy was 21.3; in 2002, it was 24.1. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 21.9 to 24.0 over the same period.
The BMI is a single number that evaluates an individual's weight status in relation to height. BMI is generally used as the first indicator in assessing body fat and has been the most common method of tracking weight problems and obesity among adults.
Sarmatian
10-13-2010, 18:48
About the size:
Country Average Male Height
Netherlands 182.5 cm
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
I refuse to live in a world where Dutch are the tallest. Obviously Serbia is missing from the list, our average height is 198.8 cm
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 18:53
France 176.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
Well of course, if you measure it in centimeters ~:rolleyes:
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
Actually I did think about posting statistics about alcohol and tobacco consumption but why bore people with lots of numbers and stuff... But it would show that only a few European nations smoke more than the Russians and that even the Finns would be envious of the Russian alcohol consumption. I guess the Russian average age for males that has recently been lowered to 62, or was it even down to 60, is a symptom of being strong or something...
Also I don't understand the obsession with physical strength in a "sustained war". For conventional wars it is either a short war, where what you have right here and now that matters, or it is a long one where population size and industrial output that matters.
gaelic cowboy
10-13-2010, 19:04
Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.
Your serious about this guff right Russia has not a hope of conquering Europe.
Russia would seem to go well early on but thats because the terrain is flat and ideal for invasion in Eastern Europe but the more southerly sector would present a far more easily defendable frontier for European armies. This would send Russian forces into a drive through Germany as they would follow the easiest terrain for there armour but then Britain could act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier to hit back with airpower at the Russian rear. Finally France and Spain would then push into Western Germany to meet the invasion while Russia would have to divide its forces to ensure Scandinavian forces did not sweep into Finland and threaten Russian baltic ports.
I would lay a hundred at the bookies that a straight fight just between either France or Britain against Russia would end with Russian defeat.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 19:32
Yes fine, and I agree: sometimes countries should show that they, collectively, got something of a “soul” as well as a wallet or a gun.
But a large army doesn't come into it.
Doesn't military force come into it sometimes? In the case of south korea as mentioned. I lack knowledge needed to say anything about other countries...but it is a potential at least in other places.
So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.
So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.
Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary :shrug:
Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go :shrug:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 21:41
Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary :shrug:
Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go :shrug:
Why do they think that? Sticking with south korea as my example...is policing necessary there? It seems so.
Now, I think the EU has more soldiers than the US, so perhaps we can ignore the part about "big army". Then we have two more questions...
1) is an expensive army with aircraft carriers and submarines and innovative weapons important? I think part of the use of innovation is that it allows for attacks that kill fewer civilians. I don't have much military knowledge though...
2) are expensive armed conflicts the way to go? I guess, in other words, is the afghanistan war a good war to be fighting. Probably beyond the scope of the thread...
But Shibumi's suggestion still seems very possible. I think we would have to take a close look at all the countries in the world and see which have (or had, or might have...) military dictator types that would attack their neighbors and possibly commit genocides.
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 21:45
Doesn't military force come into it sometimes?
'Course. Does that mean you need to maintain an overly large army? No.
I think visiting some cemeteries in Europe would explain why we're not so keen on waging war anymore far better than a long post written by me, Sasaki.
When is a regime bad enough that war is a better option?
How about the possiblity that Europe actually learned something from those two major conflicts that destroyed our continent and made countless Europeans, soldiers and civilians, suffer? Not so long ago, we were all at each other's throats, killing and destroying each other. Maybe, just maybe, we euro weenie pacifists afraid of policing the world by force, have been doing something right the last few decades? The mere fact that you, an American, are now talking about "Europe" and "Europeans" says a lot more than you can possibly imagine. Apparently, people who were murdering each other as a hobby not longer than 65 years ago, are, in the world outside Europe, seen as a homogeneous group.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 22:05
'Course. Does that mean you need to maintain an overly large army? No.
Is the US army overly large? It is smaller than the EU combined armies, and similar in proportion to france and italy...we just spend much more money, percentage wise.
I think visiting some cemeteries in Europe would explain why we're not so keen on waging war anymore far better than a long post written by me, Sasaki.
When is a regime bad enough that war is a better option?
How about the possiblity that Europe actually learned something from those two major conflicts that destroyed our continent and made countless Europeans, soldiers and civilians, suffer? Not so long ago, we were all at each other's throats, killing and destroying each other. Maybe, just maybe, we euro weenie pacifists afraid of policing the world by force, have been doing something right the last few decades? The mere fact that you, an American, are now talking about "Europe" and "Europeans" says a lot more than you can possibly imagine. Apparently, people who were murdering each other as a hobby not longer than 65 years ago, are, in the world outside Europe, seen as a homogeneous group.
I've been to gettysburg :p
I don't think the europeans are afraid of policing the world. I think they would rather let the US deal with the expense and the messy (and often unpopular) business of deciding whether a situation justifies war.
Your serious about this guff right Russia has not a hope of conquering Europe.
Russia would seem to go well early on but thats because the terrain is flat and ideal for invasion in Eastern Europe but the more southerly sector would present a far more easily defendable frontier for European armies. This would send Russian forces into a drive through Germany as they would follow the easiest terrain for there armour but then Britain could act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier to hit back with airpower at the Russian rear. Finally France and Spain would then push into Western Germany to meet the invasion while Russia would have to divide its forces to ensure Scandinavian forces did not sweep into Finland and threaten Russian baltic ports.
I would lay a hundred at the bookies that a straight fight just between either France or Britain against Russia would end with Russian defeat.
You are only factoring in conventional forces, AND you are ignoring the fact that Europeans would rather surrender than fight a sustained war. Why do people always like to underestimate Russia?
So, you're saying my cellar is filled thanks to your insanely expensive army shooting some starved Arabs in some far away country?
Thank you, Vuk :bow:
And I do value freedom, not so sure about Freedom (tm), though.
Also, last time I watched the news, there weren't Russian tanks driving through the streets of Paris or Brussels, so I guess your information about an ongoing Russian invasion is incorrect.
You always characterize sacred words. ~;)
When did I say that there was an ongoing invasion?
About the size:
Country Average Male Height
Netherlands 182.5 cm
Denmark 181.5 cm
Switzerland 180.5 cm
Germany 180.2 cm
Croatia 180.0 cm
Norway 180.0 cm
Sweden 179.6 cm
Iran 178.7 cm
Austria 178.2 cm
Finland 178.2 cm
Czech Republic 178.0 cm
Romania 178.0 cm
South Africa 177.4 cm
Zimbabwe 177.2 cm
Australia 177.0 cm
Canada 177.0 cm
United Kingdom 177.0 cm
Greece 176.8 cm
France 176.6 cm
Ukraine 176.5 cm
Iraq 176.3 cm
Lebanon 176.2 cm
Ireland 176.1 cm
Zambia 176.0 cm
Russia 175.9 cm
Belgium 175.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm
Uzbekistan 175.4 cm
Poland 175.3 cm
Egypt 175.0 cm
New Zealand 175.0
Senegal 175.0 cm
Portugal 174.6 cm
Saudi Arabia 174.6 cm
Argentina 174.4 cm
Uruguay 174.3 cm
Brazil 174.0 cm
Cuba 174.0 cm
Peru 173.8 cm
Thailand 173.6 cm
Spain 173.4 cm
Korea, South 173.3 cm
Paraguay 173.1 cm
Syria 173.0 cm
Chile 173.0 cm
Morocco 173.0 cm
Turkey 172.5 cm
Tunisia 172.3 cm
Colombia 172.3 cm
Algeria 172.2 cm
Mexico 171.8 cm
Cameroon 171.0 cm
Indonesia 170.0 cm
China 169.7 cm
Pakistan 169.3 cm
Japan 168.3 cm
Mongolia 168.0 cm
So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?:laugh4:
I am not talking about height. The French people are saw were plenty tall...they just looked like toothpicks...or Jews in a concentration camp. They had no muscle on them at all. That is what I mean by size, and what I mean by fitness is their ability to work hard under trying conditions. I know lots of buffed up kids who work out and run all the time, who cannot do farm work at all, because they would get winded in the first few seconds. The same fitness that enables you to work well enables you to fight well. A hard working population will be a hard fighting population. Do you know how many stupid, body building dorks I know who I can wipe the floor with? Being fit has more to do with the quality of your muscle and the good muscle memory you have than how many pounds you can lift.
Are you drunk?
Did you really just say American bodies are fitter than European ones?
Most Americans can't run 400m much less do anything you just posted. Tough people who can cope with hardships? Most Americans can't get control of there own bodies and waddle around crushing there organs under fat and diabetes.
Most Americans do not take care of there bodies mentally or physically. No attempt is made to learn or excersise simply to wallow.
The fact you actually belive the above post is sad not surprising but sad none the less.
Being a pencil necked dork who can run 400m means nothing if you are so pathetic that you cannot lift an ammo can! (never mind run with it) I trained martial arts with people from the US, Western Europe, and Central Europe, and I can tell you there is a big difference. The highest level of fighting fitness I saw was in Central Europe, then in the US, and the Western Europeans were pathetic.
Do you know something quite fascinating about endurance? In terms of resistance to true hardship, like famine, people with a lower calory intake will out-survive those who require a larger one. A grisly example of this is to be found in this book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-Envy-Lives-North-Korea/dp/1847080146/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286983348&sr=8-2), where a mother outlived her 20 something boxer son who could simply not get enough food to sustain his athletic and resource hungry body.
Plus, you big oafish americans make larger targets.
Yes, but you need larger people who can work to produce grain. Right now America can easily produce enough grain to feed itself and its allies if there was ever a sustained war. Pathetic, skinny, lazy people who cannot work may take less food to feed, but will not be able to produce any for themselves.
Furunculus
10-13-2010, 22:42
You are only factoring in conventional forces, AND you are ignoring the fact that Europeans would rather surrender than fight a sustained war. Why do people always like to underestimate Russia?
because, militarily, it is a wreck.
never again will russia have the ability to pose an existential (conventional) threat to europe, and there would be no point nuking it either because it has not the resources to consolidate its victory, presupposing it survived a second strike itself.
russia can bully its little neighbours, but that is it.
because, militarily, it is a wreck.
never again will russia have the ability to pose an existential (conventional) threat to europe, and there would be no point nuking it either because it has not the resources to consolidate its victory, presupposing it survived a second strike itself.
russia can bully its little neighbours, but that is it.
lol, I think that you are underestimating them, and the fact that they would most likely have China as an ally. They do not even have to occupy most of the countries as long as they get they own regimes in power, and use the resources of the country to suppress itself.
Peasant Phill
10-13-2010, 23:06
... Pathetic, skinny, lazy people who cannot work ...
How I love a determined nationalist to provide a laugh. You do realize your amusing most of the posters in this thread.
You're just using prejudices and anecdotal 'evidence' to prove a point that no one really cares about. Sure, Americans are the superior people, see if I care.
Now can we go back to the more interesting subject and discus the ethics behind 'policing' the world and how to do this.
Megas Methuselah
10-13-2010, 23:26
Vuk, you're not an American. I suggest you log off the forum and stop getting worked up over all this, man. You already had a freakin stroke, this is unhealthy.
al Roumi
10-13-2010, 23:34
Vuk, you're not an American. I suggest you log off the forum and stop getting worked up over all this, man. You already had a freakin stroke, this is unhealthy.
:uhoh: he's already had a stroke at the age of 13? God, that's terrible!
Vladimir
10-14-2010, 00:45
Actually considering this is over a population of millions with good statistical data, 1.1 cm is a *lot*... It suggests that the French are a lot healthier than the Americans (length is roughly a function of health, especially during childhood) with access to far superior food and living conditions.
If you Europeans knew anything you'd know that length isn't nearly as important as girth, and we have you at that!
Ah, the Dangerous European. Interesting. I know a Dangerous European. He usually lies dangerously on his sofa, watching television and enjoying beer in a most threatening way.
What I mean is that we probably will be less shocked by atrocities. Should war come we know what to expect, extreme loss of life, whole cities completely destroyed. We didn't see any of it but the stories are still alive, we 'know' what it's going to be like. I don't believe a history of violence has no consequences, no matter how deeply burried.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 01:19
You are only factoring in conventional forces, AND you are ignoring the fact that Europeans would rather surrender than fight a sustained war. Why do people always like to underestimate Russia?
your overestimating the Russian ability to meddle in Western Europe to the extent that even Stalin would never have dreamed of. Wow Europe cant fight a sustained war well neither can Russia fight a sustained war like there was in WW2 there all far too dependent on technology than they ever. The war would have to be short maybe a year at best before the inventories would run out and the industry would need to fire up to replenish the army but the industrial heartland of each side would have sustained severe damage most likely causing someone to collapse and my money is on Russia.
And yes of course I'm talking conventional forces how else would they fight a European army you seem to be a bit obsessed by nukes well let me break it to you there a terrible use of millitary hardware and money really. Any nuclear option by Russia would end in the destruction of Russia by NATO plus the world obviously thats why the Nuclear option is not worth discussing here who would be left to surrender too.
lol, I think that you are underestimating them, and the fact that they would most likely have China as an ally. They do not even have to occupy most of the countries as long as they get they own regimes in power, and use the resources of the country to suppress itself.
China is not gonna be Russia's friend they will be far more interested in profiting from Russian weakness in Central Asia after the war which you seem to believe is inevitable actually happens.
You keep saying Europe would surrender but I see no convincing argument from your posts so far while plenty have given plenty reasons why Russia could never profit from a war.
Nazi Germany was unable to stop attacks by ordinary Frenchmen why would Russia and it's puppets be anymore successful they would have to exterminate everyone to stop them, however by trying to kill everyone they end up inheriting a continent with no people to tax and there really are no resources worth exterminting 300/400 million people for unless there is a stock of Element Zero (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Element_Zero) underneath Paris I never heard of.
War between Russia and China WILL come, some Russian territories are already Chinese in their schoolbooks, yeah these ones.
I don't think the europeans are afraid of policing the world. I think they would rather let the US deal with the expense and the messy (and often unpopular) business of deciding whether a situation justifies war.
The French have been doing policing in their former colonies several times. But for true global power projection one needs a fleet that has 10+ carriers with the airpower, amphibious and support elements that goes along with such big ships. No European power is capable of doing that plus they have priorities that USA does not have like needing "brown water" ships for local defense.
Also having a bunch of smaller nations all wanting to have a well-rounded defense might also not be the most cost effective way. But if a nation does not want to be completely dependent of other nations for basic stuff, then that problem is not going away.
But changes are happening e.g. the Dutch and Danish navies are phasing out smaller ships and replacing them with larger and more capable ships. The Danish Navy no longer have any subs, missile boats or corvettes: the good old Cold War scenario of Danish and West German navies fighting in the western Baltic and local Danish waters no longer makes sense.
Well, to make the Americans surrender the Russians will just have to flash some boobies.
But I have to say this is the funniest thread I've read here in a while. :laugh4:
So you think if these really healthy people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8587032.stm) from smogland (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29china.html) support the Russians they will conquer Europe together because Europeans are just a bunch of surrender monkeys? You accuse us of underestimating the Russians, yet claim to know that we would just surrender at the sight of the mighty russian army, that's pretty hilarious.
And concerning weapon developments, Europe is not all that far behind the US, in some areas we're even ahead, you may have stealth fighters, but Norway and Sweden have stealth ships for quite some time already, the US only has some prototypes in that regard, and a planned destryer that is so expensive that even with your big budget you can only afford a few, not really enough to replace all the other carrier escorts. Then there is all the "waste" of money going on in the US, the Comanche program was cancelled after many years, some submarine program was cancelled after many years, your army still uses M-16s whereas the german army has already replaced the G-3 with the G-36. We have our delays and screwups as well, but you're still using european armour and guns on your only main battle tank, quite surprising since I thought you have the best stuff in everything?
This is not some america bashing, I'm just saying that the budget alone does not make your scientists any more creative or clever than ours and being able to eat more burgers or drink more vodka does not make one more battle hardy than someone else in a modern war. Maybe the US thinks policing in Arabia is necessary but then again to a large extent the whole terrorism thing is based on the resistance against US influence in the region, that is why they bombed the twin towers and not the Eiffel tower, isn't it?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-14-2010, 04:31
I was getting more than a little upset, then I read more carefully and found that you were saying 175.5cm was for average HEIGHT.
I was about to feel very cheated.....
Maybe the US thinks policing in Arabia is necessary but then again to a large extent the whole terrorism thing is based on the resistance against US influence in the region, that is why they bombed the twin towers and not the Eiffel tower, isn't it?
Be careful, last time this was brought up, a bunch of American posters boo'd it and conducted slanderous attacks against such persons saying they are sprouting Muslim extremist propaganda. (cue: related threads on 9/11, such as GZM)
I was getting more than a little upset, then I read more carefully and found that you were saying 175.5cm was for average HEIGHT.
17.5cm isn't too bad. Apparently in Japan, it is closer to 10cm
“Being a pencil necked dork who can run 400m means nothing if you are so pathetic that you cannot lift an ammo can! (never mind run with it) I trained martial arts with people from the US, Western Europe, and Central Europe, and I can tell you there is a big difference. The highest level of fighting fitness I saw was in Central Europe, then in the US, and the Western Europeans were pathetic.”
Hum… What’s your time running 15 km with back pack at 30 kg and weapon? Mine was 1h34mm, and I was average plus.
Did you ever lift an ammo can, and which one? A 20 mm canon ammunition is not the same than a 17.5 or 7.62…
Then I wanted to see you in a real training, when you sleep 4 hours in 3 days, crawling in icy mud, etc…
I saw many martial Art “experts” collapsing and crying for mummy because “muscles don’t float” (The Guardian, with Costner) and lack of Stamina.
Good rant, carry on…
Furunculus
10-14-2010, 09:51
lol, I think that you are underestimating them, and the fact that they would most likely have China as an ally. They do not even have to occupy most of the countries as long as they get they own regimes in power, and use the resources of the country to suppress itself.
lol, i think i'm not.
the average life expectancy of russian men is close to 30 years less than of an average EU citizen, mostly due to alcohol.
most of their army is completely immobile, hasn't trained properly in years, nor too had a proper maintenance schedule.
they're only just starting to complete equipment programs that were supposed to be delivered in the late 80's, now nearly a (human) generation out of date.
their population will decline to less than that of germany within the next (human) generation.
their economy is propped up on petro-chemical exports, and flogging off old soviet era kit.
no, i am not underestimating russia, they are still a great power, but........................ they are surrounded by other great powers, and represent no existential threat to europe any more, and never will again short of pressing every single big-red-button they have left, but why would they do it when Britain and France have a guaranteed second strike?
rory_20_uk
10-14-2010, 10:34
China as an Ally? Are you INSANE? What is in it for China, seeing all their markets get wiped out and loosing a sorce of a lot of their high tech imports?
Russia using the resources to suppress the countries... Sounds slightly familiar and didn't work then either.
It reads like the Iraqi war planners who were going to throw the 1990 coalition back into the sea as they were living on Cloud Cuckoo Land.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
10-14-2010, 10:46
China as an Ally? Are you INSANE? What is in it for China, seeing all their markets get wiped out and loosing a sorce of a lot of their high tech imports?
Russia using the resources to suppress the countries... Sounds slightly familiar and didn't work then either.
It reads like the Iraqi war planners who were going to throw the 1990 coalition back into the sea as they were living on Cloud Cuckoo Land.
~:smoking:
agreed, by the time russia had moment to pause from its 'glorious' invasion of western europe it would find china occupying eastern siberia and all those glorious mineral deposits.
a completely inoffensive name
10-14-2010, 10:50
Everyone hates America and is collaborating to take us down. Europe is too socialist to fight back against the evil tide. That's why we need our bases everywhere. It's just a fact. If you disagree then go live in Russia and China and tell me they are not working with the terrorists at dismantling the freedom we built and shipped to the rest of the world in WW2.
Sarmatian
10-14-2010, 13:41
lol, i think i'm not.
the average life expectancy of russian men is close to 30 years less than of an average EU citizen, mostly due to alcohol.
15 years compared to UK.
Kagemusha
10-14-2010, 13:46
I am not talking about height. The French people are saw were plenty tall...they just looked like toothpicks...or Jews in a concentration camp. They had no muscle on them at all. That is what I mean by size, and what I mean by fitness is their ability to work hard under trying conditions. I know lots of buffed up kids who work out and run all the time, who cannot do farm work at all, because they would get winded in the first few seconds. The same fitness that enables you to work well enables you to fight well. A hard working population will be a hard fighting population. Do you know how many stupid, body building dorks I know who I can wipe the floor with? Being fit has more to do with the quality of your muscle and the good muscle memory you have than how many pounds you can lift.
Being a pencil necked dork who can run 400m means nothing if you are so pathetic that you cannot lift an ammo can! (never mind run with it) I trained martial arts with people from the US, Western Europe, and Central Europe, and I can tell you there is a big difference. The highest level of fighting fitness I saw was in Central Europe, then in the US, and the Western Europeans were pathetic.
And would these epitomies of martial prowess be by any sense for example Serbians? I also have to wonder do you have any kind of military training as you so easily can judge entire nations as being unfit for one? Atleast where i happen to live we have this wonderful thing called mandatory military service and most of us pencil necks have achieved to pass it quite all right.
Yes, but you need larger people who can work to produce grain. Right now America can easily produce enough grain to feed itself and its allies if there was ever a sustained war. Pathetic, skinny, lazy people who cannot work may take less food to feed, but will not be able to produce any for themselves.
Maybe it has somehow escaped you, but in matter of fact EU is the worlds third largest grain producer. I would suggest you to drop your stereotypes a bit and research bit more before you start making statements like these in future.
rory_20_uk
10-14-2010, 13:52
Due to the evidence of microcephaly on this thread, even I have lost the will to challenge these... uninformed views.
I have no problem with discussing almost any topic, but preferably with someone not showing evidence of far too much consanguinity in the not too distant past.
~:smoking:
Vladimir
10-14-2010, 13:54
:laugh4:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/europes-hardbut-missile-is-your-ultimate-penetrator/
Europe's deep penetrator.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 14:20
Yes, but you need larger people who can work to produce grain. Right now America can easily produce enough grain to feed itself and its allies if there was ever a sustained war. Pathetic, skinny, lazy people who cannot work may take less food to feed, but will not be able to produce any for themselves.
:laugh4::laugh4: wait what did you say larger people to produce grain :laugh4::laugh4: you do realise that even a small country like Ireland produces waaaaayyy more food than we could possibly ever eat, thats why Kerry Group and other Irish companies like them are massive overseas.
Meanwhile in Europe we will get along just fine with high tech farm machinery to produce our food
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5856/deutz.jpg https://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9343/combine470470x352.jpg
Only in Third World countries do they need gangs of strong backs to produce the food they eat and they still don't produce enough to eat. Thats why in the developed world we use science allied with machinery in conjunction with proper business and accountancy methods to produce the food for our tables.
Please stop your embarrassing yourself now there is no way this is your actual opinion your obviously just Trolling but it is hilarious to read it all the same.
Strike For The South
10-14-2010, 15:58
Being a pencil necked dork who can run 400m means nothing if you are so pathetic that you cannot lift an ammo can! (never mind run with it) I trained martial arts with people from the US, Western Europe, and Central Europe, and I can tell you there is a big difference. The highest level of fighting fitness I saw was in Central Europe, then in the US, and the Western Europeans were pathetic.
Playing karate has no bearing on phyiscal fitness. I mean I've seen fat people do it in jeans
I am not talking about height. The French people are saw were plenty tall...they just looked like toothpicks...or Jews in a concentration camp. They had no muscle on them at all. That is what I mean by size, and what I mean by fitness is their ability to work hard under trying conditions. I know lots of buffed up kids who work out and run all the time, who cannot do farm work at all, because they would get winded in the first few seconds. The same fitness that enables you to work well enables you to fight well. A hard working population will be a hard fighting population. Do you know how many stupid, body building dorks I know who I can wipe the floor with? Being fit has more to do with the quality of your muscle and the good muscle memory you have than how many pounds you can lift.
LOL, Going into your schools REC every 3rd day to get a chest pump does not a serious lifter make. If that was the case everyone who has ever worn a tap out t-shirt is an MMA fighter.
I also doubt you have ever actually been on a farm considering your idea of farmwork would ring true for an antebellum cotton feild....maybe even then the slaves were usually to tired to fight.
I am begining to think you are trolling. Which is fine because you trolling is better than you being wrong.
Also, Europes GDP is higher than the US.
Furunculus
10-14-2010, 16:35
Also, Europes GDP is higher than the US.
at least for next decade................ and then america will overtake......... until the next time the EU decides to absorb more economies.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24195
al Roumi
10-14-2010, 17:42
What is the mean collar size of US Trolls? Do they tend to be more "warlike" than Trolls of other ethnicities?
15 years compared to UK.
Take the Scots out of the equation and the difference looks much better for the remainder of the UK.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 20:10
Take the Scots out of the equation and the difference looks much better for the remainder of the UK.
Yea Rhy stop eating those deep fried mars bars yer letting the side down
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-14-2010, 20:10
What is the mean collar size of US Trolls? Do they tend to be more "warlike" than Trolls of other ethnicities?
Because we do the work of Europe for them. :idea2:
- Europe has taken an approach of bilateral economic ties/strings which can be leveraged after the colonies were dismantled (so military bases were out of the question to begin with). In addition Europe maintains a military of similar technological capabilities as that of the USA, but far smaller in raw numbers. (Incidentally a lot of the USA budget on military expenses ends up in Europe due to the USA's main suppliers of some of the tech being European.)
And allow Eastern Europe to be boss around because they can suffer rising heating costs in the winter if Russia plays hard ball?
- Primary threats to Europe are gone, so the cold war style armies are too. We find it saves us a lot of money, and collectively time that we can spend on something worth doing.
Like retiring when you 50 years old and crying when you have to go back to work when you bankrupt your nation?
:idea2:
- Apart from that it's laughable that either China or Russia should invade their primary export markets.
Ever think of China invading Taiwan to control that part of the sea?
And why was it when the Dutch and Belgians I believe had the chance to stop the genocide in Rwanda, Kofi Annan and the French told them to back off, and meanwhile the French was supplying the Murderers. Check out the Worse then War book, might learn something.
Where was Europe's strong handing when the Balkan wars broke out? Took many years before anything remotely got done.
When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained....... But no help. Not from Germany, England, France, Italy, Poland, Ukraine..... That's really nice. :yes:.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 20:20
When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained....... But no help. Not from Germany, England, France, Italy, Poland, Ukraine..... That's really nice. :yes:.
Hmm seem to remember the USA did not start WW3 over Georgia either or maybe I missed the bulletin on Sky News.
It amazes me that Americans cant see that US troops are in Europe to further American interests not European despite what right wing US politiians might say your army chiefs are quite happy to be the lynchpin of European security through NATO.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-14-2010, 20:25
And you Europeans are different how again?
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 20:31
And you Europeans are different how again?
What????????
Ah I get it you think because the US is the preeminent power in NATO this somehow means Europe cannot defend itself. Don't be silly America has global interests therefore it has a bigger military. It does not make a bit of sense either politically or militarily for Europe to try to match the US we have no threats here to our security.
Vladimir
10-14-2010, 20:41
*sigh*
If you can't fight with your friends, who can you fight with?
Tellos Athenaios
10-14-2010, 20:45
@Warman: Not terribly different no. Just that much more eager to pursue economic/diplomatic alternatives, where the USA is more willing to do the Scrapheap Challenge. Which means nothing in terms of can Europe defends itself (it can) and by extension means that our usual working methods do not require to spend that much on an army. Also, it might help to understand that Europe i comprised of some truly independent nations with their own foreign policy, military, economy etc. as opposed to the semi-autonomous regions that the S in USA stand for.
Oh by the way when it comes to finance, it's the USA which owes Europe a lot of money rather than the reverse -- mainly because a lot of the European debt is to other European creditors (prime example of that being Italy). I.e. as it stands it is the USA living off European (and Chinese and Japanese) credit. USA have been doing this since your beloved Reagan came to power, btw.
“French was supplying the Murderers. Check out the Worse then War book, might learn something.” Absolute crap. The French did supply machete?
So learn something before to put something on writing and it is double-check your info and sources.
There is no one shade of proof of this allegation but it still going I can see.
“Where was Europe's strong handing when the Balkan wars broke out? Took many years before anything remotely got done.” They were trying, some of them, to prevent an Ethnic Cleansing and the resurgence of Nationalism.
They failed, and the US supported the plan dividing lands following ethnicities and encouraged ethic cleansing… Well done.
“When Geogria got invaded in 2008, All the European nations complained”
Except of course that Georgia was not invaded but started the aggression in shelling Refugees Camps.
“Took many years before anything remotely got done.” Agree. At least the Russian stop the Georgian President to play his little Tudjman…
I think that was the reason why NATO bombed the Serbs because it was what they were doing against the Albanian from Kosovo…
So what is good for US is not for Russia?
Vladimir
10-14-2010, 23:33
What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator? :sad:
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2010, 23:42
What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator? :sad:
I thought twas an april fool or summit I mean Hardbut come on
PanzerJaeger
10-15-2010, 01:07
I cannot believe this thread has had legs...
A more serious question would be: 'Should European nations have more force projection capabilities?', which is highly debatable.
Louis VI the Fat
10-15-2010, 01:26
What? So nothing on my European hardbut penetrator? :sad:Excellent. The product of close Franco-British-Italian cooperation. Which to me is the way forward for European defense, especially for the two main spenders France and Britain.
There will be massive defense cuts ahead. (Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform). There are also massive efficiency benefits to be had from closer cooperation. Defense budgets can be scaled back ten, twenty percent with relative ease while still maintaining the same operational prowess.
Louis VI the Fat
10-15-2010, 01:33
I cannot believe this thread has had legs...
A more serious question would be: 'Should European nations have more force projection capabilities?', which is highly debatable.Much of Europe should scale back its defense spending. 1.5 percent should suffice, with possible exceptions for France and the UK, who need to project power globally for reasons of prestige.
Everything above 1 / 1.5 % is strategic waste. There is no short term need for more. For Europe's midterm safety, the money was better spend on maternity leave, or education, or healthcare, or the environment. For Europe's long term safety, well, we gave up on thinking like that ages ago.
Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform.
That was sad, looking back at it. I remember you and Furunculus arguing pre-election over this, and Furunculus was sure that Conservatives would increase spending, and he attacked Labour, while you had all these figures, etc, saying Labour was expanding the military.
He might as well have elected me.
PanzerJaeger
10-15-2010, 05:32
Excellent. The product of close Franco-British-Italian cooperation. Which to me is the way forward for European defense, especially for the two main spenders France and Britain.
You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to. ~;)
Furunculus
10-15-2010, 08:24
There will be massive defense cuts ahead. (Yes, Furunculus, your Conservatives will cut back on defense despite theit election platform). There are also massive efficiency benefits to be had from closer cooperation. Defense budgets can be scaled back ten, twenty percent with relative ease while still maintaining the same operational prowess.
i know, i have been reading about it non-stop for the last years. i am also happy to see britain cooperate with france, this should not come as a surprise to you, as my objection lies to delegated sovereignty (as opposed to pooled sovereignty), and i have often noted that france is the only other nation in europe with both a powerful military and a desire to use it.
before you start throwing figures around on what budget the armed forces can sustain their capabilities upon you ought to realise that bernard grays report that just meeting labours unfunded defence acquisition plan over the next decade is in reality a 10% budget cut, and that stuffing the trident acquisition costs into the defence budget represents a 2% cut, and rusi were quite clear that a cut larger than 17% would prevent even a much more limited ability for strategic power projection rather than mini-US broad-spectrum power projection we are supposed to be able to do now. this limits actual treasury cuts in the budget to 5%!
Furunculus
10-15-2010, 08:32
That was sad, looking back at it. I remember you and Furunculus arguing pre-election over this, and Furunculus was sure that Conservatives would increase spending, and he attacked Labour, while you had all these figures, etc, saying Labour was expanding the military.
He might as well have elected me.
i believe i very clearly argued that the cons were as bad as labour when it came to funding, on the grounds that:
> labour is happy to splash the cash, but dislike the armed forces
> conservatives like to think of themselves as strong on defence, but are tight with the cash
the defence reasons as to why i wanted the Cons to win were:
> labour have wrecked the forces by failing to fund their stated strategic ambitions in the first place, and then reducing funds at the same time as keeping the forces operating at a tempo above planning assumptions
> todays budget, as likely from either party, will require specialisation, and limitation, to what power projection we will do in future, for without this then what remains will not be strategic in effect, and i prefer the Con's maritime sympathies
> the only mechanism we have for punishing the politicians that have failed the forces so visibly is to kick the rascals out, to fail to do so is tacit acceptance of their actions in office, and that would be unnacceptable.
Meneldil
10-15-2010, 08:38
Racialist BS
It's funny when someone living in a country where 1/3 of the adult population is obese calls European 'unfit' to [whatever]. Since you're playing the stereotypes card, I was baffled by the amount of obese people encountered in North America. I'm sure those will do great soldiers *rolleyes*.
War is so 20th century.
As for the topic itself, europe is well able to defend itself, and to project power. France and UK have enough nukes to make Russia (who would never dare to attack, except in some american nutjobs' sick mind) think three times before making a move. As for China attacking us, it's a joke. And the "arabs", priceless :D
We don't need any more power, but we shall keep your military bases. I'm sure they support local economies. Thank you for it.
PanzerJaeger
10-15-2010, 08:56
It's funny when someone living in a country where 1/3 of the adult population is obese calls European 'unfit' to [whatever]. Since you're playing the stereotypes card, I was baffled by the amount of obese people encountered in North America. I'm sure those will do great soldiers *rolleyes*.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. ~;)
You'll note the majority of Americans don't agree with the premise of this thread or some of the 'judgments' made about Europeans by a select few (2) members.
I'm starting to wonder what kind of threads we'd get if Germany started to pump 5% of it's GDP into the military, build carriers, threaten Israeli forces in Palestine with bombardment if they do not withdraw within two days etc. Oh and build our own nukes of course. :laugh4:
Just like the good old days of the Kaiser, it worked really well for us in the end. :laugh4:
Furunculus
10-15-2010, 11:25
I'm starting to wonder what kind of threads we'd get if Germany started to pump 5% of it's GDP into the military, build carriers, threaten Israeli forces in Palestine with bombardment if they do not withdraw within two days etc. Oh and build our own nukes of course. :laugh4:
Just like the good old days of the Kaiser, it worked really well for us in the end. :laugh4:
france would collectively brick itself.
Sarmatian
10-15-2010, 12:05
I'm starting to wonder what kind of threads we'd get if Germany started to pump 5% of it's GDP into the military, build carriers, threaten Israeli forces in Palestine with bombardment if they do not withdraw within two days etc. Oh and build our own nukes of course. :laugh4:
Just like the good old days of the Kaiser, it worked really well for us in the end. :laugh4:
Ah, just like the good old days. Everything is upside down nowadays. Jews are waging wars, Germans are trading...
Tellos Athenaios
10-15-2010, 13:31
You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to. ~;)
They can, even though they probably want to involve Germany for the cash & industry anyways. Germany is extremely unwilling to use its army, even more so than the Netherlands.
Louis VI the Fat
10-15-2010, 13:45
You can't forget Germany, as much as you'd like to. ~;)Hey! I didn't forget Germany! I merely happily played along withmaintaining a modest, low-key image of German defense initiatives.
Germany holds no direct shares in MBDA, the manufacturer. German industry and research are however involved.
This suits everybody. The missiles are German quality, yet carry the mark 'Made in France / UK'. Evil dictators must buy missiles from Paris (/London), not Berlin. Which has the double positive consequence of: a)boasting France's sense of self esteem and foreign importance, and b) diminishing German involvement in the art of murder and destruction, which for historical reasons Germany is a bit wary of.
Bless European co-operation! As usual, everybody wins. :thumbsup:
rory_20_uk
10-15-2010, 13:53
I think that concerning munitions, there is invariably at least one looser...
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2010, 13:57
Rory put that cigarette out when talking around munitions :hide:
Kagemusha
10-15-2010, 14:10
Ah, just like the good old days. Everything is upside down nowadays. Jews are waging wars, Germans are trading...
Its even more complicated.For example Finland is using a fourth generation anti tank missile called Euro Spike, jointly developed by Israeli Rafael and German Rheinmetall. It would seem Germany is making weapons with every second nation these days. In matter of fact it would seem that indeed today Germany is the worlds third largest arms trader after US and Russia.
Louis VI the Fat
10-15-2010, 14:27
it would seem that indeed today Germany is the worlds third largest arms trader after US and Russia.Indeed.
Also, since 2000, the arms exports of America and the UK have sharply decreased, while those of Germany and France have exploded and nearly doubled.
In line with the trollness of this thread: gee, one wonders why... :tongue2:
the amount of obese people encountered in North America. Don't get mad. Get even. Wave those euro bills around that the surrender monkeys have been making by the billions ever since reliable France and Germany took a massive arms exports share from America and Britain this past decade.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2010, 14:42
Indeed.
Also, since 2000, the arms exports of America and the UK have sharply decreased, while those of Germany and France have exploded and nearly doubled.
In line with the trollness of this thread: gee, one wonders why... :tongue2:
I suspect they need them for themselves :wink:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-15-2010, 14:56
It's funny when someone living in a country where 1/3 of the adult population is obese
A natural result of having the best cuisine in the world.
Kagemusha
10-15-2010, 15:28
A natural result of having the best cuisine in the world.
Surely if that was the case you wouldnt have to use a French word to describe it.~;)
A natural result of having the best cuisine in the world.
Hamburgers and Fries?
Hamburgers and Fries?
Snobbish as I may be, hamburgers are awesome.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2010, 17:56
Are Hamburgers not from Germany and Fries/Chips not from Belgium
Are Hamburgers not from Germany
They actually found advertations for hamburgers in Roman excavations no kidding.
They actually found advertations for hamburgers in Roman excavations no kidding.
Yes, the Romans were the first to have "Fast Food" in the modern concept. Doormouse was a specialty.
As for the "Hamburger and Fries", it was a reference to Mc Donalds and its kin.
Good quality burgers, using Aberdeen Angus, and nice roasted chips, with good quality salad and bakers bread buns... now they are nice. Especially if you know how to cook them right yourself, which brings the cost down to Mc Donalds level, but at a significantly greater quality.
PanzerJaeger
10-15-2010, 20:43
I'm starting to wonder what kind of threads we'd get if Germany started to pump 5% of it's GDP into the military, build carriers, threaten Israeli forces in Palestine with bombardment if they do not withdraw within two days etc. Oh and build our own nukes of course. :laugh4:
Just like the good old days of the Kaiser, it worked really well for us in the end. :laugh4:
That's why I brought Germany up. It ranks 6th in the world in military spending with 1.3% of its GDP devoted to it and could easily be third if it bumped GDP up to the 2.4% French and British levels. And the 1994 ruling stretched the definition of 'defense' almost as far as the US has. :grin:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-16-2010, 14:59
Hamburgers and Fries?
Cashews and Milk!
ajaxfetish
10-16-2010, 18:08
Surely if that was the case you wouldnt have to use a French word to describe it.~;)
Are Hamburgers not from Germany and Fries/Chips not from Belgium
You guys just don't get it. America is like the borg. Hamburgers may have started out German, but now they're American. Fries may have started out in Belgium, but now they're American. Cuisine may have started out as a French word, but now it's American. Nobody can compete with us when it comes to assimilating. Hence the obesity.
Ajax
Time to open up the border and assimilate all those Mexicans then. ~;)
Time to open up the border and assimilate all those Mexicans then. ~;)
What, Mexican burgers?
Am I misunderstanding you? :P
Sasaki Kojiro
10-16-2010, 22:30
Time to open up the border and assimilate all those Mexicans then. ~;)
That's what we're doing ~:confused:
Kagemusha
10-17-2010, 09:56
What, Mexican burgers?
Am I misunderstanding you? :P
In matter of fact TexMex food from SouthEast US together with Cajun cooking from South are the parts i enjoy best from the American Cuisine.
In matter of fact TexMex food from SouthEast US together with Cajun cooking from South are the parts i enjoy best from the American Cuisine.
America is way to big to have a real national cuisine but it's packed with local awesome, awesome food from or based upon all over the world, hell yeah they have it.
Finish food is awesome by the way
Kagemusha
10-17-2010, 12:26
America is way to big to have a real national cuisine but it's packed with local awesome, awesome food from or based upon all over the world, hell yeah they have it.
Finish food is awesome by the way
Yep i agree about the Yanks and thanks Fragony! Finnish food and Nordic food in general is quite simple without any fanciness about it. Some love it, others dont.:yes:
Samurai Waki
10-17-2010, 12:42
There wasn't a hint of anything to be considered truly "local" in Montana, which is one of the best perks about living in a bigger (Port City). Nothing says American like a steaming hot bowl of Pho on a rainy autumn day. *Sarcasm*
Montana beef has a good reputation here, we call it fake-kobe(japanese beef). It's only sold in Rotterdam as far as I know, most Argentian restaurants serve it because of trading embargo's.
Samurai Waki
10-17-2010, 13:10
The irony wasn't lost on me that despite Montana being a major cattle/beef exporter, some of the worst steaks I have ever had in my life were from local restaurants, there was honestly only one place I'd consider going to when I lived there, and it was always WAAAY cheaper to just do it yourself. The disadvantage of course is that Butchers outside of major Cattle Producing Areas give you cuts that are pathetically thin in comparison and charge you more for it.
Vladimir
10-18-2010, 21:04
:laugh4:
A thread is hopelessly derailed when young men start talking about red meat.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-18-2010, 22:35
Pennsylvania got good wine :yes:.
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 23:34
https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6961/1000822u.jpg
:stare: :beadyeyes2: :stare:
IT'S ALL IN VAIN THEY KNOW OUR EVERY SECRET WE CAN NEVER DEFEND OURSELVES FROM THE ANATIDAE RUN YOU FOOLS RUN
http://yfrog.com/0y1000822uj
Tellos Athenaios
10-18-2010, 23:46
Mmm, duck fillet!
gaelic cowboy
10-19-2010, 00:33
I think Louis is gone a bit Quackers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yl3UMO-TkE&feature=related
Vladimir
10-19-2010, 01:17
Gotta hand it to him though. He finds the most beautiful pictures of them.
Because ducks are fat
(from Time's Arrow for the literature challenged)
InsaneApache
10-19-2010, 16:57
Anyroad, back OT....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A&feature=player_embedded
:book:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-19-2010, 20:54
https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6961/1000822u.jpg
:stare: :beadyeyes2: :stare:
IT'S ALL IN VAIN THEY KNOW OUR EVERY SECRET WE CAN NEVER DEFEND OURSELVES FROM THE ANATIDAE RUN YOU FOOLS RUN
http://yfrog.com/0y1000822uj
Because you gotta keep it cool in the Diddy O!
http://media.fukung.net/images/11979/e8ea391985dc24d6f87cb42ba1a51794.jpg
Devastatin Dave
10-21-2010, 22:27
Answer: because the Euros are a bunch of pussies. Luckily for you the muslims are taking over and your pussification will be demenished. Praise Allah for cleaning up pussies...
In before the lock.
Oh and hi guys
I don't eat any meat, including duck meat. Does that make me a duck dhimmi, seeing how I've already surrendered to our new overlords?
Answer: because the Euros are a bunch of pussies. Luckily for you the muslims are taking over and your pussification will be demenished. Praise Allah for cleaning up pussies...
Our President has already said there is no place for islamic machos in Germany, stay tuned as we turn them into pussies, too!
There's no denying that deep inside every human being just wants to be a pussy, don't resist it Dave, join us!
Devastatin Dave
10-22-2010, 01:28
You are what you eat as they say my friend. I welsome pussydom....
a completely inoffensive name
10-22-2010, 01:38
Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Settle down! I think we can all reach some sort of agreement on the issue of pussies. I'm sure there is both a role for pussies and well as the non pussies in this mixed pussy world of ours that we find ourselves living in.
gaelic cowboy
10-22-2010, 01:48
heh heh heh he said Pussy
Vladimir
10-22-2010, 17:31
Welcome to TWC. :bow:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-22-2010, 20:39
Who is the King of Pussydom?
:pimp::crowngrin:
Devastatin Dave
10-23-2010, 16:13
Who is the King of Pussydom?
:pimp::crowngrin:
Pussydom, even though its name conjures the image of a monarchy is actually a representative government without a king/queen even as a symbolic apperatus, like the UK.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.