Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[Vuk]

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero


Western Europe used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold a European military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with Western European militaries TODAY is not their lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (the USA, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli


It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. Western Europe will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the U.S., etc to fight over.


That is my take on the military situation of Western Europe. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

[Andres]

As long as the good US citizens are willing to defend us and to pay taxes for it, we Europeans can use the money we save for frivolities like social security and healthcare. Which gives you in turn more reasons to be on our backs, call us eurowheenies and to feel superior.

Everybody happy! You pay for us and feel superior; we're happy to waste our money on silly things.

I'll have a beer, being the decadent European I am, while you, able bodied as you are, can have a glas of water (it's all you can afford anyway since you need to pay for my protection).

~:cheers:

[Greyblades]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

[Andres]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

You're clearly a decadent European in need of some iron military discipline :stare:

[Greyblades]

How quaint, to your idea of iron millitary discipline, I refer you to this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2582-A-Guy-Named-Joe)

[Furunculus]

Do you actually have any proof of any of this, or is it all conjecture, guesswork and opinion?

western europe is post war by and large, as a society britain is probably the most warlike of the lot, for good or bad.

[Vuk]

western europe is post war by and large, as a society britain is probably the most warlike of the lot, for good or bad.

I would decidedly for the good. My point is Furunculus that as much as a society tries to avoid war, it is highly likely it will find them, and it is important for their sakes that they will be able to face whatever challenges they are up against. I think that it is in this sense more than any other that some Americans are afraid of Americans becoming more like Europeans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero


Western Europe used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold a European military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with Western European militaries TODAY is not their lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (the USA, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli


It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. Western Europe will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the U.S., etc to fight over.


That is my take on the military situation of Western Europe. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

You're wrong.

Western Europeans do not, by and large, currently feel threatened, and therefore are not very bellecose. The cultural malaise you identify does exist, but it is only really pronounced in Germany, where the country has adopted an apparently permenant defensive posture. France has a good military, capable, well trained and well motivated, ditto Britain, the Netherlands, Norway.... the list goes on.

Don't mistake a reluctance to bleed in some God forsaken sand trap as a lack of national pride.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Besides, if we have a need for a large force capable of effectively wrecking a country in a fortnight, we'll just send in a boatload of English/Scottish hooligans. Works every time. :shrug:

[HoreTore]

I love the chauvinism coming from someone living in the worlds number one producer of fat people.

[Vladimir]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

[Centurion1]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

[PanzerJaeger]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

[Centurion1]

i dont think anyone would debate that. and the vast remainder of those top ten militaries would be dominated by purely western style militaries

[Vuk]

Wait...Is this another thread bashing the martial abilities of Western Europe? I thought we covered that.

If Europe thought they needed to, I'm sure they'd have no problem with creating a decent army. The Eurofighter is a good example.

If they thought that they needed to. That is exactly the thing, the attitude of Europeans is such that they never will be able to think that they need to or that it will be worth it. Europeans blur lines between right and wrong while creating their own social concepts of right and wrong where in Peace is right and War is always wrong. War never fixes anything, and as such, there will never be a good reason for Europeans to spill their blood. (unless maybe someone threatens their pensions...~;))
Even if by a miracle of Go-erh-Mother Earth Europe did mobilize, their armies would have terrible morale, be rank with desertions, and they would have riots at home (riots, the one time when spilling blood and fighting is acceptable in Western Europe). Sure, you got good technology, but the weapon is only a tiny part of the equation. The most important thing is the operator of the machine. I would be far more scared of a marine with a .22 than I would a Frat boy with a P90. You missed the point of my thread, that the two most important requirements for a successful military (and coincidently, therefore any chance of peace) are 1. Money/Tech and 2. Good Citizens! Europe has the wealth/tech, but not the citizens who will be well suited to the military (and believe it or not Horetore, fitness is actually not nearly as important as attitude and a feeling of civic responsibility. And as I argued in a previous thread, having a no fat on you does no good if your turtle neck sweater damages your spine). Thing of 16th Century Italy, that is very much what Europe is like now adays. A right bird for the plucking, only kept safe through the will of others.

The problem with Europe's bad military potential is the most fundamental problem with mankind: A fear that makes us desire dependency. It is what makes us NEED a religion, it is what makes women stay in abusive relationships, it is what makes men live in a country where they are mistreated and robbed by their own government, and do nothing about it. It is the fear of living and dying, rising and falling, being wealthy or being desolate based on our own efforts and nothing else.

[Greyblades]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

[Centurion1]

where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

[Vuk]

If you were to try and rank the top 10 militaries in the world in terms of effectiveness, European nations would dominate the majority of the list.

There is a danger, though, in letting entitlements (cultural decadence if you will) eat away at a nation's military budget. I would say 3% of GDP is a solid figure not to drop below for proper maintenance of the standing force and R&D for future technology. The US/Euro bond through NATO as well as greater intra-Euro cooperation due to the EU, yield even greater economies of scale in terms of the latter.

Despite years of declining military budgets, the Western World is still very militarily secure.

In terms of size, budget, tech, etc they are ok, but esp. considering that they are small fish in the ocean, they cannot rely on out spending enemy armies and pumping more troops against them. There is a strength that cannot be directly observed or measured, and it is that that, alongside money, is the deciding factor in military engagements; much more important than troop count. History supports me on that. If Europeans are not willing to do that and straighten out as a society (which they probably will never do) it will be to their detriment, as well as to the detriment of the US and the rest of the world.
Looking at the total population, combined GDP, tech, landmass, etc of Western Europe, there is no reason that they should not collectively be far stronger than the US. They are not though, they are completely dependent on the US.

[Greyblades]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

[Vuk]

...Religion? Vuk have you been sniffing paint thinner?

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.


where are your from vuk? philly? because in the Us over 60% of our military is made up of good old boys from the south.

Wisconsin. What is your point? They are by far the most civic minded, and well suited to the military (at least on average), so it makes sense that they make up most of the military. The coasts (and to a lesser extent, parts of the midwest), frankly, are home to a bunch of disgusting filth balls who make bad soldiers and bad citizens. The heart country, the south, and to a lesser extent the midwest is where the best troops will come from (did I forget Alaska?).

[Greyblades]

No, not at all. It is the reason why when we don't have a religion, we must create one out of our own beliefs (Darwinism, etc). I am not bashing religion, simply the human tendency toward dependence that makes us NEED one. Many people believe in a religion not because they have been genuinely convinced through sound reason, but because it is 'easy' for them, because now the responsibility for their lives is on someone else's shoulders. Which is to say, they have a parent figure (something that humans naturally crave...it is a type of laziness). Whether it is Mother Earth nurturing them, or Allah, or the Christian God, or even the parental figure of a socialist government that keeps them safe and provides for them, like children, they need that nurturing authority figure. It is easier, surer, and less frightening to live a dependent and miserable life than to live a satisfying independent life...or to crash and burn of your own accord. Most of life's problems can be traced to that fear, and that need for a parent figure.
Ok it just came realy out of left field is all.

[Centurion1]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

Edit: go Packers btw

[Vuk]

The thing is we dont realy need particually powerful individual armies, each country has an army of varying numbers and equipment mainly because of all the alliances criss crossing europe. We dont need any really big armies because if any of us get into a war that could end up with our destruction the entire west half will pitch in to prevent that. Really if you wanted to invade a european country you would have to fight off an entire continent of ticked off first world countries who are likely at any stage it goes badly to drag the USA into it.

Europe and Nato combined could take on the USSR at it's height, realy there isnt anyone that has a chance of doing any conquest in europe. A member country having a big army is realy of no extra benefit except bragging rights.

...I think I repeated "we dont need armies" 3 times, man am I tired.

You are tired? I am sorry, but that is your fault, and not mine. You obviously did not read my posts. My argument had nothing to do with how large a country's military needs to be (that is the subject of an entirely different debate), but that European citizens did not have the potential to be good soldiers.
Europe will only be invincible to attack if it stops having that attitude. Europe will be invincible to attack when it is ready and willing to kick the butt of anyone who invades it. And I am sorry, but the quality and type of citizens Europe is full of really makes me think that without aid from the US (and possibly even then) it would crumple and die under a serious attack from a large power. Reread my post, because I outline why there.

[Greyblades]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

You have 300 million citizens, I think you have enough to justify not having more than 25% in the millitary.

[Centurion1]

greyblades........ more than 25% of our population should be ABLE to serve and not be too fat or crazy or dumb or criminal or addicted or etc.

[Vuk]

the point is half 75% of america is unable to serve for various reasons and that even wisconsin which has decent citizens for the military say compared to NY or california is nowhere like the south. the US doesnt have this magical desire to serve and be successful in the service the south does.

Edit: go Packers btw

lol, I am hoping the Pack gets smashed (sorry, not a fan).
I never said that all of the US has good citizens, but we have enough to still be a power. (In fact, I was talking about Europe's problem, and never claimed that the US did not have one. It is rather irrelevant in fact to my argument)
The point is that the only country in Western Europe of any size that perhaps has the types of citizens that make good soldiers are Spain, and it is too racked with problems right now to do anything. America is great, America sucks, whatever! It is not important to my argument about Europe. The only part of my argument that concerns America is that the US DOES have troops who make good soldiers (whether they come from the South or not). Particularly, I think that we should nuke our East coast and give our west coast a stern warning and one chance before we nuke them too. :P (oh yeah, and Illinois. ~;))

[Centurion1]

England has good troops. Australians make good soldiers. The Germans military mind set was ruined to some extent after losing two world wars but they have (or at least used to) have a militaristic culture. spain is a joke. Norway has decent soldiers as does finland

[Vuk]

greyblades........ more than 25% of our population should be ABLE to serve and not be too fat or crazy or dumb or criminal or addicted or etc.
That is true, it should be closer to 80% of the male population of enlistment age, but that is a US problem, and not the subject of this thread. The US citizenry has begun a degradation process, that is a given, but we still have a high enough percentage of our population who make good soldiers, and just as importantly, who make good war time citizens (though not as high a percentage as could be hoped for). The problem with Europe is that they don't. The Chinese, Eastern Europeans, South Americans, etc are tough nuts and would make good citizens. If they enjoyed a stable government and the budget of Europe, they would destroy Western Europe and probably would be able to destroy the US. They have far greater potential to be good citizens and soldiers than Western Europeans.

Not meaning to insult any one person in particular, but most Western Europeans just stink. :P

[Centurion1]

south americans? bwahahaha do they get siestas?

[Vuk]

England has good troops. Australians make good soldiers. The Germans military mind set was ruined to some extent after losing two world wars but they have (or at least used to) have a militaristic culture. spain is a joke. Norway has decent soldiers as does finland

England has some potential for good soldiers and citizens. Australia has a lot (quite possibly a lot more than the US does). The Germans are a joke. The French are pathetic. Spain is ruined. etc.
I gotta disagree with you about Norway. I have a lot of Norwegian heritage, and such they hold a special place in my heart, but I think it would be generous to say that they have a little potential.

[Vuk]

south americans? bwahahaha do they get siestas?

You are simply stereotyping, and not accurately. Tough life's make tough people. Their main problem is crime and instability. They have potential to be good citizens and soldiers if they get that sorted out.

[Centurion1]

they have a good military and a mandatory draft.

[Vuk]

they have a good military and a mandatory draft.

Who?

[Centurion1]

and you are doing the same exact thing. you think life in finland is easy? or poland? life in America is easier than anywhere else (unless your retired in western europe)

Edit: norway

[Vuk]

and you are doing the same exact thing. you think life in finland is easy? or poland? life in America is easier than anywhere else (unless your retired in western europe)

Edit: norway

I never said that life in Poland was easy. Life in most of Eastern Europe is very hard. Trust me, I know how lucky I am to be American. Life in Norway though is nothing compared to the hell that life in a 3rd world South American country is. Norway has a good military system and enough good citizens to keep it working, but I still think that you are over rating them. Eastern Europe, South America, and most of East Asia are probably amongst the hardest places to live on earth.

[Greyblades]

Ok then I'm obivously tired and I'm going to bed soon but I will ask afew questions:

Do you know any Europeans? Face to face instead of inside a forum? What about our potential soldiers, have you met one? How about our millitaries, have you got some special access to our recruiting figures? Our medical records? Specifically our reports on the viability of new recruits? Have you gotten some information that indicates what you are saying?

In other words: Do you know what you are talking about?

[Centurion1]

africa..... middle east....

look western militaries are top dog not only because of technology but because of what our values are . the reason the middle east has (excuse me) such crappy militaries after the medieval period is because they do not know how to respect subordinates or delegate authority. there are numerous essays on this. besides turkey they are all worthless as fighting forces.

[Husar]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.

[Vuk]

Ok then I'm obivously tired and I'm going to bed soon but I will ask afew questions:

Do you know any Europeans? Face to face instead of inside a forum? What about our potential soldiers, have you met one? How about our millitaries, have you got some special access to our recruiting figures? Our medical records? Specifically our reports on the viability of new recruits? Have you gotten some information that indicates what you are saying?

In other words: Do you know what you are talking about?

I have been to several European countries, been on military bases (in Europe and the US), befriended many Europeans, read lots of research, seen lots of news...yeah, I do think I know what I am talking about.

[Centurion1]

why are you directing this at me.

[gaelic cowboy]

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

[Vuk]

africa..... middle east....

look western militaries are top dog not only because of technology but because of what our values are . the reason the middle east has (excuse me) such crappy militaries after the medieval period is because they do not know how to respect subordinates or delegate authority. there are numerous essays on this. besides turkey they are all worthless as fighting forces.

Yes, of course life is hard in Africa and the Middle East (probably harder in Africa than any place in the world...though Transylvania is probably on parr with many parts of Africa), but I did not mention them as the chance of any real military thread coming out of them in the next 100 years I see as extremely unlikely. Therefore they are not important to this discussion.


The UK has very short carriers that need VTOL/STOL capable aircraft, the Eurofighter is not such an aircraft as most of the countries in the program didn't need such a thing.
The UK still purchases Eurofighters for their land bases AFAIK.

The point about Germany being purely defensive is a bit funny considering we're in Afghanistan and our navy helped secure the lebanese shore etc.
Our special forces seem to be a bit more involved at times but it's not exactly the kind of thing you read about in newspapers.

I don't really see how you can say western europeans are unwilling to defend themselves as long as they aren't even really threatened.
There have been several attempts to do terror attacks in Germany, some were borked by the terrorists, others prevented by the policem, but well, this whole premise is just laughable anyway.

Europe's wealth comes mostly from trading and technology, once half the world fights over our wealth there is simply no wealth left to fight over so it's entirely pointless.
Then you forgot about nukes, Russia has them too but Russia also has a lot more natural ressources and fertile land, if you think their army is strong, think again.

Pro Tip: The Cold War is over.
The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.
The French? Certainly not!
The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

[gaelic cowboy]

England has some potential for good soldiers and citizens. Australia has a lot (quite possibly a lot more than the US does). The Germans are a joke. The French are pathetic. Spain is ruined. etc.
I gotta disagree with you about Norway. I have a lot of Norwegian heritage, and such they hold a special place in my heart, but I think it would be generous to say that they have a little potential.

France has no potential fo breeding soldiers, would this be the same France with bases all over North Africa and plenty youth unemployment, I bet the french army has no problem recruiting stout lads.

Germany is no joke that is plain for all to see.

Spain, I recall reading recently they had a new recruitment drive and it was easily oversupplied.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

The Irish produce some of the best soldiers in the world, and you fight like demons for the British Crown so I hate to think how you'd fight to defend Ireland.

Vuk is also wrong about the French military, it is operationally very good but badly used by its political masters.

I'm sorry Vuk, but what you are saying doesn't jive with anything I have EVER read about military power. The consensus I have always seen is that america is top dog because it has the best gear, but it has historically suffered from dicipline and moral problems.

Oh, you know who else make great soldiers?

The Swiss.

[Vuk]

Have you ever talked to or even seen a european soldier, or are you just basing this on some op-ed in a US newspaper.??

I have never heard of any recruitment problems in any Western European armies ever. Ireland has a microscopic army with a tiny budget but they never have a recruitment problem I ever heard of, usually the only way to get in is through a cadetship from university(officer programme). I think this idea that somehow people are incapable mentally of serving in an army is rubbish, if we had the money even more people would join cos we can be just as patriotic as you Vuk

The real problem for any military is money, how and where it is spent(in our case if we even have any), all of that impacts on training which affects the ability of the troops to fight but the potential recruits are prob still pretty much the same.

No, you are wrong. Money is only half the problem. First of all, when I am talking about Europe, I am not including the Britain or Ireland, as they are not (to the best of my knowledge) part of political or geographical Europe.
The only military (major military that is) in Europe with even close to the type of discipline that makes good soldiers is Germany, and they are still far, far off the mark. Good military discipline makes good citizens. Good citizens make good soldiers. I highly doubt that there are enough citizens in any major country in Europe that would allow that country to fight a sustained war. Right now their militaries are at a tiny standing level, and they are still rank with discipline problems. Even disregarding that, the non-military population also is not suited to wartime conditions (or willing to endure them).

Have I ever seen or talked to European soldiers? Yes, I have. I have friends in both the German military, and the Hungarian military. (I actually got to attend a seminar in Hungary by a guy who teaches Hungarian specialists hand-to-hand combat) I also know several people in Nato intelligence who have been to many military bases in Europe, and I have talked to them extensively.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Germans are the ONLY major power in Western Europe with any real sort of military. It is very precise, but again, I don't think that the Germans have the resolve they need for sustained warfare.

The French? Certainly not!


Says who?? Dr Phill how do we know what is in the mind of euro recruits obviously if they joined they must want to be there.




The Cold War is over? Really? Then what is all the fighting in the Middle East? What is the problem in Korea? What is the ongoing cultural war?

Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.


I notice you talk about good citizens well in Europe there is a strong tradition now of citizenship engagement with community, enviroment this makes a good citizen blah blah so if they had to join the army for some reason I do not see them reverting to anarchists.

I really don't see this as a problem, now you might have been on better ground in the type of politician europe breeds as they tend to be concensus driven.(but then thats good as war between europe would be a disaster globally )

[Vuk]

The Irish produce some of the best soldiers in the world, and you fight like demons for the British Crown so I hate to think how you'd fight to defend Ireland.

Vuk is also wrong about the French military, it is operationally very good but badly used by its political masters.

I'm sorry Vuk, but what you are saying doesn't jive with anything I have EVER read about military power. The consensus I have always seen is that america is top dog because it has the best gear, but it has historically suffered from dicipline and moral problems.

Oh, you know who else make great soldiers?

The Swiss.

America has the best gear? Bollox! We cannot afford to equip our guys with the best gear. Germans, Belgians, etc have far better gear, and yet these countries still would fear US Marines. It is not the machine, but the operator.
You see, everything you are going after, tech, etc. is all very good, but it does not matter if it is given to the wrong people. Could you imagine if the US Marines were drawn mostly from New York and Mass? What a joke!

[Vuk]

Says who?? Dr Phill





Well apart form Korea all of that fighting is the USA's problem cos you started it.

Not really, the Russians had a burn and leave policy in the Middle East. They could not take control of them and their resources, so they decided instead to empower and supply people who would make life difficult for the US and its allies. Yeah, the US played God there a bit, but the main fault of the US was not going to war with Russia and stopping their meddling. It is Russia which is to blame for most of the problems in the Middle East

[Vuk]

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

EDIT: Hitting the hay now. I will reply tomorrow to any new posts.

[gaelic cowboy]

I find it hilarious that you can all have the attitude "We could never stand against Russia/China, the US will protect us" one second, and "Achtung! We have the best military in the world!" the next second. Seriously, if your militaries are so good, then why the dependence on the US, and why the European attitude that it needs the US for protection?

I dont think that Russia is even capable of taking on the Baltic countries nowadays, any attempt by Russia to rattle sabres will end badly for them. While europe would be devastated in any continential war that would hardly any different if all the recruits were like klingons or terminators.

The US has troops in european countries because it is part of it's foreign policy, a policy that is there because the USA still needs the ability to project power in Europe, Middle east and North Africa.

[Vladimir]

lol the eurofighter. the UK wants the JSF anyway.

Yea, good luck with that. Problems with the JSF program dwarf those of the Euro.

[PanzerJaeger]

In terms of size, budget, tech, etc they are ok, but esp. considering that they are small fish in the ocean, they cannot rely on out spending enemy armies and pumping more troops against them. There is a strength that cannot be directly observed or measured, and it is that that, alongside money, is the deciding factor in military engagements; much more important than troop count. History supports me on that. If Europeans are not willing to do that and straighten out as a society (which they probably will never do) it will be to their detriment, as well as to the detriment of the US and the rest of the world.


How does history support you on that?

Absent environmental factors, the difference between victory and defeat can always be traced to quantifiable differences in morale
, training, planning (tactical & strategic), equipment, and/or technology.

In fact, nations that have relied on that special, intangible 'something' to compensate for other deficiencies have suffered. The Japanese military during the Second World War is a good example.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

America has the best gear? Bollox! We cannot afford to equip our guys with the best gear. Germans, Belgians, etc have far better gear, and yet these countries still would fear US Marines. It is not the machine, but the operator.
You see, everything you are going after, tech, etc. is all very good, but it does not matter if it is given to the wrong people. Could you imagine if the US Marines were drawn mostly from New York and Mass? What a joke!

Can't afford? Rubbish, your defence budget is higher in millions of dollars, Per Capita and GDP wise.

F-22 Raptor, able to target and engage even before they show up on enemy raidar.

Yanks get all the Guccii battlefield control tech, it's what gives you the ability to direct your soldiers. Everything else is pretty much on par, we all use the same basic infantry weapons, only Britain uses an individual tank gun... etc.

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

[PanzerJaeger]

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

The G36. :grin:

[Husar]

what does Germany have that is better than US gear?

We have better beer. ~;)

I'm not entirely sure but I think our vehicles also have better protection against mines and IEDs.

[Major Robert Dump]

Pretentious OP followed by back pedals camoflouged by more pretentious posts and claims of being misunderstood yet peppered with moral and intellectual superiority. This thread made my day, thanks for the effort.

[CBR]

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli
And good soldiers have always come from training and in modern times good equipment and logistics helps too.


Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me..
I cannot say if you have lost your mind but you are far away from having a good take on things. Nuff said.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Edit: Upon reflection, the previous content deemed a bad idea and removed.



Gah! The many sufferings one has to endure for being a moderator! :wall: Life's no fun anymore....

[PershsNhpios]

Oooooh my ears are ringing with all this loud noise.

The thread should be called 'America and the Rest of the World'.

[Sarmatian]

No, you are wrong. Money is only half the problem. First of all, when I am talking about Europe, I am not including the Britain or Ireland, as they are not (to the best of my knowledge) part of political or geographical Europe.


Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).

[Fragony]

Nothing wrong with European armies. I wonder how resiliant these socalled good citizens are when it's war comming to them, when a town is whiped from the map as retaliation or an entire village rounded up and executed because of militia activity. That terror also comes from your own army, good citizens killing their own, Europeans will expect that to happen.

[Subotan]

This a complete failure of an analysis.


I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Absolute rubbish. If there was ever, God forbid, another large war on European soil then Europeans would put everything in to win. The difference is Vuk, not that we are soft, or decadent, or not proud of "where we come from" (I.e. not being a brown Mohammedan amirite?) but that we have put the millennia of constant warfare that has haunted Europe behind us. The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

[Greyblades]

Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).
Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes.


The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."
Eh I gotta disagree with this nationalism should not be removed but restricted, national pride shouldnt be shunned unless it results in violence or intolerance. I'm looking at you BNP.

As for vuk, now that I am rested and recharged this seems more like trolling against europeans than anything else.

[HoreTore]

I want to hug you, Subotan.

[Fisherking]

Vuk,

I think that you are the victim of a misperception, possibly born of American insulation from broader views of the world.

Much of Western Europe suppresses their patriotism and nationalism, seeing it as the cause of two world wars, particularly in Germany.

I wouldn’t want to say that their armies are of any less quality than that fielded by the US.

Yes, many of them are tiny but it is because they though they could get away with that as the US was covering their backs, to a great extent.

It is more a matter of governments than of individuals.

[Quid]

This a complete failure of an analysis.



Absolute rubbish. If there was ever, God forbid, another large war on European soil then Europeans would put everything in to win. The difference is Vuk, not that we are soft, or decadent, or not proud of "where we come from" (I.e. not being a brown Mohammedan amirite?) but that we have put the millennia of constant warfare that has haunted Europe behind us. The nationalism which you so admire and reminisce for was and still is a cancer within Europe, and the weakening and gradual erosion of it is something which should be celebrated as one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the history of mankind, not mourned for causing the loss "of a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers."

Could not agree more. I think what Vuk is underestimating is the still very much prevalent national pride. Just one reason that 'Project Europe' is a task that will stretch over many generations if it ever were to succeed fully. Of course, it is true that Europe does not concentrate on military might as it has done in the past. There is no need. There is no imminent threat. However, as soon as there were just such a threat, be assured, the Europeans would be up in arms in no time. We are, and always have been, a divided continent. Animosity towards others and fierce national pride does not disappear in just a few generatinos.

Quid

[Furunculus]

Britain and Ireland are both politically and geographically very much part of Europe... Europe stretches from Scandinavia to Bosphorus (north-south) and from Iceland to the Urals/Caucasus (west-east).

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

[Fisherking]

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

Blame it on the Scotts

:laugh4:

[Fragony]

and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

The UK has more of a military culture, count the proverbs you casually use that can be traced back to things military (same for Americans). Likewise for us when it comes to trade and the sea.

[Sarmatian]

Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes.


You can not ''see'' geography. A mountain is a mountain and a lake is lake. Deciding that mountain is a lake will not change reality. If people of Britain and Ireland see themselves as distinct and different than other Europeans, that's another issue. Vuk mentioned geography and politics, the former I already explained and the latter is easily proved by looking at how many European organizations Britain and Ireland are a part of from small and insignificant ones to CoE and EU.


and yet, britain as a society appears far more warlike in that it is 'happy' to engage in military 'adventures'.

Current circumstances, still doesn't change what I explained above.

[Greyblades]

Oh I know that, I just dont think most of us Brits see it that way.

[Furunculus]

Current circumstances, still doesn't change what I explained above.
fine, as long as you are not referring to the difference in broad cultural acceptance of military action between Britain and the continent, which is what i was referring to, because otherwise we disagree very significantly.

[Subotan]

Eh... I dont think that we see it like that. See "with europe but not of it" in tvtropes..
To paraphrase Porfirio Diaz, "Poor Britain, so far from Europe and so close to the United States"


Eh I gotta disagree with this nationalism should not be removed but restricted, national pride shouldnt be shunned unless it results in violence or intolerance. I'm looking at you BNP
Well, the kind of national pride easiest to do that with is the celebration of common values held by Britons, such as our history of democracy, tolerant nature, culture etc. It so happens that we share a lot of these values with Europeans. Blood and Soil nationalism is vile though.


I want to hug you, Subotan.
*Hug*

Could not agree more. I think what Vuk is underestimating is the still very much prevalent national pride. Just one reason that 'Project Europe' is a task that will stretch over many generations if it ever were to succeed fully. Of course, it is true that Europe does not concentrate on military might as it has done in the past. There is no need. There is no imminent threat. However, as soon as there were just such a threat, be assured, the Europeans would be up in arms in no time. We are, and always have been, a divided continent. Animosity towards others and fierce national pride does not disappear in just a few generatinos.

Quid
Remember of course that the kind of war Vuk declares that we would be crap at i.e. a full-scale industrial war between the great powers would almost certainly involve nuclear weapons, so there's not much of an incentive for anyone with the kind of power to threaten Europe to the degree that Vuk says that we can't resist to attack us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can not ''see'' geography. A mountain is a mountain and a lake is lake. Deciding that mountain is a lake will not change reality. If people of Britain and Ireland see themselves as distinct and different than other Europeans, that's another issue. Vuk mentioned geography and politics, the former I already explained and the latter is easily proved by looking at how many European organizations Britain and Ireland are a part of from small and insignificant ones to CoE and EU.

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.

[gaelic cowboy]

fine, as long as you are not referring to the difference in broad cultural acceptance of military action between Britain and the continent, which is what i was referring to, because otherwise we disagree very significantly.

I dont see it as clear cut as that, after all I bet certain states in US have different attitudes to the army too.

I think the difference is the political arena not on an individual scale, I mean lots of people marched against Iraq in the US and UK does that mean the people are soft mentally.

I dont buy this idea that certain people are bred for war, once you join you get trained and have to forget all your preconceptions blah blah cos whatever you think you know on joining the reality is they soon set you straight.

[gaelic cowboy]

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.


I agree we do both see the world differently but were still not going to let europe bang away without being involved.

After all this is Totalwar.org the way to win the early games like MTW or Rome was to ensure no one got too powerful in Europe if you were Britain.

[al Roumi]

I did also think we had dealt with Vuk's fevered giberring musings on the decadence of Europe. To my mind, he basicaly thinks that only a staunchly militaristic society is strong enough to survive in the world as he sees it: i.e. one in which a perpetual state of "total war" exists, or where we are all two steps from tipping into one.

I think you should lay off the Fox news Vuk.

I could also organise a small collection round the forum, to finance the purchase of a club and bridge for you to act out your vocation.

[gaelic cowboy]

Anyway who says that people who are more martial are suitable for service today, your as likely to be taken on with an arts degree as having a black belt. If everyone in the army all looked at the world the same way there would be no innovation etc etc and eventually you would stagnate.

Our tiny army recruits officers from all disciplines from engineering to the arts basically in order that the army does not become trapped in a particular worldview.

[Furunculus]

I dont see it as clear cut as that, after all I bet certain states in US have different attitudes to the army too.
I think the difference is the political arena not on an individual scale, I mean lots of people marched against Iraq in the US and UK does that mean the people are soft mentally.

I dont buy this idea that certain people are bred for war, once you join you get trained and have to forget all your preconceptions blah blah cos whatever you think you know on joining the reality is they soon set you straight.
granted, but this is a representative democracy, just like the rest of western europe, so the political arena is ultimately the public arena.

nor would i buy the idea that people (individual) are bred for war, after all our military is tiny and largely invisible to society, and yet that society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

[al Roumi]

[British] society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

I think you have Tony Blair to thank for that. From a liberal/lefty stand point anyway, his arguments for interceding in Bosnia, then Sierra Leone are what set the scene for Afghanistan and then...Iraq. Don't you right wingers all salivate explosively when it comes to the notion of waging anyway? :wink:

[Fragony]

granted, but this is a representative democracy, just like the rest of western europe, so the political arena is ultimately the public arena.

nor would i buy the idea that people (individual) are bred for war, after all our military is tiny and largely invisible to society, and yet that society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

Is that really so, we just don't talk about it on the mainland. France is much worse than the UK, is and will always remain the most brutal post WW2 Euro country.

[Furunculus]

I think you have Tony Blair to thank for that. From a liberal/lefty stand point anyway, his arguments for interceding in Bosnia, then Sierra Leone are what set the scene for Afghanistan and then...Iraq.

cart before horse, tony blair could get away with what he did BECAUSE british culture/society is as it is.


Don't you right wingers all salivate explosively when it comes to the notion of waging anyway? :wink:

as long as Britain chooses to be a security council member it has an obligation to enforce UN resolutions as part of a wider obligation to collective security. there are even legal norms such as R2P that encourage such activity.

[Furunculus]

Is that really so, we just don't talk about it on the mainland. France is much worse than the UK, is and will always remain the most brutal post WW2 Euro country.

our record is second to none:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

[Fragony]

our record is second to none:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

In the military sense perhaps, the French military seems to accept atrocity much more willingly as a fact of life. They don't care all that much as it's simply war,

[Strike For The South]

American childern are hedonistic, narcassitic, and gluttonous

They are the fattest and stupidest in the south where the majority of Vuks Spartan/Ubermensch come from

I wish we had something as advanced as the meditrainian diet or the French love for high culture

I have read some ignorant and stupid things in my time but this may be the most ignorant and stupid of them all

Removed

[Centurion1]

i would argue that certain cultures are more apt to ways of war than others. and furthermore that certain individuals are superior for war. however, vuk is absolutely wrong to say that the western world (basically whose culture is the very essence of modern warfare) is incompetent in martial arts/

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think what Fragony means is that the French military (and the French prisons) has a certain reputation of ruthlessness.

[Fragony]

I don't think it's ignorant, sense of duty can be both military and civilian no? Seems like a valid point to me on why a country can get the edge over another. Vuk does seem to forget the insanily bloody history of Europe which as others hinted at, is always just under the surface. A German will have zero problems here, a German trying to have a normal conversation on WW2 is bound to get into trouble though, we haven't healed yet

[Strike For The South]

i would argue that certain cultures are more apt to ways of war than others. and furthermore that certain individuals are superior for war. however, vuk is absolutely wrong to say that the western world (basically whose culture is the very essence of modern warfare) is incompetent in martial arts/
I feel like we have a bunch of samuel huntingtons in the room, the entire world now follows the Western doctrine of total war. There is no clash of civilzatons

On an individuals level? sure but that still means jack all without training or supplies. The Japaneses were pretty tough ol boys but it didn't matter in the end

As for Africa being on the same level of Transylvania. That's just flat out wrong

But I would expect nothing less

[Centurion1]

for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.

you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.

[Strike For The South]

for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.

Meh, The Isrealis come from the same culture and they do ok, Turkey isn't a slouch. Those countries problems run so much deeper than instituting a doctirne though. The examples are bad

This whole thing reads like an 1890s pamphlet on the virtues of the white man


you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.
Clearly you just aren't tough enough to be a citizen solider. Quit ROTC

And If I wanted to be insulting I wouldn't have captilized the J, For the sake of expidence nothing more.

[Centurion1]

i have lived i a military lifestyle for my entire life dont tell me what i can and cannot do. dont use that term its known to be demeaning and insulting and demonstrates your inability to understand you cannot state that i am a pro white power belief holder and use an antiquated term like that.

furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.

[Greyblades]

you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.
This coming from the guy saying people are inferior/superior due to race/nationality...

[Centurion1]

culture is entirely separate from race and nationality. you want proof just google the concept.

[Strike For The South]

i have lived i a military lifestyle for my entire life dont tell me what i can and cannot do. dont use that term its known to be demeaning and insulting and demonstrates your inability to understand you cannot state that i am a pro white power belief holder and use an antiquated term like that.

This is rich, you just spent an entire thread demeaning peoples based on some unsubstantiated, and antiquated method of quantifying military might and then you get all but hurt when I use a term which can be misconstrued (as it was here)

Once again you are clearly not an American Spartan citizen. AN AMERICAN SHOWS NO FEAR HE ONLY PULLS THE TRIGGER


furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Semitic+people

The Turks are majoirly msulim (duh). I think the fact these two states are secular and relativly democratic means so much more than this "culture" that is being refered to


yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.
You just did....

[Greyblades]

culture is entirely separate from race and nationality. you want proof just google the concept.
Ok then:
This coming from the guy saying people are inferior/superior due to culture...

[Centurion1]

at certain things...... why dont you actually do some research unless your an expert on arabian adaptation of modern warfare.

[Strike For The South]

Culture is the new race, it's nothing more than a thin veil so people won't be ostracized for their antiqauted beliefs


at certain things...... why dont you actually do some research unless your an expert on arabian adaptation of modern warfare

I don't need to when you make it this easy....I mean my God, people still think this way?

[Centurion1]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html

i mean my god people still dont know how to look at things before they disagree!

[Strike For The South]

Including culture in strategic assessments has a poor legacy, for it has often been spun from an ugly brew of ignorance, wishful thinking, and mythology. Thus, the U.S. Army in the 1930s evaluated the Japanese national character as lacking originality and drew the unwarranted conclusion that that country would be permanently disadvantaged in technology. Hitler dismissed the United States as a mongrel society and consequently underestimated the impact of America’s entry into the war. American strategists assumed that the pain threshold of the North Vietnamese approximated our own and that the air bombardment of the North would bring it to its knees. Three days of aerial attacks were thought to be all the Serbs could withstand; in fact, seventy-eight days were needed.


But this time we're right! I swear!

And then the 3 headings can be attributed to every other third world nation

/facepalm

[Subotan]

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.
Our national consciousness is different in many ways than the rest of Europe. For example, in the UK, The Second World War is a strangely positive memory, whereas on the continent the only connotation that that war has is sheer horror. But I still thing we're closer to the Europeans than Americans; in America, WWII is when the USA saved the world and rose to global pre-eminence, whereas we sacrificed our Empire to save Europe.


I did also think we had dealt with Vuk's fevered giberring musings on the decadence of Europe. To my mind, he basicaly thinks that only a staunchly militaristic society is strong enough to survive in the world as he sees it: i.e. one in which a perpetual state of "total war" exists, or where we are all two steps from tipping into one.
We have always been at war with Eastasia! War is peace! Peace is war!

Or, more poignantly:

"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."



for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.


Culture is borderline irrelevant. We could turn this discussion into a very long and extremely boring thread about how the Arab nations had such and such a model tank rather than this model tank and how their logistics were blah blah blah, but that would be pointless. Give a man a gun, give him a few weeks training and a lifetime of nationalist myths and hate and he'll fight as long and as hard as someone who has lived in the mountains all his life fending off rival tribes with a Victorian rifle and a knife as long as your arm.

Besides, those same Arabs who are supposedly not good at modern warfare managed to keep the United States bogged down in Iraq longer than it took to take down Nazi Germany...

[Centurion1]

patently false. certain third world countries are more than capable of fighting in modern war. arabs simply have trouble because of the society they find themselves in. They are good at the way they want to fight but not in the way the world chose to fight. That is a western style of warfare. Is it any surprise that Western nations are better at western warfare?

[Strike For The South]

patently false. certain third world countries are more than capable of fighting in modern war. arabs simply have trouble because of the society they find themselves in. They are good at the way they want to fight but not in the way the world chose to fight. That is a western style of warfare. Is it any surprise that Western nations are better at western warfare?

lolololol name them

You mean the richest countires with the best technology tend to have better armies? This would be shocking if it wasnt't true for the enitrety of human history

I guess you're tryingfor a more schorlary approach? That's good

[Subotan]

That reminds me of European knights complaining that the Mongols were being unchivalrous and cowardly by slaughtering them using a technique which the Europeans refused to use.

[Centurion1]

Culture is borderline irrelevant. We could turn this discussion into a very long and extremely boring thread about how the Arab nations had such and such a model tank rather than this model tank and how their logistics were blah blah blah, but that would be pointless. Give a man a gun, give him a few weeks training and a lifetime of nationalist myths and hate and he'll fight as long and as hard as someone who has lived in the mountains all his life fending off rival tribes with a Victorian rifle and a knife as long as your arm.

Besides, those same Arabs who are supposedly not good at modern warfare managed to keep the United States bogged down in Iraq longer than it took to take down Nazi Germany...

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know. and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics. giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier....... but lets presume it does. the problem with Arabian armies is their poor leadership and lack of an NCO corp. their fine soldiers individually.

[Strike For The South]

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know. and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics. giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier....... but lets presume it does. the problem with Arabian armies is their poor leadership and lack of an NCO corp. their fine soldiers individually.

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rusty

[Centurion1]

i would be quite worried for soldiers lives if we fought say vietnam or n. korea. or many eastern european or latin american countries. obviously we would win quite easily because of superior tech and numbers but they could very well inflict more damage than say husseins conventional forces did.....

[Centurion1]

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rust

how so? the problems with the arabian war machine in contemporary times lies not with the average joes but with the leadership. and no its not isolated problems like a bad general here or there. its a widespread issue within their forces.

[Strike For The South]

i would be quite worried for soldiers lives if we fought say vietnam or n. korea. or many eastern european or latin american countries. obviously we would win quite easily because of superior tech and numbers but they could very well inflict more damage than say husseins conventional forces did.....

There is no basis in fact for any of this you are simply using your world veiw, racisim (or culture if that makes it an eaiser pill), and anecdotes


how so? the problems with the arabian war machine in contemporary times lies not with the average joes but with the leadership. and no its not isolated problems like a bad general here or there. its a widespread issue within their forces.

Same with every other 3rd world country, Have you seen African civil wars? It's a clown car of lulz

[Centurion1]

read that essay? thats pretty verifiable information that you hear quite alot about from returning trainers.

[Strike For The South]

read that essay? thats pretty verifiable information that you hear quite alot about from returning trainers.

Meh, half of it is explaining how they've been wrong and the other half is wide generalazations that once again can be applied to any 3rd world country

[Subotan]

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know.
Why? That was a modern conventional war.


and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics.
Ah. Well therein lies the rub, doesn't it?


giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier.......
Mhm, it well. Might not make a very effective armed forces, but then, quantity has a quality all of its own.

But you said "for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance." So they're fine soldiers, and still not designed for war?

[Greyblades]

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rusty

Remind me never to play poker with you.

[Centurion1]

Why? That was a modern conventional war.

modern conventional warfare in iraq took a couple weeks.


Mhm, it well. Might not make a very effective armed forces, but then, quantity has a quality all of its own.

But you said "for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance." So they're fine soldiers, and still not designed for war?
yeah i believe that on an individual basis no soldier is really bad and that with sufficient training and good tech they will be more than capable of taking the fight to the enemy. however, the problem lies with the leadership and how they interact with their subordinates.

[Strike For The South]

Which raises an interesting point

If "modern" warfare only took a couple of weeks and more and more wars are being fought gurreila style, maybe the US lacks the SPARTAN CITIZENS to compete in this new paradigm

Perish the thought

Does this airtight theory still hold up as "modern" is on its way out?

[Centurion1]

do you see me saying that america's citizens are awesome military machines....... no but i will say our military is an awesome military machine.

[Ja'chyra]

Just seen this thread, got to say it is amusing.

The idea that the countries who birthed globe spanning empires and birthed countries like the US are, all of a sudden, incapable of fielding a force to defend themselves is laughable.

The simple fact is that we do not need to, neither does the US, I think you'll find that if kith and kin were threatened then the UK could and would field millions, and western Europe 10's of millions. I think you'll also find this also holds true for most countires, best to let sleeping dragons lie and not start WW3.

[Furunculus]

Meh, The Isrealis come from the same culture and they do ok, Turkey isn't a slouch. Those countries problems run so much deeper than instituting a doctirne though. The examples are bad

This whole thing reads like an 1890s pamphlet on the virtues of the white man


there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

[Strike For The South]

do you see me saying that america's citizens are awesome military machines....... no but i will say our military is an awesome military machine.

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP

[Subotan]

modern conventional warfare in iraq took a couple weeks.
Sure, but that's beside the point. You say, not that we're the best at modern conventional war, but that the doctrine of modern "conventional" war is the best. And yet the fact that the Iraqi resistance persisted about 7 years after conventional resistance stopped suggests otherwise.



yeah i believe that on an individual basis no soldier is really bad and that with sufficient training and good tech they will be more than capable of taking the fight to the enemy. however, the problem lies with the leadership and how they interact with their subordinates.
That's not a culture thing though. That's to do with the training of the NCOs and how well the Generals i.e. a completely material issue.

[Centurion1]

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP


i have been the entire thread why dont you read posts? oh and it isnt really racist.

read the essay subotan.......


there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

already posted it. i guess no one wanted to read it.....

[Strike For The South]

there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Yes but these same problems are applicable to sub-saharan Africa, a place with a much different culture than the Arabs. What is the response then? I

[Centurion1]

those arabian countries have plenty of decent tech......

[gaelic cowboy]

furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.

Israelis are Semite same as Arabs therefore same people just different culture.

[Centurion1]

we are disagreeing about culture arent we.......

[Strike For The South]

those arabian countries have plenty of decent tech......

And this has what to do with anything in the article?

Tech isn't mentioned

[Centurion1]

this has to do with your comparison to sub shahran africa. these militaries should be effective but they still arent.

[Strike For The South]

this has to do with your comparison to sub shahran africa. these militaries should be effective but they still arent.

But the same problems plauge both places, If the Africans had the Tech they would be in the same spot

[Centurion1]

their problems are not the same.

[Strike For The South]

their problems are not the same.

African armies lack all those things....

Or are we going to start refering to the brain sizes of the Nubian compared to the Arab, I've got some great late 19th century reading

[gaelic cowboy]

I seem to remember someone started a thread like this lately about how the Evil Russians would steam roll europe soon.

It was silly then and it is still a silly idea now (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?131114-Why-can-t-Europe-defend-itself/page1)

[Fragony]

Can dismiss Centurion but did any post ww2 western army ever really lost a war, or even a battle, beyond parlement of course

[al Roumi]

That's a more interesting question. Few if any non western armies will have killed more of their enemy than western armies have, but China/Nkorea certainly fought the US/UN to a standstill in Korea. Anyway, nowadays wars are not just about the armies but the (untermensch, slim wristed, unable to carry and ammo container) civies back home - not least those actually in the combat area and acting as part time militia.

[Noncommunist]

Just seen this thread, got to say it is amusing.

The idea that the countries who birthed globe spanning empires and birthed countries like the US are, all of a sudden, incapable of fielding a force to defend themselves is laughable.

The simple fact is that we do not need to, neither does the US, I think you'll find that if kith and kin were threatened then the UK could and would field millions, and western Europe 10's of millions. I think you'll also find this also holds true for most countires, best to let sleeping dragons lie and not start WW3.

But for any other conflict, Europe(And the US in many cases) refuse to fix the problem. Like in Rwanda where the Belgians pulled out all their peacekeepers after 10 or so died and then let nearly a million people die as the Hutu Interahamwe slaughtered them. Fortunately, the RPF was able to drive out the Interahamwe. However, so much death could have been avoided had the West decided to intervene. And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.


Can dismiss Centurion but did any post ww2 western army ever really lost a war, or even a battle, beyond parlement of course

1st Indochina War? I'm pretty sure they were pretty decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu.

[Husar]

But for any other conflict, Europe(And the US in many cases) refuse to fix the problem. Like in Rwanda where the Belgians pulled out all their peacekeepers after 10 or so died and then let nearly a million people die as the Hutu Interahamwe slaughtered them. Fortunately, the RPF was able to drive out the Interahamwe. However, so much death could have been avoided had the West decided to intervene. And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.

You're approaching this the wrong way, if we weren't as badass, capitalistic, nationalistic and self-centered as we actually are, we wouldn't mind sending our soldiers to help others, but as it is, we rather watch others die if there is no money or glory to gain for us in helping them.

[al Roumi]

And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.

Really? TBH I imagine more horrible things would have happened if Europe was more martial. Millitarism is not the answer, that is the key lesson from WW1 and WW2. It's a dead end for hummanity of en escalating horror and sacrifice.

Rwanda and other forgein "police-like" (peace-keeping) interventions are more complex than you seem to grasp -and deserving of a much more nuanced examination than you've given them there.

Furthermore, I cannot see how a millitaristic society would improve peacekeeping in any way, beyond the most excellent* recourse of "everyone against the wall".

*To be clear, that is a deeply sarcastic comment.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't let them harry you Centurion. Culture can have a major impact on military effectiveness, especially in regards to how power is attained, how it is delegated, and how individual troops respond to it. Individual initiative, a proclivity to teamwork, and morale can all have a cultural dimension if it is allowed to permeate the armed forces. There is nothing racist about noting that either.

The Italian army in World War II is a great example of certain cultural characteristics being allowed to infect both leadership at high levels and individual unit cohesion. A cultural more of advancement based on family name and connections was mirrored in the military with predicable results. When Italians fought under merit-based German leadership, they performed well.

The best militaries create their own cultures. As Strike noted and contrary to Vuk's opinion, the US is not exactly fertile breeding grounds for disciplined, fit young men. However, the makeup of the US Military is completely removed from the general makeup of the US population. This is intentional and done by means of an intense, long, and costly effort at indoctrination, where recruits are instilled with completely different customs, mores, and values than the ones they walked in the door with.

I don't think it is too radical a notion to speculate that the Syrians and Egyptians did not make enough of an effort to train out some of their own cultural failings (when applied to military effectiveness), and that failing contributed to some degree to their losses against Israel.

[Brenus]

“1st Indochina War? I'm pretty sure they were pretty decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu.”: What: 12,000 men lost for the French…: Few battalions of Paratroopers, Foreign Legion and Colonials?
The Vietminh lost between 20,000 and 30,000 men, their elite divisions (308 and 312) decimated. But the French saw the danger and didn’t go for “a last push and” so decided not to sent reinforcement but to negotiate. And they did it in telling Ho Chi Minh that a prolongation of the war would see the draftees, so will raise the number of French Soldiers around 2,000,000.
It was decisive just because the French Government was decided to go.
If you want to compare with the lost in the Ardennes in 1944…

The decisive defeat for the French is the battle of Cao Bang, That Khe, Dong Khe, Lang Son and the lost of the RC4 that will give to the Vietminh a direct access to China just fallen in Mao’s hands.
Dien Bien Phu was just a good pretext for the new French Government to cut and run.

Now, about some comments I read: When, long time ago, I was a professional soldier, my comrades in arm and I were laughing at the US Army, enable to go on the field without their coca, having their shower heliported every evening and refusing to walk more than 500 metres…

I remember some training; it was unbelievable to see a US soldier just putting the barrel of his gun in the ground, helmet on the top and starting a nap… The look of my soldiers (draftees) was something to see…

The US army probably rectified this, but really…

About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

[al Roumi]

I don't think it is too radical a notion to speculate that the Syrians and Egyptians did not make enough of an effort to train out some of their own cultural failings (when applied to military effectiveness), and that failing contributed to some degree to their losses against Israel.

For what it's worth, the Egyptian army at least gained a bit more martial glory in their reconquest of the Sinai peninsula in the Yom Kippur war.


About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

And indeed the most notorious troops of the Spanish Francist forces were the Morocans.

[Noncommunist]

Really? TBH I imagine more horrible things would have happened if Europe was more martial. Millitarism is not the answer, that is the key lesson from WW1 and WW2. It's a dead end for hummanity of en escalating horror and sacrifice.

Rwanda and other forgein "police-like" (peace-keeping) interventions are more complex than you seem to grasp -and deserving of a much more nuanced examination than you've given them there.

Furthermore, I cannot see how a millitaristic society would improve peacekeeping in any way, beyond the most excellent* recourse of "everyone against the wall".

*To be clear, that is a deeply sarcastic comment.

Certainly, fighting wars sucks and it would be great if no one did. But when wars or massacres are already ongoing, wouldn't it be better to have powerful nations on the side of good intervene?

Everyone against a wall is better than someone losing a head to a neighbor with a machete. Of course, it's going to be more complicated than that but certainly some western intervention can help when hundreds of thousands of people are going to die otherwise.

[Furunculus]

Yes but these same problems are applicable to sub-saharan Africa, a place with a much different culture than the Arabs. What is the response then? I

that those cultures are equally defficient at mastering modern warfare.............?

[Furunculus]

About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!

seriously, this does not change the problems that some non western cultures, such as found in africa and the ME from nurturing a military doctrine that is effective, as evidenced by the article that both centurion and myself have linked.

[gaelic cowboy]

seriously, this does not change the problems that some non western cultures, such as found in africa and the ME from nurturing a military doctrine that is effective, as evidenced by the article that both centurion and myself have linked.

Hold on a second something does not smell right here Furunculus, is this the same Arab culture that was at the gates of Christendom pretty much straight after Muhammad died.

Are you sure it is not just to do with corruption and in some cases lack of technology or poor logistical systems and proceses??

[Centurion1]

gaelic completely different style of warfare. not comparable. their culture can suffice in such a style of warfare.

[gaelic cowboy]

But the leadership was not stratified or calcified yet by corrupt leaders, so if the people actually did get some freedom then I suspect this "Report" will be show to be the rubbish I believe it to be

Arab armies used to be meritocratic and now they are not, they defeated far superior cultures and they didnt just do it with some kind of "Me Conan me smash" style war either, now they seem to be merely symbols of oppression.

Exit the dictators and we will see if they are incapable of running a modern army

[Centurion1]

their armies most certainly are meritocratic. and it didnt matter in that time period the individual soldier had no need of initiative. arab armies are still fighting like its 1300.

[Hax]

arab armies are still fighting like its 1300.

Exactly! I've been saying this for years, just like the Polish cavalry charge against tanks in World War II! Because that totally happened.

You want to see a modern army? The Revolutionary Guard of Iran. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.
You want to see the fourth largest navy in the world? Turkey. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.

So what constitutes Arab culture? I think it's not too far from the truth to say that Morocco, Yemen, and Syria basically share the same basic Arab cultural fundaments, but how about Iran? Or Turkey? Or say Afghanistan? As for your point on Iraq, I don't think it was just superior technology and discipline of the Coalition that led to success in a relatively short time, but also the fact that Iraq had been bombed to hell about ten years earlier.

Try the same thing in Iran, see how that works.


And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.

[PanzerJaeger]

Exit the dictators and we will see if they are incapable of running a modern army

I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.

[Vuk]

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP

I have to get to bed now, and unfortunately have no time to respond to any of the discussion (I have in school all day), but I must respond to this, as it is the fourth accusation of racism that you have made against me in this thread. (as well as the nth accusation of stupidity) I never mentioned or implied race. My argument was completely about culture and society, and not race at all. I cited many countries (all the ones in East Asia for instance) that are predominately non-white, as well as societies that are majority white (the US for instance) as examples of countries with a citizenry more suitable to war, and Europe (predominately white) as the example of those unsuited for war. Race could not possible factor into my argument if I wanted it to! In fact, my argument completely blows away the concept of race as a meaningful one!
If you cannot participate in a civil and intelligent conversation, maybe you should leave your barroom trash-talk for the type of society you normally associate with.

[Fragony]

You don't understand Europeans all that much Vuk, I'm a total noob of course but in the European mind it's not rock&roll but c-minor. But if you think we lack the fortitude, look at the effects of 9/11 on America, isn't the biggest trauma that you can be attacked on own soil, what would an invasion do?

[Brenus]

“no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!”
Well, apparently it is…
And by the way, the English never had Colonial Officers, the French did, and Civil administrators. The English Colonialism was more “racist” than the French so they hardly trained locals above the ranks of NCO. The French did.
So to point out the “colonials” troops were good only under “white” officers is the same things than to block people from school and then saying there are uneducated and even don’t know to read… …d00d…

“I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.” Agree. If the dictator is an able General (Franco) that won’t be a problem or if the dictator doesn’t intervene in the Army running, it will not affect the final result.

However, I was watching a documentary on History Channel and they said this: The French Revolutionaries Skirmishers were better because ideologically fighting from freedom. Whereas the Monarchies troops couldn’t be left without officers, the French were looking for the fight, the others were looking for a place to sleep and hind… Roughly…
So, if you are fighting for A cause (and it could be for dictatorship, SS and Red Guards), you are motivated and mostly successful.

And the attack in 1974 by the Egyptians against the Israelis was efficient, and failed only when for political reason Anouar El-Sadat decided to go forwards to help the Syrian and didn’t stick to the plan…

[Furunculus]

Hold on a second something does not smell right here Furunculus, is this the same Arab culture that was at the gates of Christendom pretty much straight after Muhammad died.

Are you sure it is not just to do with corruption and in some cases lack of technology or poor logistical systems and proceses??

originally i said; "there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare" apologies for the lack of clarity arising from the missing word second time around.

i have evidenced my claim, and while i don't want to present it as a definitive argument if we are going to get anywhere here you could at least point out where you believe this army training officer with thirty years experience is spouting nonsense........

[Subotan]

gaelic completely different style of warfare. not comparable. their culture can suffice in such a style of warfare.
...

There isn't any "Gaelic" styly of warfare anymore, outside of the Black Watch (and even then they were formed by the pro-Unionist highland aristocracy as a dumping ground for cleared highlanders)


And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.
APPLAUSE

[Furunculus]

“no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!”
Well, apparently it is…
And by the way, the English never had Colonial Officers, the French did, and Civil administrators. The English Colonialism was more “racist” than the French so they hardly trained locals above the ranks of NCO. The French did.
So to point out the “colonials” troops were good only under “white” officers is the same things than to block people from school and then saying there are uneducated and even don’t know to read… …d00d…
sorry for the lack of precision, i was referring to the notion of colonial levies where british officers officered colonial levies, and a very effective system it was too.

that said, the british army did promote locals to officer rank, i have a family picture of my great-grandad and his future son-in-law which demonstrates exactly this point:

https://i.imgur.com/cVzkZ.jpg

[Greyblades]

Wow, I wish I was luckey enough to have such great surviving family heirlooms. The best I got was a picture of my great great grandfather in WW1 dress uniform.

[Boohugh]

Good thread to read through and some interesting points however, in my opinion, the idea that some cultures produce inherently better armed forces has no merit whatsoever - although culture does have a role to play and I'll explain why. The effectiveness of armed forces comes from 3 inputs:

1) Men - this encompasses training, military leadership (which is itself derived from training) and practice (an often ignored factor).
2) Material - the technological advantage as well as numbers.
3) Political Leadership - the political will to fight.

Looking at the 2 main examples that have come up, it seems clear to me where the deficiencies occur. In terms of Western Europe, it is clearly in the 'Political Leadership' - there just isn't a desire to fight in most cases due to past experiences. If that Political Leadership returns, then I have no doubt the Western European countries would perform just fine, although in some cases there is a shortfall in 'Men' as the standard of training does vary between countries.

The 2nd example of Arab militaries comes down to the 'Men' input - however this doesn't relate to individuals or Arabic culture in any way. Arab armies exhibit a clear lack of training, especially at fighting in an organised, combined manner as espoused by other parts of the world (and not just Western Europe and the US). The article (http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars) linked earlier regarding Arabs not performing due to their culture is absolute rubbish - all the problems described in article relate to poor training, military leadership (caused by poor training of the Officers) and structural problems in their armed forces - not Arabic culture. If you look at any effective military force (throughout history), they have succeeded because they have instilled their own culture into their troops either through training or the harsh experience of war (or both!).

So yes, culture has a role to play, but only the culture of the armed forces derived through training and experience not that of where the individuals originate.

Oh and before people ask, yes I do have personal experience of this to back up my opinions - on a day-to-day basis in fact, particularly of the training of Arabic Officers receive. It actually leads to a vicious circle where the young officers don't receive the correct standard of training and have the wrong traits instilled in them, which then leads to the exact say thing happening to the next generation.

[Furunculus]

interesting answer.

although i'm not so convinced that europes situation can be pinned down entirely to political leadership, for the people themselves are far less tolerant of 'justifications' for warmaking, which has an impact on the policy options available to our political masters.

likewise, the meforum author notes many of the flaws you point out and still manages to conclude that culture can be deemed at least partly responsible for poor performance in modern warmaking. i.e. those training deficiencies result from, or are exacerbated by, those cultural traits.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.

Not all dictators just mainly these ones in particular they seem to be completely venal and clientelist, true it is a trait all dictators have but it's rampant in the ME and it shows.

[gaelic cowboy]

originally i said; "there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare" apologies for the lack of clarity arising from the missing word second time around.

i have evidenced my claim, and while i don't want to present it as a definitive argument if we are going to get anywhere here you could at least point out where you believe this army training officer with thirty years experience is spouting nonsense........


Reading the report I was struck how most if not all of the supposed "Culture Problems" could merely be put down to the fact that chances for advancement are restricted so you must protect your advantge. (hence the keeping of the manuals by people from others)

This is quite a common thing in the world you often see it in business, religion, politics and now the army, I do not see an inherently Arab aspect to it.

Also the uselessness of the army could be put down to the fact that having a large but not necessarily well trained army is more the priority to ensure public order. I dont think it says it but much of the General staff prob treat the army as there personal enrichment source, and the report does state that the average recruit has a miserable time of it, no doubt this ATM stlye generalship affects the morale.

ah I see Boohugh basically answered it for me

[Boohugh]

interesting answer.

although i'm not so convinced that europes situation can be pinned down entirely to political leadership, for the people themselves are far less tolerant of 'justifications' for warmaking, which has an impact on the policy options available to our political masters.

Absolutely right. I should have clarified that the Political Leadership aspect doesn't just relate to the political class, so in a democracy the Political Leadership is also influenced by the will of the people purely due to the nature of the system. There is a general malaise towards war in Western Europe and this feeds into the Political Leadership aspect, but it doesn't (as some seem to have suggested) feed into the 'Men' aspect. There is little difference in the quality of recruits at the start due to that general malaise, it is how the training system indoctrinates them that determines the end product.


likewise, the meforum author notes many of the flaws you point out and still manages to conclude that culture can be deemed at least partly responsible for poor performance in modern warmaking. i.e. those training deficiencies result from, or are exacerbated by, those cultural traits.

Effective military training is designed to break recruits so it can mould them from scratch, therefore by definition it shouldn't matter what background or culture those recruits come from. If you don't train them correctly in the first place, then unwanted traits will undoubtedly get into the system. I don't think it's fair to say one culture is less suited than others though. You could pick out all sorts of traits in Western European culture that make people unsuitable to be in the armed forces, many of which would be exactly the same as those mentioned in the article and probably many others too. The only difference being there is a generally higher standard of training in Western Europe so those traits are generally eliminated and replaced with traits desired for an effective military.

[Furunculus]

Effective military training is designed to break recruits so it can mould them from scratch, therefore by definition it shouldn't matter what background or culture those recruits come from. If you don't train them correctly in the first place, then unwanted traits will undoubtedly get into the system. I don't think it's fair to say one culture is less suited than others though. You could pick out all sorts of traits in Western European culture that make people unsuitable to be in the armed forces, many of which would be exactly the same as those mentioned in the article and probably many others too. The only difference being there is a generally higher standard of training in Western Europe so those traits are generally eliminated and replaced with traits desired for an effective military.
again, i want to stress that i am forwarding this article for discussion, not advocating it as a total explanation for; "why arabs can't win wars" award.

and while i accept the point that training is their to break down unhelpful social conventions and behaviours, you can certainly appreciate that a rigid class structure "almost to the point of being a caste system" would inhibit the culture of learning/training that permits the reinvention of these individuals as soldiers? also that it likewise encourages a clear distinction between the officer and the grunt, which discourages the creation of a class of authority-wielding non-com officers that intrinsically bridge the expected social divide.

this article does not answer 'all', but nor too does it claim too, and i certainly don't think the explanation should be written off as insignificant.

my grandfather in the picture above joined as a grunt from an unimportant family, and was then put through sandhurst on the officer-training program where he won the sword of honour at passing out, and he spent his whole life conscious of the percieved difference between himself and his fellow officers, how much more debilitating must that prove institutionally in arab forces in the 80's to today?

[Fisherking]

I don’t see how culture, in a broader sense, can be ruled out as a factor of military performance.

Organizational and political mind-set is also a type of culture. The military its self can be said to be a culture.

The world view of a people or a state can effect training and doctrine. Authoritarian governments may discourage initiative and inventiveness in their officer corps.

Likewise, training and tactics can be effected by culture in both a broader and narrower sense.

These biases can lead to improper training methods and miss judging situations.

I think most of us have heard of the war averted because of bullet grease. Was that other than cultural?

[gaelic cowboy]

These biases can lead to improper training methods and miss judging situations.

I think most of us have heard of the war averted because of bullet grease. Was that other than cultural?

Was that not a war started though?? Anyway I always thought the Indian mutiny was more down to a lack of strong central control and the sense among the military castes who tended to be Muslim that they were being pushed out.

[Subotan]

Wow, I wish I was luckey enough to have such great surviving family heirlooms. The best I got was a picture of my great great grandfather in WW1 dress uniform.
I have some photos of my Great-Grandfather in the Carrickfergus Fire Service, the Northern Irish football team (I think it's that team, I'm not sure), and, er, a minstrel band O_O

[gaelic cowboy]

I have some photos of my Great-Grandfather in the Carrickfergus Fire Service, the Northern Irish football team (I think it's that team, I'm not sure), and, er, a minstrel band O_O

Cool was that before 1950 Subotan if it was before 1950 then there was no Northern team as such, however there were two teams from two rival associations, but both claimed to be Ireland and drew players from the entire Island. FIFA had to intervene to sort it out eventually for the Brazil World Cup in 1950.

[Vuk]

You don't understand Europeans all that much Vuk, I'm a total noob of course but in the European mind it's not rock&roll but c-minor. But if you think we lack the fortitude, look at the effects of 9/11 on America, isn't the biggest trauma that you can be attacked on own soil, what would an invasion do?

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks. If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?
You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head. You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war. If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.
Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.
If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.
WWI happened because people thought that their ridiculous webs of alliances would keep them safe and they let their guard down. WWII happened because the Europeans would do anything to avoid another World War...and because of that they caused one. You cannot control the bad guy and what he does, you can only control yourself and what you do.


EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJY-fBXCncw

Take this Canadian's attitude as an example of the right attitude. No one is afraid of a military or a country that is timid about going to war. People are only afraid of a military or country that knows that some times it is the right thing, knows that there is such a thing as 'evil', and is ready to combat 'evil' when it sees it. (and by evil I do not mean in the military sense, but people or a nation or a leader with no regard for humanity and that poses a direct threat to the citizens of your or and ally's country. Take Hitler as an example of that)

[Hax]

Vuk, your entire premise is based on the supposition that humanity can only live in two states: war and not-yet-war. I don't think that's true.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm what if we were suddenly attacked in Europe, I fail to see how any country in the world would not be caught by a surprise attack, Pearl Harbour anyone.

Plus if more countries were willing to use force we would have more war not less, it stands to reason as there are a lot of very small countries around the world who even at 100% recruitment would be unable to defend themselves.(at least conventionally)

Basically you cant base your entire policy on some kind of innate fear of invading hordes from the steppes.

[Fisherking]

Maybe he had this in mind: http://www.fusedfilm.com/2009/11/roland-emmerich-wants-to-make-back-to-back-independence-day-sequels/

[Greyblades]

What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.
Attacked by who? China? China's government is incompetent, thier navy is restriced to brown water operations and their economy relies on exporting to western countries. Russia? They might not be as much of a wreck as they were in the early nineties anymore but they still aren't in the position to take the world stage again. India? Same economic problems as china not to mention a complete lack of motive. Realy all the countries that could theoretically pull an invasion off on their lonesome dont want to and everyone else aren't powerful enough to even consider taking on NATO. It isn't the cold war anymore, we dont need a army numbering in the millions because there isn't an enemy at the gates and I dont see that changing any time soon.

[Husar]

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.
What if that happens to the USA but instead of cities they nuke your airbases?


If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?
Totally. But what you don't seem to get is that this is our attitude BEFORE someone nukes our cities. AFTER our cities have been nuked by surprise we don't think anything anymore as we're all dead anyway.


You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head.
It wasn't supposed to happen but it did, and it happened because America was sitting on the front porch with it's shotty, only problem being that it used the middle east as it's front porch. The terror threats against Europe only started when we joined you in your retaliatory campaign. That's not even to say I'm against that.


You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war. If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.
And what tells you that Europeans would not do that? Just that we don't start wars all the time?
Because we're not the ones who start using violence you think we're unable to strike back?
Look at school shootings, some really tame people can go really crazy and get a huge bloodlust if they feel wronged.
Europe is simply beyond the macho posturing and military penis comparisons that keep aggression levels between countries high and increase the chance of war, you seem to mistake that for an unwillingness to defend ourselves.


Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.
Oh really? Then why has there been no inner-european war within Europe since WW2? Or are you going to tell me that France is secretly preparing to start one?


If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.
Yes, absolutely, take Israel and it's peaceful existence for example...


Take this Canadian's attitude as an example of the right attitude.
He forgets what I said above, basically that Al Queda's main problem is America sitting on their countries with a shotty telling them what to do to avoid getting crushed. It's easy to see how this attitude prevents conflicts.
Iran is another example of the creation of peace by meddling in other countries' affairs in the most obvious ways.

[Centurion1]

Exactly! I've been saying this for years, just like the Polish cavalry charge against tanks in World War II! Because that totally happened.

You want to see a modern army? The Revolutionary Guard of Iran. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.
You want to see the fourth largest navy in the world? Turkey. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.

So what constitutes Arab culture? I think it's not too far from the truth to say that Morocco, Yemen, and Syria basically share the same basic Arab cultural fundaments, but how about Iran? Or Turkey? Or say Afghanistan? As for your point on Iraq, I don't think it was just superior technology and discipline of the Coalition that led to success in a relatively short time, but also the fact that Iraq had been bombed to hell about ten years earlier.

Try the same thing in Iran, see how that works.


And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.

persian culture is not arabian culture turkish culture is not arabian culture. they share a religion, past that they are drastically different. turkey especially is far distant from arabian culture and the persians have had their own culture for millennia.


gaelic" styly of warfare anymore, outside of the Black Watch (and even then they were formed by the pro-Unionist highland aristocracy as a dumping ground for cleared highlanders)

i hope your kidding....... it was addressed to gaelic cowboy good job trying to latch onto everything i say and try to embarrass me though.

[Vuk]

Vuk, your entire premise is based on the supposition that humanity can only live in two states: war and not-yet-war. I don't think that's true.
I would like to think that it is not true, but I think a careful study of history shows that it is true.



we dont need a army numbering in the millions because there isn't an enemy at the gates and I dont see that changing any time soon.

Again, I am NOT making an argument as to the size of militaries! A small, well prepared army with a willing populace behind it can beat the hell out of a bloated, scared army without the support of its citizens. I don't think that you understand what I am arguing. Looking back at some of the previous pages that I missed, it seemed that Centurion and Strike have absolutely no idea what I was arguing.



What if that happens to the USA but instead of cities they nuke your airbases?

The same thing that happens if we are attacked with conventional forces, only with less aircraft.

Totally. But what you don't seem to get is that this is our attitude BEFORE someone nukes our cities. AFTER our cities have been nuked by surprise we don't think anything anymore as we're all dead anyway.

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. ~;) I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

It wasn't supposed to happen but it did, and it happened because America was sitting on the front porch with it's shotty, only problem being that it used the middle east as it's front porch. The terror threats against Europe only started when we joined you in your retaliatory campaign. That's not even to say I'm against that.

No, it happened because America has started to suffer from the same spinlessness as Europe (America's problem being a different discussion.) and not nipping the Middle East problem in the bud before it turned into what it turned into. Too afraid of what our Eurobuddies would think maybe...

And what tells you that Europeans would not do that? Just that we don't start wars all the time?
Because we're not the ones who start using violence you think we're unable to strike back?
Look at school shootings, some really tame people can go really crazy and get a huge bloodlust if they feel wronged.
Europe is simply beyond the macho posturing and military penis comparisons that keep aggression levels between countries high and increase the chance of war, you seem to mistake that for an unwillingness to defend ourselves.

You see, being prepared for war and starting wars are completely different things. I am always ready for a fight, and because of that 99% of guys don't want to pick a fight with. Guess what? I have NEVER started a fight in my life. Wars don't happen when there is mutual fear. When you remove that factor, bad people will take advantage or weak good people. That is the truth. You can be unarmed, good, and taken advantage of. You can be armed, bad, and take advantage of others, or you can be the third option: Armed, good, and not taken advantage of. You seem to think that to be ready (and even willing) for a war means that you have to start one. The guys who can get away with never being in a fight are the ones who are always ready and willing for one. Mutual fear breeds mutual respect. You cannot have love and good will without respect. You cannot have lasting respect without some degree of fear. It is a brute justice, but what keeps one from cracking the head of another is the fear that he could get his own head cracked.


Oh really? Then why has there been no inner-european war within Europe since WW2? Or are you going to tell me that France is secretly preparing to start one?

lol, first of all, don't get me started on France. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.


Yes, absolutely, take Israel and it's peaceful existence for example...

Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

He forgets what I said above, basically that Al Queda's main problem is America sitting on their countries with a shotty telling them what to do to avoid getting crushed. It's easy to see how this attitude prevents conflicts.
Iran is another example of the creation of peace by meddling in other countries' affairs in the most obvious ways.
What you are describing is sitting on someone else's porch, and not your own. It is something that both the US, but esp Russia has been guilty of in the last few decades. I am not supporting such a policy, and never argued that America is perfect. America has consistently bungled foreign policy and has done some thing that, quite frankly, I think is shaming to our country. That however has nothing to do with the discussion of military readiness, and a war ready populace. (Again, where America is not perfect, but far better than their anorexic, scarf wearing counterparts across the Atlantic.

[Centurion1]

yes i do....... western europe in your mind cannot effective armies. this is bull. pure and simple.

[Subotan]

Cool was that before 1950 Subotan if it was before 1950 then there was no Northern team as such, however there were two teams from two rival associations, but both claimed to be Ireland and drew players from the entire Island. FIFA had to intervene to sort it out eventually for the Brazil World Cup in 1950.
It was before 1950, but I honestly can't remember any such details, as the photo is back home and I'm at university. I'll dig it out once I go back home and get back to you :)


I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks.
Not that much different compared to Americans. You just think you'll last longer because you have guns everywhere.


You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head. You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war.
When the 7/7 bombings hit London (in fact when any terrorist bombing has hit any part of the UK including from the IRA), there's always been a sense of "we had it coming", thanks to our close association with American foreign policy.



If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.
good god I can't believe I'm hearing this. This sounds like a parody of a line from Starship Troopers.


If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?
Who is going to attack us? The European Union binds us together and suppresses the easiest way to form divisions and conflict, nationalism. Russia is a wheezing power, who's primary threat is shutting off oil (Equivalent to trying to drown a man in your own blood) and China doesn't care about the EU. If anyone else attacked us our small professional armed forces would kerb-stomp them. Manufacturing fear of a non-existent enemy is completely abhorrent.


Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.
Wow, just wow. I am absolutely stunned that you are comparing the interbellum peace in Europe to the post-war/communist peace in Europe. The two are linked solely in that they took place on the same continent. The entire structures of the two different peaces are so different, economically, socially, politically, historically... It just blows my mind that you think such a comparison is possible.



WWI happened because people thought that their ridiculous webs of alliances would keep them safe and they let their guard down. WWII happened because the Europeans would do anything to avoid another World War...and because of that they caused one. You cannot control the bad guy and what he does, you can only control yourself and what you do.

No it didn't! NATIONALISM was the root cause of the Second World War! The failure of the League of Nations and European countries to suppress caused the Second World War.



If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.
Give me one example where a state of constant militarisation has prevented war.


I would like to think that it is not true, but I think a careful study of history shows that it is true.
Europe (at least the parts in the Union) is a post-conflict continent. A war between the member states is absolutely unthinkable.



Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)
Please show me your sources indicating that civilisation would not vanish entirely and permanently from this Earth if there was ever a nuclear war.


You see, being prepared for war and starting wars are completely different things. I am always ready for a fight, and because of that 99% of guys don't want to pick a fight with. Guess what? I have NEVER started a fight in my life. Wars don't happen when there is mutual fear. When you remove that factor, bad people will take advantage or weak good people. That is the truth. You can be unarmed, good, and taken advantage of. You can be armed, bad, and take advantage of others, or you can be the third option: Armed, good, and not taken advantage of. You seem to think that to be ready (and even willing) for a war means that you have to start one. The guys who can get away with never being in a fight are the ones who are always ready and willing for one. Mutual fear breeds mutual respect. You cannot have love and good will without respect. You cannot have lasting respect without some degree of fear. It is a brute justice, but what keeps one from cracking the head of another is the fear that he could get his own head cracked.
An individual =! society =! international relations. This is really a pretty simple concept to grasp.


lol, first of all, don't get me started on France
No no no, I'm going to get you started on France. What about France? Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?


. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.
No, peace within Europe is permanently prevented through co-operation and an abhorrence of nationalism in all EU member states.


Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.
That has not been the state of affairs in Israel since at the very latest the 1990s.


What you are describing is sitting on someone else's porch, and not your own. It is something that both the US, but esp Russia has been guilty of in the last few decades. I am not supporting such a policy, and never argued that America is perfect. America has consistently bungled foreign policy and has done some thing that, quite frankly, I think is shaming to our country. That however has nothing to do with the discussion of military readiness, and a war ready populace. (Again, where America is not perfect, but far better than their anorexic, scarf wearing counterparts across the Atlantic.
Right, because isolationism did absolutely nothing to cause the Second World War. Nothing at all.

[Greyblades]

Again, I am NOT making an argument as to the size of militaries! A small, well prepared army with a willing populace behind it can beat the hell out of a bloated, scared army without the support of its citizens. I don't think that you understand what I am arguing. Looking back at some of the previous pages that I missed, it seemed that Centurion and Strike have absolutely no idea what I was arguing.

And I keep saying over and over the reason we are not idiot spatan wannabes, chomping at the bot to get stuck into the next enemy, is becuase we dont need to be nor do we particually want to be. We have no big enemies to defend from, we have no big wars to fight, all the wars we have been in the last 60 odd years has been over seas and as far as I can see there is no power with an interest in invading Europe that can stand up to what we allready have.

[Subotan]

i hope your kidding....... it was addressed to gaelic cowboy good job trying to latch onto everything i say and try to embarrass me though.
Sorry, as you lacked a comma in your sentence after "Gaelic", it was possible for me to interpret it incorrectly.

[Vuk]

yes i do....... western europe in your mind cannot effective armies. this is bull. pure and simple.

Yes, that is it broadly, but I meant that your answers seemed to imply that you had no idea WHY I was arguing that, or on what I based my argument on.
Bull? Not really. If you are gun shy, you will not be able to defend yourself. It is like in a martial arts class, during sparring and free-fighting. There are people there with all the skills in the world, but who are gun shy. Someone who enjoys fighting more, or who has confidence in themselves and is USED to either harsh training techniques or real fights will mop the floor with them. They are just too scared. That is the situation in Europe. Training and military discipline is not harsh enough to prepare citizens for war, and European society makes preparing them for war even harder.

[Subotan]

Vuk, you do realise that if all the European Union's armed forces were considered as one, then the European Union's military is the second largest in the entire world, right? (http://www.eda.europa.eu/defencefacts/showvalues.aspx?CountryID=EU&Year=2008)

[Vuk]

Vuk, you do realise that if all the European Union's armed forces were considered as one, then the European Union's military is the second largest in the entire world, right? (http://www.eda.europa.eu/defencefacts/showvalues.aspx?CountryID=EU&Year=2008)

So what? I am not arguing about size. I am arguing about society and citizenry ONLY.


No it didn't! NATIONALISM was the root cause of the Second World War! The failure of the League of Nations and European countries to suppress caused the Second World War.

As I said before, you cannot control the other guy's actions, only your own. That may have been Germany and Russia's cause to attack (or whatever you believe it was), but that was not what caused the allies to allow it to happen. The Allies' (as they later were known) militaries were in a state of slump, and everyone was so scared of war that Hitler knew they would let him do whatever he wanted until it was too late. If the allies were not so darned afraid of war and stood up for themselves and each other, WWII would never have happened.


Give me one example where a state of constant militarisation has prevented war.

You see, that is really funny. A war is a historical event where two sides clearly state their reasons, so you can point to many instances of war, but there not being a war (ei Peace) is a non-event where no one gives a reason, and therefore impossible to pull up provable, concrete examples. I will put it like this though, every period of peace a country or people have ever enjoyed is must likely due to military readiness. The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Europe (at least the parts in the Union) is a post-conflict continent. A war between the member states is absolutely unthinkable.

Unthinkable? lol The charade that is the EU will only last so long before weaker members are fed up with being exploited by more influential members, or until a foreign war comes to their turf and the member states disagree as to where they stand.

Please show me your sources indicating that civilisation would not vanish entirely and permanently from this Earth if there was ever a nuclear war.

Fine, the lack of reliable, scientific sources that it WOULD vanish permanently from this earth. I have yet to see one.

No no no, I'm going to get you started on France. What about France? Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?

lol, you like to assume much, don't you my friend?

No, peace within Europe is permanently prevented through co-operation and an abhorrence of nationalism in all EU member states.

lmao, do you really believe that bollox?

[Hax]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

[Vuk]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

I don't even know where to begin with the rest of your post... I will have to answer later, as I have research for my paper to do now.

[gaelic cowboy]

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did,

Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.

Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.

[Subotan]

So what? I am not arguing about size. I am arguing about society and citizenry ONLY.
Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.


As I said before, you cannot control the other guy's actions, only your own. That may have been Germany and Russia's cause to attack (or whatever you believe it was), but that was not what caused the allies to allow it to happen. The Allies' (as they later were known) militaries were in a state of slump, and everyone was so scared of war that Hitler knew they would let him do whatever he wanted until it was too late. If the allies were not so darned afraid of war and stood up for themselves and each other, WWII would never have happened.
We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.


Unthinkable? lol The charade that is the EU will only last so long before weaker members are fed up with being exploited by more influential members

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/cf/showmap.cfm?keyID=5&nationID=11,1,27,28,17,2,16,18,13,32,6,3,4,22,7,8,20,21,9,23,24,12,19,29,26,25,5,14,10,30,15,&startdate=2010.06&enddate=2010.06) Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?



or until a foreign war comes to their turf and the member states disagree as to where they stand.
I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?



You see, that is really funny. A war is a historical event where two sides clearly state their reasons, so you can point to many instances of war, but there not being a war (ei Peace) is a non-event where no one gives a reason, and therefore impossible to pull up provable, concrete examples. I will put it like this though, every period of peace a country or people have ever enjoyed is must likely due to military readiness. The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)


The fact that Europe is not filled with war now for instance.

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?


Fine, the lack of reliable, scientific sources that it WOULD vanish permanently from this earth. I have yet to see one.
That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.


lol, you like to assume much, don't you my friend?
In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.


lmao, do you really believe that?
Believe? I know it.

P.S. It's spelt "bollocks"

[Hax]

You have collectively murdered 6 mil Jews and 20 mil Rus civs? No, a guy named Hitler did, and the only guilt the rest of Europe should feel is that their countries were not ready for the threat. Seriously, quit it with the guilt stuff! How many Jews have you personally gassed Hax? How many did you support being gassed? How many did you allow to be gassed? How many did you want gassed? I guarantee you that the answer to all those questions is 0. You have no reason what so ever to feel guilty. Would you feel guilty if you have never in action or thought committed any sexual crime against anyone, but you found out that your grandfather was a rapist? Of course not, that was not your fault, it was out of your control, and you have no reason to feel guilty. Guilt is not healthy for anyone. Yes, you can look back on history and use it to avoid making mistakes, but to feel 'collective guilt' is plain BS.

No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

[Subotan]

Vuk, you are clearly forgetting that this is no longer the McCarthyist age. Shoving people away or kicking them out of the country just won't work anymore. Look at the possibilities we have, look at what's been happening in Egypt and Tunisia. The world isn't so black and white as we made it out to be half a millennium ago. Since you're not European, you clearly don't know what it's like to live over here. How many languages do you know, for starters? How many did you have to learn in school?

In the Netherlands, we learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. Those are obligatory. We have to continually deal with people here, we can't just bomb them, take the plane home, pat eachother on the back and say "well there's a job done good, Jethro, see ya at the pub at 8". The fact that we're surrounded by so many of our neighbours which have, throughout the hundreds of years declared war against eachother has led us to realise something: war is bad. Y'know, it's not because we're "weak" or "psychologically unfit for battle", it's because we have collectively murdered 6 million Jews, 20 million Russian civilians and soldiers and who knows how many others.
Hax rides to the intellectual rescue again!

[Husar]

Wrong, that apocalyptic nonesense was invented to scare children. A nuclear war would NOT mean the end of humanity. Heck, we got things a lot better than nukes now. They are only mentioned as a scare tactic. (And to be honest, it literally may help our war effort if the likes of New York City, Chicago, and Miami are nuked. I don't think I would mind that too much. :P)

I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?


lol, first of all, don't get me started on France. Second of all, war is only being prevented temporarily through the military readiness of countries outside of Europe. That will not last forever.

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?


Israel is a state that was founded by violence and terrorism, and is now the constant victim of violence and terrorism. It actually is a very good example. If it was not for the military readiness of Israel, it would NOT exist! Every Jew in Israel would be beheaded! They survive only because of their military readiness.

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.


You don't understand Americans.
And you don't understand Europeans, at all.


Do you have a Wikileak detailing plans by France to annex the left bank of the Rhine?
"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"

[Brenus]

“Training and military discipline is not harsh enough to prepare citizens for war, and European society makes preparing them for war even harder.”
Funny enough it is what I was thinking of the US and their over weighted population.

[Noncommunist]

Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.


We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war?


Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?"

Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.

[Subotan]

"France's plans to annex the West Bank revealed?"
Hahahaha this genuinely made me lol :D


Europe is also about twice the population of the US as well.
2/3rds actually, but I get your point. Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.


How would you have controlled nationalism in Germany short of splitting it into several nations and having a near permanent standing foreign militaries on both sides of the border like in the cold war? .
I didn't say it would be easy, and I'm far too drunk at this moment in time to lay down any specifics about what might have been done. If you remind me, I'll catch you up on that.


Well, I'd imagine that the US and Russian Armies at the border helped a lot.
I do not think so. Europeans in general have realised that inter-European war is pointless and only brings pain. Even if the Russkies and the Americans had withdrawn, we still would have built the European Union without them.

[Vuk]

Thing is, Vuk claimed we were gun shy, which surely cannot be the case if we have such a large military.


Being gun shy is not the absence of guns, but the unwillingness to use them. (see martial arts example)



I didn't say we'd all be wiped out, but I live in a city, what's the point in preparing to be a good soldier if I'm the first to die before we even know it's war anyway?

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Russia knows that if it attacks Europe it will have the US to worry about, so they would probably take out just a few European cities to scare the European populace, and then use the rest on America. They would be a scare tactic, but do very little real damage to the European war effort in the scheme of things. Also, Russia lacks good delivery systems, so with any type of missile defense system, they would probably be limited to only hitting cities on the borders.

Please explain how the readiness of countries outside of Europe prevents war inside Europe?
Why don't those ready countries prevent war in Africa?

Africa is not important enough to the US or Russia. Europe is important to Russia, and therefore it is important to America that Europe does not fall into Russian hands. (Europe is our foothold on the continent if you will) If an analogy would help, think of it like this: America and Russia are two big dogs, and Europe is the little scrap of meat that they fight over.

Except you claimed earlier that this readiness is the only way to get peace, yet they are still under attack from many paramilitary and terrorist groups from the neighboring countries. Such a threat doesn't really exist in Europe, the Netherlands aren't under a constant siege from their neighbors and nobody supports armed groups that keep bombing the dutch people.

Some times you need war to end war. Radical islam is a disease that eats away at the fabric of society, and it will not stop unless they are completely destroyed by allied powers...something that so far Americans and Euroswieners seem unwilling to do.



No, I may have not had a personal hand in what Jew was killed, I may not have shot a Russian soldier, and I did not execute Sophie and Hans Scholl, however, since the advent of the industrial age, the concept of nationalism and the start of the colonisation, Europe had been poised for a large-scale conflict that would leave an imprint that would be felt for many generations. And no, guilt is not the right way to explain what we should feel, but I'd rather call it awareness. With everything we do, speaking in political terms, we should be aware of the effects nationalism had on Europe and how easy we all slipped into something that destroys the very essence of our humanity.

Thus, YOU have not killed such and such people. Modern Europeans have not either. Definitely, look back on history to learn how to avoid mistakes, but don't take on the guilt of others was my point. Personally I think that you are looking back at history and coming to the wrong conclusions, but whatever.


Who cares about how the citizenry act in wars? Also, your comments suggesting that Europe is "gun-shy" are kinda blown to bits by the fact that we collectively have a larger army than you.

Not really. When I say gun-shy, I mean afraid to use a gun and ESP afraid to stand up against one, not to own one. Like in my martial arts analogy, I know people who have all the skills in the world, but who clam up when it comes to a fight, and then get the blood beaten out of them.

We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.

BS

This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/cf/showmap.cfm?keyID=5&nationID=11,1,27,28,17,2,16,18,13,32,6,3,4,22,7,8,20,21,9,23,24,12,19,29,26,25,5,14,10,30,15,&startdate=2010.06&enddate=2010.06) Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?

Are you saying that France is not economically exploiting the rest of Europe then?


I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Maybe. How is this for a scenario. NK (north korea) goes to war with US. US goes to war with NK. China goes to war with US. Germany and Britain join US. Russia takes advantage of the situation and invades Poland. Germany declares war on Russia. France joins Russia. WWIII. Will it happen? I have no idea. It could though, and it is probably as likely to as to not. No one thought WWI was going to happen when it did. No one thought that WWII would either.

Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)

Being aggressive and being defensive are two different things that I think you have a hard time differentiating. Hitler was aggressive. The USSR was aggressive. Through most of its history the US has been defensive. In the last century Britain has been mostly defensive.

Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

I never said that. Through the military readiness of the US and the USSR. Russia wanting the juicy scrap of meat that is Europe, and America trying to keep it out of Russia's hands. Military readiness is not the same as military suspicion BTW. Why do you deliberately use negative words like that?

That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.

Someone is condescending. Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

Believe? I know it.

Cause you teacha told ya so?


Hitler personally killed six million people did he then ???? I think you might find that apart from WW1 he prob never killed anyone himself. Hitler did however preside over a vile regime with people who think war solves things, collective resposibility is a legitimate tack for the german people of the day because of the crimes committed against all humanity.
Having a society reject aggressive militarism is something to be cherished.
I never said he directly killed him. What I said is that it was Hitler who killed them (indirectly as it were) generations ago, and the last three generations could not possibly be held responsible.
The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems. It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war. Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess. No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

[CBR]

Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?
Well... fear, suspicion and large armies kept the peace in 1914 did it not?...oh wait.

[Megas Methuselah]

Hey, remember Phillip? He took ideas from Epaminondas and ran with them. Well, I'm Epaminondas. It's amusing. Vuk is as European as they come, man. How the hell does he even scrape by the time to post all this jazz? I thought he worked full-time at Arby's?

[Fragony]

@Vuk, who knows maybe you are right and Americans are better fit for war, but how would you know it never reached America. Let's say North-Korea invades you, if they are as nasty to your civilians as they are to their own you are very lucky, it will completely shake up a population that never imagined such a thing being possible. In area's uncontrolled by North-Korea there will be martial law, there won't be enough food and there will be riots, the American army will inevitably kill American citizens, are you really ready for that? Ready to pick up what you can and flee your house? How would you know you are, just a hunch? The most dangerous people in the world live in Eastern Europe in the Balkans, they know about all that, there's not a generation that hasn't seen it there. Europeans are not weak, we have about the same capacity for war, but militarism makes us really nervous. I live near a barracks and a military airport, never see someone in uniform, it's invisable. But it's there

[Centurion1]

well thats a sort of silly example frags. i mean lol. their fleet is so rusty it would sink on the way over.

but what is vuk is saying used to be true say.... around ww1 and ww2 as well as earlier that americans were better for conscription troops than most western europeans. in that time in americas history before the urbanization movements many more of our citizens were apt to use weapons and military lifestyle from the life we led. no i feel besides the soutth (where we draw the majority of our troops) this is no longer the case. now i would say americans are more nationalistic and patriotic (for wars) than the average european but give the european a legitimate threat to his security and he can fight as well as anyone.

[Fragony]

Not so silly, the scenario has been simulated over and over and North-Korea won every time, they can't beat you but neither can you beat them.

Not saying that Vuk is wrong, I simply don't know. What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm wondering if Vuk or anyone else can provide any evidence that European soldiers would fold in the way that he is claiming. I would think the results of war games would be the only semi-reliable way to gauge such things.

Surely Germany, France, or any other nation would fear war with America on a macro level for macro reasons, but is there any factual basis for the claim that, say, a battalion of Marines would crush a battalion of Fallschirmjäger? Would 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment of the 1st Armored Division running Abrams rout PanzerLehr Battalion 93 of 1st Panzer Division running Leopard 2's? I've read the after action reports from the last time Americans were obliged to actually fight Germans and it was in fact the latter who were left decidedly unimpressed with tactical performace of the former.

Don't get me wrong, I love the American military. It is certainly the most technologically advanced in the world (we've paid for it!), but it is also manned by some of the best citizens America has to offer - which is far more important than tech. However, this kind of hubris is dangerous and is exactly what the Pentagon has tried to tamp down after the 1st Gulf War. Americans haven't fought a competent enemy in a long time.

[Husar]

What I do think is that being overly confident is like the oak that snaps in a storm instead of bending a little

Ah yes, like all the people chanting "Christmas in Paris" or "Christmas in Berlin" when they entered the cattle wagons that brought them to the front and then ended up crying and peeing in their pants in a trench.
Such is the value of being ready and willing to go to war.


Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.

How about you get real and tell us what good it does Russia to invade Europe in the first place?
What do we have that they can't get much easier through peaceful means while they collect all our money by selling us gas?

[gaelic cowboy]

The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems.

Think about what your saying here Vuk, you are trying to claim that a generic trait common to all people is specific to European people. Cooporatation is far more common to the human condition that you give credit for, I am glad I don't actually live in your imagined absolutist world.


It defeated Hitler, and if Europeans were not so gun-shy and passionate on avoiding war, they would have stopped Hitler before he became a threat. The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war.

Amazing lack of either historical perspective or even just common sense here.


Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess.


No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.

I suppose it had nothing to do with the fact the depression had hit Europe badly and the various economies could not afford a war, most were not capable of mobilising early or properly enough for war cos they were economically weak. Also pretty much all the material I have ever read says that everyone believed the war was coming but each side was trying to delay till it would be advantageous for them.

You have a real John Wayne complex Vuk, A mans gotta do what mans gotta do and all that silly rubbish, you do realise the West was actually won by shopkeepers right.

Also I just realised 7 pages for a thread that pretty much was debunked on page one.

[Fragony]

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

edit, and leaders were cowards, taking the Netherlands wasn't as fun as the Germans expected it to be it cost them dearly , but the leaders pretty much surrendered before the invasion

[gaelic cowboy]

Vuk is wrong about Europeans but going to defend him anyway, when you strip it it's about resolve, and that can be cultural. Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross. Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

[Fragony]

No it cannot be defended not in the terms that he see's it, plus kamikazi and jihadi tactics are born out of desperation not superior cultural mores.

Vuk see's european pacifism as basically suspect, just because people do not like the idea of messing about in foreign climes with young mens lives does not mean they will demand surrender upon invasion by mythical alien hordes.

He's wrong about how hard Europeans will fight when needed, but a a place having a pacifist culture has never been that much of an argument to anyone. Goes back as far as you want to date it, Alexander of Macedon was disgusted by the decadence that comes from pacifism, he thought of it as a maelstrom of corruption

[CBR]

Why wouldn't there be a difference between the quite militarist USA and the more pacifist(oh so lol@that by the way) Europe
Maybe there is a difference, but when one looks at say early 50's and mid/late 60's I would say Americans don't like long wars with no clear purpose. And why should they?

[Centurion1]

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

[Greyblades]

That is true, without backing from china or russia north korea would fall in battle quickly.
The problem comes when the population turns to gureilla tactics, seeing as they are 10 times more fanatical about obeying thier "glorious leader" than anyone else on this earth I think they would become a worse problem to an invading army than the taliban or the viet cong.

[Fragony]

north korean military would certainly get their @@@@@ raped by the us military pardon my prison french. that has never been DISPROVEN frags.

They haven't tried, but I'm not kidding the scenario of a Nort Korean attack has been simulated many times and you lose, how would you stop such a tip of the spear. You don't really like South Koreans that much youknow

[Greyblades]

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

[gaelic cowboy]

Realy. I guess it depends on the defenition of winning. Getting the north koreans to surrender and bow thier heads to the US? Impossible. But just being able to hold them at the border long enough for thier economy and society to collapse due to attrition there by forcing them to sue for peace just to keep from revolt? I think that is a possible win.

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

[Fragony]

I think what Frags is referring to is the senario whereby the North would in the early stages of the war cruise well down the peninsula at first. The amount of troops required to hold the shear mass of Koreans would need to be far higher, USA war games have borne that out on several occasions.

The US would sacrifice territory for time to allow it's fleet time to unload more troops and jets.

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

[gaelic cowboy]

Well yeah. But to take it to Vuk, how resolved do you think you will be, I'm pretty sure I'm a coward when things go wrong

I don't understand what your talking about here frag, do you mean if the enemy invaded would I resist??? How would I know that really, I mean every situation is different.

I might take to the hills like my grandfather and engage the enemy IRA Flying Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_column)style, but equally I might wait a while till the enemy drew down from aggressive operations so that my actions have better chance of succeeding. I might decide to engage in peaceful protest or anarchic street protest who knows the idea is hypothetical we can never know.

[Fragony]

nono that's all on me, I wouldn't be a hero I think. Not nasty either but certainly not heroic

[Louis VI the Fat]

IF THERE WOULD BE WAR I WOULD BEAT ALL OF YOU GIRLS YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ON ME

[gaelic cowboy]

All YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LOUIS

[Boohugh]

Take Japanese kamikazi's or jihadists, a point of no return a western won't soon cross.

It is unlikely the West will adopt those sort of suicide tactics no, but then we don't need to to achieve out tactical and strategic objectives. An incident just the other day (http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12293105) proves that Western European soldiers are willing to get themselves killed if they think it will achieve other objectives (namely helping his mates).

I find is quite amusing and, at the same time, rather depressing that almost everyone in this thread has failed to acknowledge the work Western European soldiers are doing in Afghanistan. A friend of mine was pictured in the Daily Telegraph a couple of weeks ago because he was part of a bomb disposal team that defused a record number of IED's in 1 operation, but I guess he doesn't have any courage or fighting spirit to do that stuff because he's Western European, right?

Vuk, if you want to talk about the resolve of Western European soldiers just take a few minutes to think about all the ones that are giving their lives and performing heroic deeds every single day that you never hear about for what is, basically, a US war.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LOUISI like where this thread is going! Reason at last!

Once the world has surrendered to my invincible manliness and record-breaking testosterone levels, I shall make you king of Ireland. And viceroy of the two Americas, on which a feudal system shall be imposed by elevating all Irish Americans to nobility. And you'll be governor-general of England, which shall be mercilessly exploited as a colony of Cork.

[Greyblades]

Gee thanks louis, the one place where gaelic would willingly go all hitler on and you will make him governer.

[Fisherking]

Vuk, if you want to talk about the resolve of Western European soldiers just take a few minutes to think about all the ones that are giving their lives and performing heroic deeds every single day that you never hear about for what is, basically, a US war.


Which was a point I tried to bring up earlier.

US news seldom covers any topic other than their own viewpoint and how it effect them. Leaving them rather insulated from a clear picture of how things really are.

Most countries are guilty of this to some extent but not quite at those levels.

[Brenus]

Vuk’s military Analyse is based on sheer prejudices.

When arguing about history he failed to understand that all the European existing countries showed a great resilience in the past. If not, they vanished in the mist.
WW2 is the last major conflict in Europe. Can we tell Vuk that the British and Allies (excluding USA at this date) pilots were quite resilient and never show this “coward ness” nor the Polish, French, Yugoslav, Dutch, Italians and others partisans fighting the Nazi War Machine at a very heavy cost (100 hostage for 1 German killed and 50 for 1 injured) and for a lot the them death camps and Night and Fog operation.
Nor the German soldiers failed to defend their country until the very last moment…

So, Vuk, where in History Europeans show pacifism so big that they surrendered without a fight… Well, seeing your level in history I am quite sure of your answer…:laugh4:

By the way, do you really think that without the Italians Rommel would have succeeded so well in Africa?
Look at the Italian Tanks specifications: Just to climb in it what an act of heroism…

Now, I was a volunteer in the French Army, professional soldier for 5 years. We are few in the Org. members who made this choice and some are still in the Forces.

Vuk, until you give a precise and detailed study about the methods of training showing the superiority of the USA system.

To doubt of the determination and courage my comrades in arms is outrageous.
I trained as paratrooper I was 18.
Not for the efficiency of nowadays paratroopers but to cross the door is still an experiment…
Then I went for a NCO training school. Starting as greenies with a platoon of 36 we were 15 at this end of a year of training and on these 15 only 5 were graduated at the last 3 weeks for the Pre-Selection for Special Forces.
We were aggressive, sure of our professionalism and our abilities to fight, we were arrogant and proud.
Until you go for it, you can’t understand.
I don’t doubt it is the same process in each European army and in the US.

Your so-called analyse in based on nothing real. Just wind created by your imagination with no roots in the reality.

And the better use for an Army is when it is not needed. Yes, it was frustrating when I was 20, to be trained and never to do the job you are ready for. BUT it was better for my country and her neighbours…

Europe probably forgot more about wars then you will ever learn.

Louis, can I be the Marquis de La Nouvelle Orléans, Comte de Baton Rouge et Governeur (plenipotentiaire) de la Nouvelle France et Arcadie? Please...

[Vuk]

Which was a point I tried to bring up earlier.

US news seldom covers any topic other than their own viewpoint and how it effect them. Leaving them rather insulated from a clear picture of how things really are.

Most countries are guilty of this to some extent but not quite at those levels.

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.


Vuk’s military Analyse is based on sheer prejudices.

When arguing about history he failed to understand that all the European existing countries showed a great resilience in the past. If not, they vanished in the mist.
WW2 is the last major conflict in Europe. Can we tell Vuk that the British and Allies (excluding USA at this date) pilots were quite resilient and never show this “coward ness” nor the Polish, French, Yugoslav, Dutch, Italians and others partisans fighting the Nazi War Machine at a very heavy cost (100 hostage for 1 German killed and 50 for 1 injured) and for a lot the them death camps and Night and Fog operation.
Nor the German soldiers failed to defend their country until the very last moment…

So, Vuk, where in History Europeans show pacifism so big that they surrendered without a fight… Well, seeing your level in history I am quite sure of your answer…:laugh4:

By the way, do you really think that without the Italians Rommel would have succeeded so well in Africa?
Look at the Italian Tanks specifications: Just to climb in it what an act of heroism…

Now, I was a volunteer in the French Army, professional soldier for 5 years. We are few in the Org. members who made this choice and some are still in the Forces.

Vuk, until you give a precise and detailed study about the methods of training showing the superiority of the USA system.

To doubt of the determination and courage my comrades in arms is outrageous.
I trained as paratrooper I was 18.
Not for the efficiency of nowadays paratroopers but to cross the door is still an experiment…
Then I went for a NCO training school. Starting as greenies with a platoon of 36 we were 15 at this end of a year of training and on these 15 only 5 were graduated at the last 3 weeks for the Pre-Selection for Special Forces.
We were aggressive, sure of our professionalism and our abilities to fight, we were arrogant and proud.
Until you go for it, you can’t understand.
I don’t doubt it is the same process in each European army and in the US.

Your so-called analyse in based on nothing real. Just wind created by your imagination with no roots in the reality.

And the better use for an Army is when it is not needed. Yes, it was frustrating when I was 20, to be trained and never to do the job you are ready for. BUT it was better for my country and her neighbours…

Europe probably forgot more about wars then you will ever learn.

Louis, can I be the Marquis de La Nouvelle Orléans, Comte de Baton Rouge et Governeur (plenipotentiaire) de la Nouvelle France et Arcadie? Please...

Again, you miss my point. The Euros of today are NOT the Euros of yesterday. Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever.

I got homework to do now, so I am afraid that I will have to leave this discussion for a while.

[Greyblades]

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

People will do amazing things when it's their homes on the line. Just because we dont want to die in a ditch in the bog end of afghanistan for americans (I'm assuming this is why you came to this conclusion) doesn't mean we wont fight to the death to defend ourselves.

[Vuk]

People will do amazing things when it's their homes on the line. Just because we dont want to die in a ditch in the bog end of afghanistan for americans (I'm assuming this is why you came to this conclusion) doesn't mean we wont fight to the death to defend ourselves.

What if the preservation of your country requires you fighting an enemy on foreign soil? What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?

[Husar]

IF THERE WOULD BE WAR I WOULD BEAT ALL OF YOU GIRLS YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ON ME

You can't use would, should or could in an if-sentence, try again please. ~;)



I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

What determined attack? Who would be determined to attack us because of all our oil and other natural ressources?

[Centurion1]

vuk you have no right to say anything you are not in the armed forces nor will you ever be. so for you to say you are superior and your nation produces superior citizens is simply ridiculous.

[Subotan]

Not really. When I say gun-shy, I mean afraid to use a gun and ESP afraid to stand up against one, not to own one. Like in my martial arts analogy, I know people who have all the skills in the world, but who clam up when it comes to a fight, and then get the blood beaten out of them.
Western European citizens dislike guns because they see them (other than for sport) as solely instruments of harm, and not something which would be effective for use in personal or national defence, ever. We are completely realistic about firearms, and realise that your Glock is pretty useless in the face of an invasion or a nuclear strike or whatever. It has nothing to do with a "degraded society".


We could have controlled nationalism in Germany, had the nationalism unleashed by WWI been effectively kept in check by the LoN, and the countries had been linked together economically. Of course that's naturally a what-if scenario, but given it's success post-WWII, I have every reason to have faith that such a system would have prevented another continental war.


BS

Then why did it work after the Second World War? It wasn't because there were foreign troops on German soil; Germans recognised that the Second World War's genesis lay in nationalism, as did the rest of Europe.


This statement reveals that you don't actually know anything about the EU at all. The smaller and weaker members like the EU! (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/cf/showmap.cfm?keyID=5&nationID=11,1,27,28,17,2,16,18,13,32,6,3,4,22,7,8,20,21,9,23,24,12,19,29,26,25,5,14,10,30,15,&startdate=2010.06&enddate=2010.06) Where is the exploitation you talk about? Is South Carolina going to secede all over again because it's "fed up" with being exploited by California and Texas?


Are you saying that France is not economically exploiting the rest of Europe then?

Of course not. Sure, CAP is a pain in the butt (A cap in the ass?), but everyone in Europe benefits from the EU.


I repeat; who is going to invade our turf? Russia?

Maybe. How is this for a scenario. NK (north korea) goes to war with US. US goes to war with NK. China goes to war with US. Germany and Britain join US. Russia takes advantage of the situation and invades Poland. Germany declares war on Russia. France joins Russia. WWIII. Will it happen? I have no idea. It could though, and it is probably as likely to as to not. No one thought WWI was going to happen when it did. No one thought that WWII would either.
And I presume later the Martians will team up with Brazil and invade the Congo, causing the Central African Republic to declare war on Australia to seize the key resources of uranium in the Outback? Your "scenario" veers into the nigh-impossible at the bolded text and goes absolutely off the wall with the underlined text.


Ok sure, I was asking you to provide the unprovable. But militaristic societies are definitely more aggressive and more prone to starting wars - Japan is a good example of this. Used to be aggressive, started loads of wars, now is as pacifist as a monk, too pacifist even (Given that there is a crazy neighbour next door; a problem that does not exist in Europe.)


Being aggressive and being defensive are two different things that I think you have a hard time differentiating. Hitler was aggressive. The USSR was aggressive. Through most of its history the US has been defensive. In the last century Britain has been mostly defensive.
That you are trying to reduce incredibly complicated foreign policies and states of society into single-word definitions that are essentially synonyms of "BAD" and "GOOD" is staggering. This isn't analysis, it's lazy generalisation.



Are you trolling me? Or do you seriously believe that the peace in Europe is maintained through constant military suspicion of one another?

I never said that. Through the military readiness of the US and the USSR. Russia wanting the juicy scrap of meat that is Europe, and America trying to keep it out of Russia's hands. Military readiness is not the same as military suspicion BTW. Why do you deliberately use negative words like that?

As I said before, the EU would have been forged even without the Cold War. And for god's sake man, read the Long Telegram (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Long_Telegram) before forming an opinion of the USSR's foreign policy, please.


That's such a completely ignorant and worthless opinion that it's not worth contesting. It is self-evidently wrong.


Someone is condescending. Actually Sub, I hate to break it to you, but the fairy tale of nuclear apocalypse is just that...a fairy tale. What good does it do Russia to nuke Europe into a desert? Nothing. Russia would only gain something by conquering and occupying Europe. Also, if there is non-lethal, but dangerous nuclear fall-out blowing everywhere, how would they move their own (limited) troops in to occupy Europe and mop up? Get real.
That doesn't even make any sense! WHY, WHY would Russia invade Europe? Russia is already struggling to contain the nationalism of a few crazy dirt farming Islamists in Chechnya; why would they only worsen those nationalists tensions by attempting to ANNEX Europe? International relations is a tad more complicated IRL than in TW y'know.

And you remind me of what Mao Zedong said about nuclear war:

"AMONG historians who think Mao Zedong was mad as well as bad, it is common to cite his stated belief that proper revolutionaries should not fear nuclear war. The Chinese leader memorably shared this view with a 1957 gathering of world communist bosses in Moscow, alarming even that grisly assembly of toughs and killers. True, between a third and a half of the world’s population might be killed in a nuclear conflagration, Mao breezily predicted. But with most survivors living in the socialist block, “imperialism would be razed to the ground”, and the world would belong to the Reds."

http://www.economist.com/node/17573255




Believe? I know it.

Cause you teacha told ya so?
No, the EU isn't taught at all in schools over here. But nationalism is something we are collectively extremely wary of; if someone waves a Union Flag outside his house, people will generally think he's a bit of a nutter.

In contrast, you seem to have absorbed quite a conventional view of the American military and foreign policy. America = the best, Europe = wimps, Russia and China = bad.
I never said he directly killed him. What I said is that it was Hitler who killed them (indirectly as it were) generations ago, and the last three generations could not possibly be held responsible.



The problem is that there will always be people who think that war will get them what they want, and if everyone else is not willing to use their military against them, then they will be right. War DOES solve problems.
"War solves problems" was pretty much the mantra to which blood thirsty nationalists in the former-Yugoslavia "fought" under.

The pansy Europeans of that generation are responsible for every life lost in that war. Unfortunately lots of innocent Americans had to die to help a bunch of ungrateful European cowards clean up their own mess.
This is just wrong, based off wild assumptions and fantasy.

No, I am not of course saying that the European military of that time were cowards (well, other than the Italian ones), but the politicians and cultural leaders were. They led the world into one of the worst wars ever with their cowardice.


Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever
O_O

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not trying to insult those who fight and die for their country, but simply saying that I believe that there are far too few and in between in Western Europe for those countries to hold out against a determined attack.

Funny, because I don't think there's an army in Europe with a recruiting problem, even for their infantry.

Nor are the European ex-soldiers hear knuckleheads, irrc Banquo and Sigurd have both seen some hairy combat, and they're mods and some of the Backroom's finest contributors to boot!

Face it Vuk, you're way off base.

[Fragony]

What if the preservation of your country requires you fighting an enemy on foreign soil? What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?

'We' do, we left you a relatively safe Uruzgan, courtesy if your Dutch and Australian allies. Was considered to be very dangerous

[Greyblades]

What if the preservation of your country requires you to help an ally in a war that you are not involved in?
How are we supposed to help an ally in a war when we are not involved in it?

[Megas Methuselah]

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

[Fragony]

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

We also have prejudices, the psycho American soldier mowing down everything he sees. A military culture is to blame, all Americans adore weapons after all (except New Yorkers they are metropolitans)

Fair game no?

[Husar]

I can't believe you fools are actually taking the guy seriously, man. His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker or a troll. Neither option demands serious attention from us. Roll with it. Just lock the damn thread, man, holy cow.

But we're Europeans, we like the idea of crushing him under our proverbial heels until he weeps for what he said about us. :mellow:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, you miss my point. The Euros of today are NOT the Euros of yesterday. Society (throughout the Western world...including in the US) has degraded to an all time low. I doubt that ever in history were people so useless. History shows that useless citizens don't make good soldiers, and people are more useless now than ever.

Eventually we will all become useless through technology.

[Husar]

Eventually we will all become useless through technology.

Europe will simply field the first soulless cyborg army and then the resolve of our civilization hardly matter. :2thumbsup:
Skynet is British after all. ~;)

EDIT: Looks like the British are already preparing. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349158/Headteacher-told-primary-school-children-World-War-Three-broken-out.html)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Note to all posters:

Civility please, and a dash of decorum would be appreciated.

Analyses/discussion of national character etc. can easily touch on another poster's sense of identity and become offensive even if you did not intend same. Please show some respect.


Regarding the argument:

1. Attempts to link an argument to "culture" can be difficult as the meaning of the term itself is somewhat equivocal. You need to clearly set out the definition of culture that you are using and then keep your arguments therefrom consistent in order to make your point clearly. I believe culture and identity ARE relevant components of the differences in military ability etc., but I don't know that I would make the links quite so directly as some above have done.

2. It becomes rather difficult to assume that the modern Euro approach to militarism is either "good" or "bad." There have been times in history when military force was the correct and/or best response to a situation. There are many times when it has been a poor choice or shown to have been poor in the long run. Is nationalism bad? Yes and no. Again, there are advantages and disadvantages all around.

[Strike For The South]

Can we just lock this thread?

It's clearly nothing but mularkey only serveing to indulege him in some sort of odd interaction, which in real life is clearly denied to him becuase he lacks what momma called "the social graces"

This post will probably earnd me a ban

VIVA THE BOURGEOISIE VIVA THE INTELLECTUAL VIVA THE IVORY TOWER

I regert nothing except the personal attacks weren't harsher and the socialzation more ostracized

[a completely inoffensive name]

Europe will simply field the first soulless cyborg army and then the resolve of our civilization hardly matter. :2thumbsup:
Skynet is British after all. ~;)

EDIT: Looks like the British are already preparing. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349158/Headteacher-told-primary-school-children-World-War-Three-broken-out.html)

Not necessarily cyborgs, just fleets of drones. We are beginning to see drones enter full scale military operations, and I don't think it won't take longer than 25-30 years before fully functional and capable drone tanks are deployed on the battlefield. Foot soldiers might be trickier.

Labor is already obsolete in manufacturing and only slave wages make humans better workers than robots operating 24/7 without any breaks or shifts. Services are constantly consolidating to reduce the expenses of hiring people to do the jobs, and in some cases technology has made some service positions obsolete as well. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IWKkAoxuyog/TLiJbCId_vI/AAAAAAAAAC8/jgUbh8Ulu6s/s1600/bk.jpg)

Efficiency will force us to leave each other behind in the job market.

[Vuk]

Can we just lock this thread?

It's clearly nothing but mularkey only serveing to indulege him in some sort of odd interaction, which in real life is clearly denied to him becuase he lacks what momma called "the social graces"

This post will probably earnd me a ban

VIVA THE BOURGEOISIE VIVA THE INTELLECTUAL VIVA THE IVORY TOWER

I regert nothing except the personal attacks weren't harsher and the socialzation more ostracized

Don't you have better things to do like...I don't know, watching a tree grow or something?

[PanzerJaeger]

His unproven prejudices reek of either an ignorant arby's worker

The correct response to a thread like this is to correct the factual inaccuracies and challenge the underlying assumptions, not mock the poster's occupation.

[Vuk]

The correct response to a thread like this is to correct the factual inaccuracies and challenge the underlying assumptions, not mock the poster's occupation.

Yeah, and it really does not make him look smart when he gets the poster's occupation wrong. :P

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I think Strike's last post was probably a good idea.