Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Kagemusha]

They have a meal ticket, Their homeland is as good as gone to them.

You sure seem to be the expert. For example my country evades about half of the asylum seekers. The problem is just we have already had seven times the number seeking asylum compared to last year, most from Syria and Iraq. Now, now what could be the reason for it??

But isnt it just lot more easy to lump all Europe as one blob. Sure makes things more easy. Can i ask you what do you think about the latin immigrants coming to US?

[Strike For The South]

You sure seem to be the expert. For example my country evades about half of the asylum seekers. The problem is just we have already had seven times the number seeking asylum compared to last year, most from Syria and Iraq. Now, now what could be the reason for it??

The reason is Merkel opened the borders and tried to give them out to the member countries one by one. These wars didn't just start, you silly goose.

But let me indulge the Polish mans fantasy.

First, let us assume we have the funding for such an endeavor. Let us just assume we have an unlimited money pie. First you have to get these guys up to a level of physical conditioning. To do properly, that will take about three months. Then you have to train in certain specialties at minimum three months. That's six months, who knows where we will be in 6 months.

The EU would also have to cooperate on this. The EU can not cooperate on a damn thing and now general enthusiasm for it is waning. I simply don't see the member states coming together to do anything, try as Merkel might to make them.

So let's assume we have the money, the patience, and the cooperation. It's a PR nightmare. Some effeminate urban faux intellectual will eventually come out of *his/her/insert pronoun here* drug induced hedonism to pen a few acerbic paragraphs about how the west is simply using these poor refugees as cannon fodder for whatever imperial goal of the week we currently have.

Whose command would they be under? The EU? American? NATO? Russian? It can't be the arabs, because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that. Our great and wonderful investment would be squandered by general staffs that make WWII Italy look competent.

Other than that, great plan.

And of course, this is assuming you have volunteers. Which you wont because Germany>Syria, thats why these people crossed 26 peaceful countries to get there.

But isnt it just lot more easy to lump all Europe as one blob. Sure makes things more easy. Can i ask you what do you think about the latin immigrants coming to US?

I have no problem with them, growing up in South Texas I am intimately familiar with them. On the whole they tend be hardworking folks who embrace America. I am proud to count them as citizens. Americas greatest strength lies in its immigrants eventually being brought in to in a anglophone cultural fold. I have never said anything different.

[Kagemusha]

The reason is Merkel opened the borders and tried to give them out to the member countries one by one. These wars didn't just start, you silly goose.

But let me indulge the Polish mans fantasy.

First, let us assume we have the funding for such an endeavor. Let us just assume we have an unlimited money pie. First you have to get these guys up to a level of physical conditioning. To do properly, that will take about three months. Then you have to train in certain specialties at minimum three months. That's six months, who knows where we will be in 6 months.

The EU would also have to cooperate on this. The EU can not cooperate on a damn thing and now general enthusiasm for the it is waning. I simply don't see the member states coming together to do anything, try as Merkel might to make them.

So let's assume we have the money, the patience, and the cooperation. It's a PR nightmare. Some effeminate urban faux intellectual will eventually come out of *his/her/insert pronoun here* drug induced hedonism to pen a few acerbic paragraphs about how the west is simply using these poor refugees as cannon fodder for whatever imperial goal of the week we currently have.

Whose command would they be under? The EU? American? NATO? Russian? It can't be the arabs, because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that. Our great and wonderful investment would be squandered by general staffs that make WWII Italy look competent.

Other than that, great plan.

And of course, this is assuming you have volunteers. Which you wont because Germany>Syria, thats why these people crossed 26 peaceful countries to get there.


I have no problem with them, growing up in South Texas I am intimately familiar with them. On the whole they tend be hardworking folks who embrace America. I am proud to count them as citizens. Americas greatest strength lies in its immigrants eventually being brought in to in a anglophone cultural fold. I have never said anything different.

Once again you create nice little scenarios in your small head, but the problem is that you lack any knowledge of the facts to base those scenarios.

Our Asylum seekers come mostly from Russia and Sweden, which allows them to pass against the Schengen deal. So it doesnt have anything to do with Merkel.

Secondly here in Northern and Eastern Europe we already have institutions for giving military training to large number of people annually, which we do. Unlike in your country where few hired service men protect the civilian population who could not protect their lunch box if their life depended on it.

The deploying surely is a problem as long as US keeps supporting Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia. I dont think they would like if some sort of peace would actually happen in Syria, unless of course under regime similar to Isis or Al Qaida.

[Strike For The South]

Once again you create nice little scenarios in your small head, but the problem is that you lack any knowledge of the facts to base those scenarios.

OK

Our Asylum seekers come mostly from Russia and Sweden, which allows them to pass against the Schengen deal. So it doesnt have anything to do with Merkel.

Oh silly me, thinking when you reference asylum seekers in this thread, you mean those from the middle east. Is this supposed to be on of those gotcha moments? Do you really think you have backed me into some sort of corner?

Secondly here in Northern and Eastern Europe we already have institutions for giving military training to large number of people annually, which we do. Unlike in your country where few hired service men protect the civilian population who could not protect their lunch box if their life depended on it.

Training still costs money and time.

If by few hired service men you mean all volunteer force pulled from the citizenry, then yes you are correct. All able bodied American men can be called up in a state of emergency anyway. The conscript armies of Europe rely on American muscle and have since NATO became a thing. I realize Finland is not part of NATO but a Russian attack on Finland (the only real reason Finland would mobilize ever) would effectively trigger the same response.

You also conveniently forget that Europeans are required to do this as a citizen. Are we going to force the refugees to fight for us now? How wonderfully 19th century.

If the best thing you can sling at me is "hurr durr Americans can't protect the food they love so much" than I think we are done discussing anything of merit. You can crawl back inside your bottle and hope your friends don't kill themselves because you people wont see the sun for the next six months.

The deploying surely is a problem as long as US keeps supporting Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia. I dont think they would like if some sort of peace would actually happen in Syria, unless of course under regime similar to Isis or Al Qaida.

What are you talking about? Deploying is a problem because I don't want to see anymore Western lives lost but we can't trust this investment to a home grown general staff. The Saudis and a peaceful Syria have co-exsisted before, it can happen again.

[Montmorency]

Typo: In the previous post where it was stated, "Syria and Iraq" it should have read, "Syria and Egypt"

[Kagemusha]

OK


Oh silly me, thinking when you reference asylum seekers in this thread, you mean those from the middle east. Is this supposed to be on of those gotcha moments? Do you really think you have backed me into some sort of corner?


Training still costs money and time.

If by few hired service men you mean all volunteer force pulled from the citizenry, then yes you are correct. All able bodied American men can be called up in a state of emergency anyway. The conscript armies of Europe rely on American muscle and have since NATO became a thing. I realize Finland is not part of NATO but a Russian attack on Finland (the only real reason Finland would mobilize ever) would effectively trigger the same response.

You also conveniently forget that Europeans are required to do this as a citizen. Are we going to force the refugees to fight for us now? How wonderfully 19th century.

If the best thing you can sling at me is "hurr durr Americans can't protect the food they love so much" than I think we are done discussing anything of merit. You can crawl back inside your bottle and hope your friends don't kill themselves because you people wont see the sun for the next six months.



What are you talking about? Deploying is a problem because I don't want to see anymore Western lives lost but we can't trust this investment to a home grown general staff. The Saudis and a peaceful Syria have co-exsisted before, it can happen again.

You know upkeep in refugee centers cost also time and money. What i mean with deployment problem is that your Saudi friends are supporting the lunatics in Iraq and Syria first place and your politics are large reason this whole mess got started, while your twisted alliances are one key reason why it is so hard to dismantle.

But sorry i forget im talking with all knowing Texan here, who speaks with unlimited knowledge. This just shows that you have nothing else to add rather then trolling. I could tell you where to crawl, but you silly little man with your superiority complex aint worth it.

[Strike For The South]

You know upkeep in refugee centers cost also time and money.

And look how swimmingly thats going!

What i mean with deployment problem is that your Saudi friends are supporting the lunatics in Iraq and Syria first place and your politics are large reason this whole mess got started, whil,e your twisted alliances are one key reason why it is so hard to dismantle.

Right but the fails to address how we train, feed, deploy, and lead this refugee army beyond "well we can't use the Saudis".

But sorry i forget im talking with all knowing Texan here, who speaks with unlimited knowledge. This just shows that you have nothing else to add rather then trolling. I could tell you where to crawl, but you silly little man with your superiority complex aint worth it.

It's been nice talking to you.

[AE Bravo]

Bush was a Texan too. He's probably getting paintings of himself done and smoking cigars with Bandar in the mansion instead of lifting a finger for this mess.

Texans gonna Texan.

[Kagemusha]

It's been nice talking to you.

No, cant really say the same but educating nevertheless.

[Montmorency]

because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that.

This is a somewhat-mistaken preconception. Israel as a geographical and political entity cannot ever be destroyed by any one of its neighbors, and even in combination the level of coordination required given the geographic and institutional boundaries would give even NATO trouble - and this kind of concerted effort would become common knowledge to the world long before the time to strike could arrive. The Yom Kippur war is testament to just how difficult it is. Syria and Iraq vaguely timed military incursions around the same week, merely with the goal of (re)taking strategic terrain in the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Syria was defeated handily, but Egypt at least got as far as the other side of the Suez Canal. This, in other words, was the "debacle" that embarrassed Israel, raised tensions between blocs, and precipitated a land swap favorable to Egypt under the condition that they become a de-facto ally of Israel. That is the worst it ever got for Israel as an established state. The existence of Israel says as much about the Arab militaries as the neutrality of Switzerland says about the Nazi German military.

Finally, consider that Israel's neighbors find it useful as a buffer between each other. Indeed, the only way that Israel could be militarily overrun by anything in the region (given the further assumption that the US and EU have no involvement whatsoever) is if Turkey, Iran, and Egypt were to explicitly organize a Muslim coalition over an extended period of time, developing joint command, communication infrastructure, and logistical and intelligence harmonization such that they would be prepared to sustain massive casualties over many weeks to ensure that entrenched Israeli positions could be overcome with brute force, allowing the forces to break through and reach the major cities of the coast and the center. And then, of course, they have to accomplish a thing that modernity has not had the opportunity to witness the circumstances for: break apart the rump resistance in the hilly Galilee, including fanatical guerrillas and desperate militias.

[Strike For The South]

This is a somewhat-mistaken preconception. Israel as a geographical and political entity cannot ever be destroyed by any one of its neighbors, and even in combination the level of coordination required given the geographic and institutional boundaries would give even NATO trouble - and this kind of concerted effort would become common knowledge to the world long before the time to strike could arrive. The Yom Kippur war is testament to just how difficult it is. Syria and Iraq vaguely timed military incursions around the same week, merely with the goal of (re)taking strategic terrain in the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Syria was defeated handily, but Egypt at least got as far as the other side of the Suez Canal. This, in other words, was the "debacle" that embarrassed Israel, raised tensions between blocs, and precipitated a land swap favorable to Egypt under the condition that they become a de-facto ally of Israel. That is the worst it ever got for Israel as an established state. The existence of Israel says as much about the Arab militaries as the neutrality of Switzerland says about the Nazi German military.

The Germans never made any concerted effort to genocide the Swiss. It's worth remembering that the Swiss allowed their railways and banks to be used by the Germans. I don't like your analogy.

Finally, consider that Israel's neighbors find it useful as a buffer between each other. Indeed, the only way that Israel could be militarily overrun by anything in the region (given the further assumption that the US and EU have no involvement whatsoever) is if Turkey, Iran, and Egypt were to explicitly organize a Muslim coalition over an extended period of time, developing joint command, communication infrastructure, and logistical and intelligence harmonization such that they would be prepared to sustain massive casualties over many weeks to ensure that entrenched Israeli positions could be overcome with brute force, allowing the forces to break through and reach the major cities of the coast and the center. And then, of course, they have to accomplish a thing that modernity has not had the opportunity to witness the circumstances for: break apart the rump resistance in the hilly Galilee, including fanatical guerrillas and desperate militias.

Isreal is only one example.
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

I also encourage you to pick up "Arabs at war" by Pollack, does a much better job than that shorthand article.

[Montmorency]

The Germans never made any concerted effort to genocide the Swiss.

Well, yes, that's the point.

It's worth remembering that the Swiss allowed their railways and banks to be used by the Germans. I don't like your analogy.

Their biggest geographic advantage is also their biggest disadvantage. Even so, troops and war materiel did not pass along those railways in any quantity.

Israel is in an even better position, as where it is not surrounded by desert or mountain, it borders water.