Why can't Europe defend itself?

[Kagemusha]

You are talking ancient history now Rory. Europeans used to be tough, hard working people, but that is not the case now.
I already talked about personality and European posters in this thread have just confirmed what I said. Even physically though, when I was in Europe I was shocked by how pathetically weak and unused to any type of manual labour people were. The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.
Try shopping for a shirt in France as an American. The necks on them are all so tiny that your struggle will be just finding one that fits and American neck. :P

Have you ever even been in Europe or are just talking about your imaginative stereotypias concerning Europeans?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Sasaki: you are confusing me. Anyway it's fairly simple:

- If the USA acts in its self interest good. If the USA acts for “the good of the world”, even better.
- Ditto for Europe.
- There's no requirement on either to act for “the good of the world”, so self interest is what you are going to get.
- There's no requirement for Europe to assist the USA or vice versa. So common interest is as much as you can ask for.
- Observably, both the USA and Europe primarily act in their self interest and not for “the good of the world” or even some championed “ideal”. There's always that self-interest,
even if it sometimes is mixed with a genuine belief in ideals.

- The USA has taken the approach of having a worldwide network of military bases to interfere where they want to.
- Europe has taken an approach of bilateral economic ties/strings which can be leveraged after the colonies were dismantled (so military bases were out of the question to begin with). In addition Europe maintains a military of similar technological capabilities as that of the USA, but far smaller in raw numbers. (Incidentally a lot of the USA budget on military expenses ends up in Europe due to the USA's main suppliers of some of the tech being European.)
- Primary threats to Europe are gone, so the cold war style armies are too. We find it saves us a lot of money, and collectively time that we can spend on something worth doing.
- Neither can don the cloak of moral righteousness and expect the world to follow their every word. Neither can intimidate far smaller parties into complying with demands either.
- Apart from that it's laughable that either China or Russia should invade their primary export markets.
- Especially when China and Russia are perfectly content focusing on eroding the power of the USA.

Now tell me where the need for Europe arises to have more of an army? Now tell me how Europe cannot defend itself?

[al Roumi]

Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter.

Do you know something quite fascinating about endurance? In terms of resistance to true hardship, like famine, people with a lower calory intake will out-survive those who require a larger one. A grisly example of this is to be found in this book, where a mother outlived her 20 something boxer son who could simply not get enough food to sustain his athletic and resource hungry body.

Plus, you big oafish americans make larger targets.

[Vladimir]

Europe can defend itself and does. One of the reasons that euro-weenies don't project power is a hangover from empire. One of the consequences of the USA entering WWII was their insistence on the colonial powers dismantling their empires.

You're asking to have it both ways.

Then there's the economic situation at the moment. The difference between Europe and the USA is that our political systems evolved over centuries, whilst the USA got a brand new shiny one from the off. That's why the USA is broadly more right wing than Europe.

As an aside, during the American Revolution, Paul Revere would never have said "The British are coming", as he would have considered himself British. Strange I know to the modern American ear but there we are. Rather he said "The Regulars are out".

The colonialists considered themselves the true heirs of the English Civil War a hundred years earliier.

Makes more sense if you think about it.

I nominate this for the Post of the Thread award.

Oh and:

Quote Originally Posted by Andres View Post

It doesn't matter to you anyway, because you'll burn at the stake tonight for falsely accusing me of having a cellar filled with dishwater "Heineken" (I hope you payed your 75 $ or it'll be the last time you insulted me that way ) When will you learn that "Heineken" is not beer, let alone good beer. My cellar is filled with Ciney, Leffe, Floreffe, Quintine, Kriek Boon, the finest French and Spanish wines, champagne and a delicious bottle of Spumante.



I was offended by this as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@tellos: that's just realpolitik basically? I'm suggesting that sometimes countries should act against selfish interests and act on behalf of other people in the world (and not just through economics). So need and requirement and self defense don't come into it.

Let's drop self interest as a term...it seems like people are using it in the psychological egoism kind of way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

but size does matter.

If you are going to talk stereotypes:

The French by virtue of their small size and excitable nature combined with superior écoles will be excellent military commanders.
The Vikings will provide us with physical fitness the likes of which will make the Americans realise how very fortunate they are that Eric the Red et all kicked the habit.
The Germans will ensure our military machine runs efficiently.
The Italians that we have good food.
Dutch and English will ensure that there is money and weapons for all.

You stand no chance.

Seriously, though: size matters, but you get tall French (I've seen a couple) as well as small Americans. On a population of millions such averages matter little: you simply get to be selective. In fact, on average you'll find the tallest people in Scandinavia and the Netherlands -- but incidentally some of the most aggressively downsized armies are to be found there as well.

[Strike For The South]

Do you really think that strength and physical fitness are not important to combat? Combat tests your body's limits to the max, and the limits of American bodies are a lot higher than that of European bodies. The average European probably could not even carry a wounded comrade off the field.
Just as important is the work on the homefront to support the war effort. Large size and strength is not only a product of hard work, but essential for the type of work that needs to be done in the case of a sustained war.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Americans are tough people who can cope with hardships, but Europeans who do not even work half of the year would shrivel up and die.
I hate hurt your feelings Rory, but size does matter.

Are you drunk?

Did you really just say American bodies are fitter than European ones?

Most Americans can't run 400m much less do anything you just posted. Tough people who can cope with hardships? Most Americans can't get control of there own bodies and waddle around crushing there organs under fat and diabetes.

Most Americans do not take care of there bodies mentally or physically. No attempt is made to learn or excersise simply to wallow.

The fact you actually belive the above post is sad not surprising but sad none the less.

[al Roumi]

Are you drunk?

Did you really just say American bodies are fitter than European ones?

Most Americans can't run 400m much less do anything you just posted. Tough people who can cope with hardships? Most Americans can't get control of there own bodies and waddle around crushing there organs under fat and diabetes.

Most Americans do not take care of there bodies mentally or physically. No attempt is made to learn or excersise simply to wallow.

The fact you actually belive the above post is sad not surprising but sad none the less.

And I thought that was just stereotypes!

[Tellos Athenaios]

@tellos: that's just realpolitik basically? I'm suggesting that sometimes countries should act against selfish interests and act on behalf of other people in the world (and not just through economics). So need and requirement and self defense don't come into it.

Yes fine, and I agree: sometimes countries should show that they, collectively, got something of a “soul” as well as a wallet or a gun.

But a large army doesn't come into it.

[caravel]

This thread is now starting to remind me of one of those "my country's army is better than your country's army" threads that you would expect to see in a gaming forum prior to the launch of the next in the series...

[Strike For The South]

And I thought that was just stereotypes!

You don't know the half of it son. The real kick in the nuts though, is that most still strut around brimming (weezing?) with confidence.

That's what you get when you live in a nation descendant from peasents

[Vladimir]

[off topic]plEASE GOD ANYONE IF YOU'RE READING THIS I NEED A GIRLFRIEND I NEED ONE RIGHT NOW ANY WILL DO I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE

I'd change your signature before Louis sees it.[/off topic]

[al Roumi]

You don't know the half of it son. The real kick in the nuts though, is that most still strut around brimming (weezing?) with confidence.

What is saturated fat?
http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns...ood-revolution

That's what you get when you live in a nation descendant from peasents

I'm afraid I resent this. Peasants are great. They have nice ruddy cheeks and quaint blood feuds. Europe, which as we all know is the pinnacle of civilisation and social progress, is itself based on the ruddy cheeked fellows. Where else do the two pillars of society (cheese and a petty mindset) originate from?

[Kagemusha]

About the size:

Country Average Male Height

Netherlands 182.5 cm
Denmark 181.5 cm
Switzerland 180.5 cm
Germany 180.2 cm
Croatia 180.0 cm
Norway 180.0 cm
Sweden 179.6 cm
Iran 178.7 cm
Austria 178.2 cm
Finland 178.2 cm
Czech Republic 178.0 cm
Romania 178.0 cm
South Africa 177.4 cm
Zimbabwe 177.2 cm
Australia 177.0 cm
Canada 177.0 cm
United Kingdom 177.0 cm
Greece 176.8 cm
France 176.6 cm
Ukraine 176.5 cm
Iraq 176.3 cm
Lebanon 176.2 cm
Ireland 176.1 cm
Zambia 176.0 cm
Russia 175.9 cm
Belgium 175.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm
Uzbekistan 175.4 cm
Poland 175.3 cm
Egypt 175.0 cm
New Zealand 175.0
Senegal 175.0 cm
Portugal 174.6 cm
Saudi Arabia 174.6 cm
Argentina 174.4 cm
Uruguay 174.3 cm
Brazil 174.0 cm
Cuba 174.0 cm
Peru 173.8 cm
Thailand 173.6 cm
Spain 173.4 cm
Korea, South 173.3 cm
Paraguay 173.1 cm
Syria 173.0 cm
Chile 173.0 cm
Morocco 173.0 cm
Turkey 172.5 cm
Tunisia 172.3 cm
Colombia 172.3 cm
Algeria 172.2 cm
Mexico 171.8 cm
Cameroon 171.0 cm
Indonesia 170.0 cm
China 169.7 cm
Pakistan 169.3 cm
Japan 168.3 cm
Mongolia 168.0 cm

So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the size:
France 176.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm

So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?

Actually considering this is over a population of millions with good statistical data, 1.1 cm is a *lot*... It suggests that the French are a lot healthier than the Americans (length is roughly a function of health, especially during childhood) with access to far superior food and living conditions.

[Andres]

If you are going to talk stereotypes:

The French by virtue of their small size and excitable nature combined with superior écoles will be excellent military commanders.
The Vikings will provide us with physical fitness the likes of which will make the Americans realise how very fortunate they are that Eric the Red et all kicked the habit.
The Germans will ensure our military machine runs efficiently.
The Italians that we have good food.
Dutch and English will ensure that there is money and weapons for all.

Belgians will stay home and drink beer to ensure, ehm, things.

[Strike For The South]

What is saturated fat
http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns...ood-revolution

Are you asking me?

I'm afraid I resent this. Peasants are great. They have nice ruddy cheeks and quaint blood feuds. Europe, which as we all know is the pinnacle of civilisation and social progress, is itself based on the ruddy cheeked fellows. Where else do the two pillars of society (cheese and a petty mindset) originate from?

meh

[Fragony]

This thread is now starting to remind me of one of those "my country's army is better than your country's army" threads that you would expect to see in a gaming forum prior to the launch of the next in the series...

Yes but I still think we aproach the concept of war diffently, it's something that comes to you and leaves huge scars to Europeans, aka absolutely and ugly serious business that should never be underestimated. I think the European is much more dangerous, much more hardened, it's in our DNA.

[Andres]

lmao, that is the attitude that I am talking about! If someone does not value Freedom, then they will not fight to keep it.
I hate to break it to you Andres, but that is hardly what most places in the Soviet Bloc looked like. If Russia conquers Europe, it will be to control them and exploit their resources. Life will not longer be a box of chocolates for you as others work and fight so that you can enjoy your Freedom and high-standard of living.

So, you're saying my cellar is filled thanks to your insanely expensive army shooting some starved Arabs in some far away country?

Thank you, Vuk

And I do value freedom, not so sure about Freedom (tm), though.

Also, last time I watched the news, there weren't Russian tanks driving through the streets of Paris or Brussels, so I guess your information about an ongoing Russian invasion is incorrect.

[Andres]

I think the European is much more dangerous, much more hardened, it's in our DNA.

Ah, the Dangerous European. Interesting. I know a Dangerous European. He usually lies dangerously on his sofa, watching television and enjoying beer in a most threatening way.

[gaelic cowboy]

The average person in the US is a LOT more fit, a lot stronger, and a lot better suited to the hardships of enduring a war. The average European is fit for neither combat nor factory work.

not according to your own CDC your not

Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:

Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
For women, the near opposite trend occurred:

Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:

The average weight for a 10 year-old-boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.
The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.
A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.
A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.
According to the report, average heights for children increased as well over the past four decades. For example:

The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.
The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.
In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½".
In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).
Average BMI for children and teens has increased as well:

In 1963, the average BMI for a 7-year-old boy was 15.9; in 2002 it was 17.0. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 15.8 to 16.6 over the same period.
In 1966, the average BMI for a 16-year-old boy was 21.3; in 2002, it was 24.1. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 21.9 to 24.0 over the same period.
The BMI is a single number that evaluates an individual's weight status in relation to height. BMI is generally used as the first indicator in assessing body fat and has been the most common method of tracking weight problems and obesity among adults.

[Sarmatian]

About the size:

Country Average Male Height

Netherlands 182.5 cm


So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?

I refuse to live in a world where Dutch are the tallest. Obviously Serbia is missing from the list, our average height is 198.8 cm

[Sasaki Kojiro]

France 176.6 cm
United States 175.5 cm


So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?

Well of course, if you measure it in centimeters

[CBR]

So it would seem that the French in average are in matter of fact taller then Americans. I wonder what stereotype we should debunk next?

Actually I did think about posting statistics about alcohol and tobacco consumption but why bore people with lots of numbers and stuff... But it would show that only a few European nations smoke more than the Russians and that even the Finns would be envious of the Russian alcohol consumption. I guess the Russian average age for males that has recently been lowered to 62, or was it even down to 60, is a symptom of being strong or something...

Also I don't understand the obsession with physical strength in a "sustained war". For conventional wars it is either a short war, where what you have right here and now that matters, or it is a long one where population size and industrial output that matters.

[gaelic cowboy]

Weak, both mentally and physically. How can a people who hate themselves and despise the idea of defending themselves ever stop a serious invasion? Russia won't have to nuke Europe into a waste land, it only has to threaten Europe and make a few examples, and I guarantee you that most of Europe would surrender. After that, Europe becomes part of the new Bloc, and can only buy Russian goods.

Your serious about this guff right Russia has not a hope of conquering Europe.

Russia would seem to go well early on but thats because the terrain is flat and ideal for invasion in Eastern Europe but the more southerly sector would present a far more easily defendable frontier for European armies. This would send Russian forces into a drive through Germany as they would follow the easiest terrain for there armour but then Britain could act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier to hit back with airpower at the Russian rear. Finally France and Spain would then push into Western Germany to meet the invasion while Russia would have to divide its forces to ensure Scandinavian forces did not sweep into Finland and threaten Russian baltic ports.

I would lay a hundred at the bookies that a straight fight just between either France or Britain against Russia would end with Russian defeat.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes fine, and I agree: sometimes countries should show that they, collectively, got something of a “soul” as well as a wallet or a gun.

But a large army doesn't come into it.

Doesn't military force come into it sometimes? In the case of south korea as mentioned. I lack knowledge needed to say anything about other countries...but it is a potential at least in other places.

So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.

[Andres]

So it looks so far like Shibumi had it right, that Europe lets the USA pay for the policing, and spends their money on themselves.

Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary

Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe Europe thinks policing isn't necessary

Or maybe they think policing by using a big, expensive army and constantly sending it to expensive armed conflicts isn't the way to go

Why do they think that? Sticking with south korea as my example...is policing necessary there? It seems so.

Now, I think the EU has more soldiers than the US, so perhaps we can ignore the part about "big army". Then we have two more questions...

1) is an expensive army with aircraft carriers and submarines and innovative weapons important? I think part of the use of innovation is that it allows for attacks that kill fewer civilians. I don't have much military knowledge though...

2) are expensive armed conflicts the way to go? I guess, in other words, is the afghanistan war a good war to be fighting. Probably beyond the scope of the thread...

But Shibumi's suggestion still seems very possible. I think we would have to take a close look at all the countries in the world and see which have (or had, or might have...) military dictator types that would attack their neighbors and possibly commit genocides.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Doesn't military force come into it sometimes?

'Course. Does that mean you need to maintain an overly large army? No.

[Andres]

I think visiting some cemeteries in Europe would explain why we're not so keen on waging war anymore far better than a long post written by me, Sasaki.

When is a regime bad enough that war is a better option?

How about the possiblity that Europe actually learned something from those two major conflicts that destroyed our continent and made countless Europeans, soldiers and civilians, suffer? Not so long ago, we were all at each other's throats, killing and destroying each other. Maybe, just maybe, we euro weenie pacifists afraid of policing the world by force, have been doing something right the last few decades? The mere fact that you, an American, are now talking about "Europe" and "Europeans" says a lot more than you can possibly imagine. Apparently, people who were murdering each other as a hobby not longer than 65 years ago, are, in the world outside Europe, seen as a homogeneous group.