Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[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:

[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 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:


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/rol...e-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?

[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?

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?