Europeans great allies? Yea not so much

[bub]

But, they weren't in such a position as to take over Europe without a fight. We would have at least tried to protect our interests in Europe had they attacked right after WWII. Furthermore, they exhausted their land. They had countless cities trashed by the Nazis, just like France, and Britain to a certain extent. The USA was the only country without a trashed industry, because we never had to fight anyone on our own soil.

that is true

 

[bub]

I'm a long time advocate of canceling membership to NATO. It isn't worth carrying the Euros anymore. Especially when they are mostly ungrateful. So screw them.

What would you call "being grateful"? Follow you in wars based on lies?

And we've been in Afghanistan since the beginning...we didn't have to wait 2 or 3 years for a Pearl Harbor or a Lusitania to start helping...

 

[PeteEU]

Yeah, it's kind of meant to be insulting. It is in fact true that had the USA not entered WWII, either the Soviets would have won, after taking millions of more casualties, and raping everyone on the way to the English channel, or Hitler would have won. Either way, if America had not stepped in to help, Europe would not be democratic.

Bullcrap. Your very selective in your historical perspective. The Soviets would have lost if it was not for the US and UK providing the Red Army with weapons. The US could not have stayed out of the war for many many reason, and it was only because of the isolationist morons in the US congress that the US did not enter the war earlier. In fact some of those morons were rooting for the freaking Nazies and were never punished for such subversive anti democratic acts.

Like it or not, the US did not win WW2, the allies did. Each ally helped and the total combined force won WW2. If we did not have the industrial might of the US then Europe would have fallen. If we did not have the man power might (and disregard for human beings) of the Soviets, then the Germans would have had many many more men to fight the allies landing on the beaches of Normandy. If we did not have the will power and stubbornness of the Brits, then Europe would have been lost. If we had not had the French resitance then Normandy would have failed. If we did not have Titos partizans, then those hundreds of thousands of German troops would have been moved to the Russian front. If we did not have the commonwealth troops then Egypt would have fallen.

Did US troops have an impact on the fighting it self? Sure, but by the time the US troops entered the war the key battles that started the big Nazi retreat had been fought without them. Stalingrad and El Alamein all happened before any US troops set foot in Europe in a combat way. And the drain on German manpower and resources on the Eastern Front made it possible for the western allies to do things like Italy, Normandy and so on, with minimal casualties.

During the Cold War, I should also point out that the only reason Ivan didn't take Europe was because America, and to a certain extent Britain, had nukes. America also was the only country in the world who could have matched Ivan's industrial output of tanks, guns, and airplanes. Most of the NATO generals, including the SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) were American, and would have stayed American.

Err, it was in the US interest to keep the Russians at bay. And NATO was formed with the specific rule that the military commander had to be American, where as the political leader had to be non American.

About WWI, before we arrived, the battle was a complete stalemate. When we came though, we provided the manpower to breakthrough far enough to force the Germans into a ceasefire.

LOL, again get your school money back. The only thing the US troops provided to WW1 was a moral boost to the allies and a moral break to the axis. The US troops preformed horribly during WW1, with incompetent moronic officers. These officers single handed got American men killed because they refused to listen to the experiences of their allies. Did you know that the American officers insisted on using tactics that the other allies used early in the war and found horribly costly in man power?

We also brought with us military genuise, in the form of General John J. Pershing.

Who was an arrogant jackass. His refusal to listen to his allied peers resulted in the deaths of many many Americans, deaths that could have been avoided.

Last point, during the Second Battle of the Marne, after just arriving, we already controlled 25% of the forces in that battle. FYI, we won that battle, and turned the war around.

Hmm lets see.. The French had 44 divisions, the US had 8 divisions and the Birts 4 and the Italians 2 divisions in the area. Did the US troops help? Sure, but so did the British and Italians, and most of the fighting by a long shot was done by the 44 French Divisions. It was all under a French commander and resulted in that the French head of the Allies went on the offensive and forced the German surrender. So yea, you "controlled 25% of the forces in battle"....... :roll: And the French won the battle, with allied help.

 

[DamnYankee]

What would you call "being grateful"? Follow you in wars based on lies?

And we've been in Afghanistan since the beginning...we didn't have to wait 2 or 3 years for a Pearl Harbor or a Lusitania to start helping...

IMO the UK is the only country in that part of the world we ought to be allies with. As far as NATO is concerned, it isn't worth the cost to the American tax payer.

 

[repeter]

Bullcrap. Your very selective in your historical perspective. The Soviets would have lost if it was not for the US and UK providing the Red Army with weapons. The US could not have stayed out of the war for many many reason, and it was only because of the isolationist morons in the US congress that the US did not enter the war earlier. In fact some of those morons were rooting for the freaking Nazies and were never punished for such subversive anti democratic acts.
Like it or not, the US did not win WW2, the allies did. Each ally helped and the total combined force won WW2. If we did not have the industrial might of the US then Europe would have fallen. If we did not have the man power might (and disregard for human beings) of the Soviets, then the Germans would have had many many more men to fight the allies landing on the beaches of Normandy. If we did not have the will power and stubbornness of the Brits, then Europe would have been lost. If we had not had the French resitance then Normandy would have failed. If we did not have Titos partizans, then those hundreds of thousands of German troops would have been moved to the Russian front. If we did not have the commonwealth troops then Egypt would have fallen.
Did US troops have an impact on the fighting it self? Sure, but by the time the US troops entered the war the key battles that started the big Nazi retreat had been fought without them. Stalingrad and El Alamein all happened before any US troops set foot in Europe in a combat way. And the drain on German manpower and resources on the Eastern Front made it possible for the western allies to do things like Italy, Normandy and so on, with minimal casualties.
Err, it was in the US interest to keep the Russians at bay. And NATO was formed with the specific rule that the military commander had to be American, where as the political leader had to be non American.
LOL, again get your school money back. The only thing the US troops provided to WW1 was a moral boost to the allies and a moral break to the axis. The US troops preformed horribly during WW1, with incompetent moronic officers. These officers single handed got American men killed because they refused to listen to the experiences of their allies. Did you know that the American officers insisted on using tactics that the other allies used early in the war and found horribly costly in man power?
Who was an arrogant jackass. His refusal to listen to his allied peers resulted in the deaths of many many Americans, deaths that could have been avoided.
Hmm lets see.. The French had 44 divisions, the US had 8 divisions and the Birts 4 and the Italians 2 divisions in the area. Did the US troops help? Sure, but so did the British and Italians, and most of the fighting by a long shot was done by the 44 French Divisions. It was all under a French commander and resulted in that the French head of the Allies went on the offensive and forced the German surrender. So yea, you "controlled 25% of the forces in battle"....... :roll: And the French won the battle, with allied help.

Exactly what i said. IF the USA had not entered the war, which we didn't have to, Europe wouldn't be democratic. It would be either Communist, or Fascist.
The absolute Military Might of the USA contributed to the ally war effort more then anyone else, including the USSR. Our builders came up with the Sherman, the P51, and the Atomic bomb. While the other allied countries helped, we won the war. IF Britain was bombed into nothingness, we would have won. If the USSR had kept on losing, we would have won the war. If the Vichy French had actually fought back, we would have won the war.
Regardless of US interest, we could have let Ivan come over, and gobble Europe up. You guys probably deserve it too, with all your whining, and complaining. Yeah, we let you Europeans keep BSing while we did the actual fighting.

Show me where you got your "44 French Divisions."

No Matter what, the USA does in fact control the majority of the world through a Hegemony. We have for nearly 50 years, and now that we have a competent leader, we will continue to hold that over all of you.

 

[MSgt]

prepared for what? a global jihad?! who could attack?!!!

Gee..."Germany won't attack...and then attack again." "Just because Yugolsavia is crumbling it doesn't mean that genocide will be a problem." You people never know what threatens you until its knocking on your door. With a better situated Russia, the events in Georgia could have crossed borders. Your immigration issues are increasingly getting worse. The greatest goal and hurdle for American policy makers during the '90s was to ensure that Europe could stand on its own without sucking America into any more problems.

The fact and the point is that no matter the trouble, Europe is ill prepared for it without an American player holding the vast majority of the cards even to this day. And I think Americans are increasingly getting tired of holding your cards.

That sounds cool but what is the utility of this? Do you think islamist guerilleros are the ones who could spy our armies because we don't have your crypto thing? I mean...they're still using homemade bombs, AK-47 and Suzuki pick-ups

Once again, the inability to see all the issues in today's and tomorrow's world increases the chance that Europe will once again repeat its own disasters and rely upon outsiders for support.

Then give back your FN SCAR, your M240Gs, M249s, MP5s...

Sure thing. We'll just use our own weapons and move on. And America will still be across the ocean completely reliant upon itself for its own security. The fact that we spread the wealth doesn't mean that we had to. You rely upon us. We do not and have never relied upon you. And given Europe's attitude about Afghanistan, here's hoping that America and the free world will never have to rely upon Europe to save the day or steer the course.

defense against who?

Continue thinking that your security only relies upon whether or not an aggressor like the Soviet Union exists. Before long, the agressor comes. He (it) always does. People who think the "end of history" came upon us soimply because America won in the end or that the notion of empire can't evolve into something that reflects our globalized and increasingly intertwined world are very mistaken.

1) Is the concept of a Muslim Brotherhood in Europe instigating the jobless massess into a fury that sees civil unrest, massacre, and organized militancy too much? In the last French riot, where Muslim youth became angered over social issues and a small spark, the Muslim Brotherhood petitioned the French government to establish an order. It was denied. What happens when the Muslim youth riot because they have no Muslim Brotherhood to represent them?

2) Is the concept of Russia pretending to power once again too much to be concerned about? The recent events in Georgia wasn't new. Russia has been dabbling about within its former bloc nations since 1993. A support for a "rebel" here, a support for the "people" there, and you have the same behaviors we saw that kicked off the Cold War. But Russia is Europe's friend now right?

3) Is the concept of the Middle East boiling over before America can bring agreements between Jews and Muslims too much? Amidst the fighting between tribes (Jews and from within Islam), we are talking about global resource disruption and the very real fear of dragging much of the world to this region. Without peace in the Middle East, genocides outside the Middle east will rage and threaten health matters. If a civil war between the tribes of Europe can suck the globe into two world wars, what would the Middle eastern tribal conflict do to the world? Pakistan has nukes. Iran seeks nukes. Israel has nuclear capabilities. Suez Canal. Turkey borders Europe. For Islamic militant seeking to claim former Islamic lands, they haven't forgotten land in Europe as far as Spain. What if an Algerian terrorist organization decided that it wanted final revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims that were tortured by French troops in the 1950s and 1960s during this time?


Globalization has ensured that everything is connected. A few Mexicans die over a damn flu and thousands of pigs get slaughtered on the other side of the world, schools shut down in America, people start wearing masks everywhere, Bio-Hazard agencies get paid over time in China. The downsides of globalization are not confined to market fluctuations. Organized crime syndicates operate worldwide more freely and easily making money laundering and drug trafficing flourish. Terrorist organizations work through the Internet. Globalization is a train that can not be reversed. But it has more than one possible destination. To stay on the right track, America must lead because the rest of you can't or won't. And along this track we will see numerous threats that can easily erupt the world. And how much of this do you think may touch Europe? No pulpet or pretended bubble of self protection will secure it without America doing the job.

 

[MSgt]

The soviets HAVE won too...they were on our side :doh

The "Russians" won. From this, without America standing in the way, the "Soviets" would have also won. This was his meaning.

 

[MSgt]

I'm a long time advocate of canceling membership to NATO.

So have I. With every global event, I become more and more bitter about its existence.

 

[repeter]

So have I. With every global event, I become more and more bitter about its existence.

Yeah, unless our European allies can get their act together, and stop being freaking pansies in front of every threat. Except the Germans, they can actually fight.

 

[bub]

Gee..."Germany won't attack...and then attack again." "Just because Yugolsavia is crumbling it doesn't mean that genocide will be a problem." You people never know what threatens you until its knocking on your door.

I didn't know that the CIA had prevented the 9/11 attacks

With a better situated Russia, the events in Georgia could have crossed borders.

You forget something. Everybody has got nukes. Russia, UK, Israel, France, Pakistan, India...That changes a lot of things. I don't know if you've remarked that, but countries that have nuclear weapons don't attack each others. That is called the M.A.D. theory, and that is why no one will try to invade Europe, Russia or the USA anymore. And that is why Iran wants to get nukes too: not to destroy Israel, but to avoid being invaded like Iraq.

The fact and the point is that no matter the trouble, Europe is ill prepared for it without an American player holding the vast majority of the cards even to this day. And I think Americans are increasingly getting tired of holding your cards.

Are you better prepared? Are you talking about the failure in Viet-Nam? The failure in Somalia? The failure in Iraq?

Once again, the inability to see all the issues in today's and tomorrow's world increases the chance that Europe will once again repeat its own disasters and rely upon outsiders for support.

I still don't get the point of spending trillions in high-tech radios when you have to fight against backwarded guerilleros.

The fact that we spread the wealth

That is true, if by "wealth" you mean "support for extreme right dictatorships"

You rely upon us.

Yes, the USA are an important trade partner

We do not and have never relied upon you.

That is true, except for details like your independence or your trade

Continue thinking that your security only relies upon whether or not an aggressor like the Soviet Union exists. Before long, the agressor comes.

Yes but it will be groups of terrorists, not countries like Russia (thanks to the MAD theory). And what can tanks and planes do against terrorism? Nothing!

He (it) always does. People who think the "end of history" came upon us soimply because America won in the end or that the notion of empire can't evolve into something that reflects our globalized and increasingly intertwined world are very mistaken.

You misread Fukyama. "End of history" = "victory of liberal democracy", not "victory of the USA"

1) Is the concept of a Muslim Brotherhood in Europe instigating the jobless massess into a fury that sees civil unrest, massacre, and organized militancy too much? In the last French riot, where Muslim youth became angered over social issues and a small spark, the Muslim Brotherhood petitioned the French government to establish an order. It was denied. What happens when the Muslim youth riot because they have no Muslim Brotherhood to represent them?

I'm sorry but that's one of your worst arguments ever. You understand nothing about the riots in France, since it had nothing to do about Islam and everything to do with social exclusion and failed policies about integration of immigrants and about how to maintain order in the suburbs of Paris.

2) Is the concept of Russia pretending to power once again too much to be concerned about? The recent events in Georgia wasn't new. Russia has been dabbling about within its former bloc nations since 1993. A support for a "rebel" here, a support for the "people" there, and you have the same behaviors we saw that kicked off the Cold War. But Russia is Europe's friend now right?

Russia is not Europe's friend but I can give you the reference of a text that says that the only result of being aggressive towards Russia will be to promote dictatorship.

3) Is the concept of the Middle East boiling over before America can bring agreements between Jews and Muslims too much?

The solution is simple and everyone agrees on it: Palestinians must have their own state. Europe and Obama have asked the Israeli to recognize Palestine. It's up to the Israeli to do the right move

Pakistan has nukes. Iran seeks nukes. Israel has nuclear capabilities. Suez Canal. Turkey borders Europe. For Islamic militant seeking to claim former Islamic lands, they haven't forgotten land in Europe as far as Spain.

Islamists are weak and are doomed to fail, just like the Anarchists failed 100 years ago. Trying to fight against them has the contrary effect: the occupation of Iraq gives Arab a good reason to join terrorists

Globalization has ensured that everything is connected. A few Mexicans die over a damn flu and thousands of pigs get slaughtered on the other side of the world, schools shut down in America, people start wearing masks everywhere, Bio-Hazard agencies get paid over time in China.

What is funny is that we talk about a flu that has killed 26 in several weeks and not about AIDS of other illnesses that have been killing millions of people in the third world for decades

The downsides of globalization are not confined to market fluctuations. Organized crime syndicates operate worldwide more freely and easily making money laundering and drug trafficing flourish. Terrorist organizations work through the Internet. Globalization is a train that can not be reversed. But it has more than one possible destination. To stay on the right track, America must lead because the rest of you can't or won't.

Oh great. It's not just "America the freedom provider", it's "America the world's savior"!

What's the right track to prosperity?! The one with the subprime crisis?

 

[MSgt]

I didn't know that the CIA had prevented the 9/11 attacks.

The CIA was still recovering from not having a mission after the Cold War and was caught off guard despite the military intelligence warning of terrorist activity. But I don't see how the 9/11 attacks upon America is supposed to get Europe off the hook for historical and continual blindness.

You forget something. Everybody has got nukes. Russia, UK, Israel, France, Pakistan, India...That changes a lot of things. I don't know if you've remarked that, but countries that have nuclear weapons don't attack each others. That is called the M.A.D. theory, and that is why no one will try to invade Europe, Russia or the USA anymore. And that is why Iran wants to get nukes too: not to destroy Israel, but to avoid being invaded like Iraq.

Sure...because no wars existed during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons only ensured a lasting conflict that sucked the rest of the non-nuclear naitons in as pawns. Besides, the fear of nuclear explosion isn't from an Iranian "launch." It's from a "rogue" of Islam in which every single Muslim nation, to include Iran, will send half hearted and false condolences as they refuse responsibility.

Also, North Korea, as it launches missile after missle into the Sea of Japan is assured that it can do so because it has nukes. Passing off the idea that nukes equals peace and the absence of threat is dumb.

Are you better prepared? Are you talking about the failure in Viet-Nam? The failure in Somalia? The failure in Iraq?

A bit testy aren't we? I hit a nerve? What does any of this have to do with Europe being prepared for anything? I believe you are well aware that America is more than prepared to completely destroy an enemy and to deal with issues better than Europe. Vietnam was somethiing else. Somalia was a UN mission, in which your kind ran as fast as possible. Iraq is as a success as it was ever going to be for now, despite your wishes.

In terms of immediate protection, America is prepared for virtually anything. Europe is not, without America standing behind it. Hell, though we were suprised with 9/11, America went on to wreck two backwards and twisted Muslim nations and drop democracies in them.

I still don't get the point of spending trillions in high-tech radios when you have to fight against backwarded guerilleros.

Hardly trillions. And backwarded guerillos aren't fighting with tin cans. of course, right before both World Wars, Europe was wondering why a large functioning military was necessary. America learned its lesson over Pearl Harbor.

The solution is simple and everyone agrees on it: Palestinians must have their own state. Europe and Obama have asked the Israeli to recognize Palestine. It's up to the Israeli to do the right move

Ummm...gee...wasn't that offered to them in 1948 for the first time in their history by westerners and outsiders? Despite Turks, Persians, and Arabs from Saudi Arabia and Egypt occupying "Palestinian" land for centuries and centuries, never before was an indepoendant Palestinian state offered to them. Yet, 60 years later, after Arabs denied Palestinians this by embarking on their modern day Crusade against the new Israel, everybody knows that the solution to this is to turn back the clock and do what was originally attempted?

Give it a rest. This will solve nothing because Palestinians (PLO, Abbas, Hamas) fight for the idea of being oppressed by Jews and in accordance to the wishes of Arabs elsewhere.

Islamists are weak and are doomed to fail, just like the Anarchists failed 100 years ago. Trying to fight against them has the contrary effect: the occupation of Iraq gives Arab a good reason to join terrorists

It's like you people live with your heads in the dirt. For twelve years, the American military had to maintain the dictator's throne at the wishes of the international community and the UN. For twelve years, the American military deployed troops in and out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because of his games (kicked out UN inspectors repeatedly, sent troops to the border of Kuwait continuously, flew jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia) until our numbers grew. For twelve years Iraq's starvation campaign continued under the apathetic eye of the UN. And in the end, a man named Osama Bin Laden launched an attack on the U.S. because of our "troop presence" in the Middle East and "Iraq's starving children."

Whine all day about what Arabs joined an organization that doomed their lives after the fact. But the occupation of the Middle East to contain Saddam Hussein for the UN is what caused 9/11. I could care less about mindless youth that joined after we retaliated to deal with both the problem and the cause. And the recruitment to Al-Queda from youth in the Middle east slowed dramatically once they started bleeding heavily. Recruitment began to come from Africa. And what do Africans care about Arabs? They don't.

What's the right track to prosperity?!

Ask your govenrment. They sit at our table and would have it no other way.

 

[repeter]

Are you better prepared? Are you talking about the failure in Viet-Nam?

Hehe, Vietname was us getting dragged in because the French needed help, and we decided to, against the wishes of our military leaders, to go in and help our nice friends...again. Then, the French lost, and we were stuck, by ourselves in a war for a nation thats already lost.

 

[repeter]

Ask your govenrment. They sit at our table and would have it no other way.

And if they don't want to sit at our table, then they can go ahead and drop out. If they think they can do better then the best, hehe, they can go right ahead and try doing so....if they last more then a few years.

 

[bub]

The CIA was still recovering from not having a mission after the Cold War and was caught off guard despite the military intelligence warning of terrorist activity. But I don't see how the 9/11 attacks upon America is supposed to get Europe off the hook for historical and continual blindness.

You said Europe was unable to predict what is threatening until it knocks on the doors...the same is true with the USA too: the CIA used Islamists to counter the communists, and now they're attacked by these people

Sure...because no wars existed during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons only ensured a lasting conflict that sucked the rest of the non-nuclear naitons in as pawns. Besides, the fear of nuclear explosion isn't from an Iranian "launch." It's from a "rogue" of Islam in which every single Muslim nation, to include Iran, will send half hearted and false condolences as they refuse responsibility.

The point is that there hasn't been any direct conflict between nuclear powers...USA has got nukes, Russia has got nukes, and Europe has got nukes.

A bit testy aren't we? I hit a nerve? What does any of this have to do with Europe being prepared for anything?

You sound as if the USA had always been perfectly prepared to everything while Europe was not. That's not true: the US army (just like the French army) was unable to fight against guerilleros in Viet-Nam and is still unable (just like the European armies) to win in Afghanistan

I believe you are well aware that America is more than prepared to completely destroy an enemy and to deal with issues better than Europe.

Except the Viet-Cong, the Somali, the Talibans and the various militias in Iraq

Vietnam was somethiing else. Somalia was a UN mission, in which your kind ran as fast as possible.

It was still a failure, that was my point

Iraq is as a success as it was ever going to be for now, despite your wishes.

We'll see in a year when US troops get out. But I seriously doubt it will ever be a democracy

In terms of immediate protection, America is prepared for virtually anything.

Except for terrorist attacks

Europe is not, without America standing behind it.

Protecting us against who???????????? The US occupation of Iraq and the US war in Afghanistan are the main causes of terrorism!

Hell, though we were suprised with 9/11, America went on to
wreck two backwards and twisted Muslim nations

that is true

and drop democracies in them.

You think that democracy is something you can export like that???
There are many factors that are indispensable to get democracy, and none of them are present in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

Hardly trillions. And backwarded guerillos aren't fighting with tin cans. of course, right before both World Wars, Europe was wondering why a large functioning military was necessary. America learned its lesson over Pearl Harbor.

We've got different priorities. If you think that B2's are more important than social protection, it's your problem

Ummm...gee...wasn't that offered to them in 1948 for the first time in their history by westerners and outsiders? Despite Turks, Persians, and Arabs from Saudi Arabia and Egypt occupying "Palestinian" land for centuries and centuries, never before was an indepoendant Palestinian state offered to them. Yet, 60 years later, after Arabs denied Palestinians this by embarking on their modern day Crusade against the new Israel, everybody knows that the solution to this is to turn back the clock and do what was originally attempted?

You focus on the past. Things have changed now

It's like you people live with your heads in the dirt. For twelve years, the American military had to maintain the dictator's throne at the wishes of the international community and the UN. For twelve years, the American military deployed troops in and out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because of his games (kicked out UN inspectors repeatedly, sent troops to the border of Kuwait continuously, flew jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia) until our numbers grew. For twelve years Iraq's starvation campaign continued under the apathetic eye of the UN. And in the end, a man named Osama Bin Laden launched an attack on the U.S. because of our "troop presence" in the Middle East and "Iraq's starving children."

So what? That does not change the fact that you can't "drop" democracy in a country that has never been democratic or that you can not fight terrorism with a conventional army

Whine all day about what Arabs joined an organization that doomed their lives after the fact. But the occupation of the Middle East to contain Saddam Hussein for the UN is what caused 9/11.

That is interesting but what do you want me to do with that?

Ask your govenrment. They sit at our table and would have it no other way.

Then don't say that you lead. China is as necessary as the USA or Europe in the world's economy

 

[repeter]

Except the Viet-Cong, the Somali, the Talibans and the various militias in Iraq
It was still a failure, that was my point
We'll see in a year when US troops get out. But I seriously doubt it will ever be a democracy
Except for terrorist attacks
Protecting us against who???????????? The US occupation of Iraq and the US war in Afghanistan are the main causes of terrorism!

Hehe, we would have won in Vietnam if we stayed there. We would have won in Somali had we stuck to military doctrine. We are winning in Iraq and Afghnaistan, but it will take some mroe time.
We are ready for Terrorist Attacks, at least more ready then Europe is, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

Please don't be stupid, Terrorism is not our fault. It is the fault, and cause of radical muslims. We got caught in their attacks, just like you. By your reasoning, basically every country and religion that isn't Muslim is the cause of terrorism.

May I also point out that the kill ratio in Iraq is about 20 or so insurgents for 1 US Soldiers. I don't have any information on Afghanistan though, and it is probably worse, because we have NATO Troops there ( or UN, whichever).

 

[MSgt]

You said Europe was unable to predict what is threatening until it knocks on the doors...the same is true with the USA too: the CIA used Islamists to counter the communists, and now they're attacked by these people

I point out a holocaust in Europe, and you defend with racismin America. I point out hundreds of thousands of tortured Algerians and you defend with a few waterboarding issues. I point out that Europe historically and continually prefers to pretend that no threats exist until it is too late to deal with it on its own and you defend with 9/11.

This is the attitude I talk about. Never willing to rise above the historical precedence, Europeans always seeks an American imperfection, which is always far less of a disaster than that of Europe's.

The point is that there hasn't been any direct conflict between nuclear powers...USA has got nukes, Russia has got nukes, and Europe has got nukes.

It is a pointless point because the threat of the 21st century is not from a launch.

You sound as if the USA had always been perfectly prepared to everything while Europe was not. That's not true: the US army (just like the French army) was unable to fight against guerilleros in Viet-Nam and is still unable (just like the European armies) to win in Afghanistan

This does not mean that America isn't prepared for threats. If America needs to launch its military, it can do so without relying upon outside assistance to move it. When America has to defend itself, it can do so without outside assistance to do it. America was more than prepared to go to Vietnam and fight. America was more than prepared to retaliate after 9/11.

And Afghsniatn is as winnable as Iraq was. Like Iraq, ultimately it iwll be up to Afghanis to finish the job. We will only so far and we recognize this. The only ones that will label Iraq and Afghanistan a "failure" are those who refuse to accpet that this is a new century and a new type of environment, which means that no enemy is going to come to a table to discuss surrender. Gone are those days and those types of enemies. Even Saddam Hussein managed to win until he was hung.

Except the Viet-Cong, the Somali, the Talibans and the various militias in Iraq

So basically you seek to paint everything America has done since rescuing Europe a failure. Choosing to leave and actually finishing the job are two different things. The Taliban was stripped of their government and beaten to a pulp. They emerge because Muslims are weak in their own region. And despite the facts, you still maintain that Iraq is a failure. This is your inabilities to recognize the world you live in today.

We'll see in a year when US troops get out. But I seriously doubt it will ever be a democracy

Well, I have heard you people speak about one failure after another in Iraq no matter how often proven wrong. "Baghdad will never fall," "They'll never vote," "They'll never vote again," "Civil War will consume Iraq"...and now that international business looks in and Iraqi democracy moves forward, "Iraq will fail after America leaves."

Get over it and accept the fact that everything we do in this century will be like this.

Except for terrorist attacks[/uote]

No? How so? Terrorist attacks are a European acceptance. It only took one 9/11 for Americans to launch into the region of misery, oppression, and abuse. In the end, the entire world sees the damage and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Pearl Harbor, we freed the Pacific and got convinced that our protection meant a looong American arm abroad. For 9/11, an entire region was placed in the beginning stage to emerge from it's cultural suicide. No matter what happens, America is more than prepared to deal with its enemies.

You seem to think in short term gain or immediate repercussion to define your world. This is about long term security.

Protecting us against who????????????

****ing everybody and everything. You think Russia has second thought about western Euroipe because of Europeans? Or that a nuclear Iran is not a threat because Europe has proven time and again that it has balls? We are the presence of detterence.

The US occupation of Iraq and the US war in Afghanistan are the main causes of terrorism!

Oh, the main causes? Europe wasn't the target for terrorists long before 9/11? Despite terrorist activity against American troops for over a decade, it wasn't until 9/11 that American soil was touched. And until 9/11, America wasn't in Afghanistan.

Another difference between America and Europe is that America won't accept it.

You think that democracy is something you can export like that???

Sure. What you fail to acknowledge though, is that it is up to them to run with it. Also, we don't have a choice anymore. Gone are the days of dropping in "our" dictator and stupid is the notion that leaving the region to something worse is a good gamble.

We've got different priorities. If you think that B2's are more important than social protection, it's your problem

We have the same priorites. We just don't forsake one for the other. We choose a careful balance because we don't have a choice. You, however, do have a choice and this is why you focus solely on internal issues while accepting that while America does for itself the bare minimum buys you benefit.

You focus on the past. Things have changed now

Based on what?! Has Hezbollah has been disbanded? Has Hamas stopped using Palestinian civilians to serve its militant goals. Has the Arab media stopped infuriating the masses over lies and exaggerations about Israel being the problem in the Middle East and not the rampant widespread oppression and brutality as prescribed by Muslim nations?

No matter how hard people wish for their to be change, nothing has changed.

So what? That does not change the fact that you can't "drop" democracy in a country that has never been democratic or that you can not fight terrorism with a conventional army

Oh, was that the "fact" or did you just throw in a few extras? I thought you were complaining about invading Iraq at all as if you were the nation burdened by the UN to maintain the dictator while receiving the black eye.

You cannot fight "terrorism" with a conventional army which is why the U.S. military is hardly the conventional army it was during the Cold War. You can "drop" democracy into a nation full of oppression, but you can't do it and expect the local population not to do its part. Iraqis are doing their part. And Afghanistan has yet to prove this.

Then don't say that you lead. China is as necessary as the USA or Europe in the world's economy

We do lead. And you willingly follow. Your options are clear:

1) Lead yourselves and walk the world into colonial oppression or global disasters.

2) Follow the Soviet Union.

3) Follow China.

Pretending that you are merely a citizen of earth and that you don't lean towards the American umbrella may sooth a European ego, but the facts remain.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

from an american point of view nato is good.
It binds European military powers to the U.S. military machine in a way that it can not operate without U.S. support (read as aproval). They need U.S. surveilance, and airlift support, and this gives the U.S. great leverage over where, when and why European military missions do and do not occur.

An excellent point.

There's a lot of whining about the mythical country of "Europe" and a lot of whining about NATO being only for Europe - strange that you never hear Canadians complain the same way as some American posters do.

The other option to nato is a more centralised and efficient European military more capable of acting alone. This would equal a loss of foreign policy leverage for the united states, and is something the united states (with the british and eastern european allies) seeks to avoid.

Well, maybe the real solution is for the US to leave NATO and another example is for the US to leave the UN or let it move (Canada offered to house the UN away from New York) but guess what? If they left they couldn't control it. The rest of us accepted that the US has the biggest influence in the UN and NATO but it seems to make a good whipping boy when Americans feel we aren't grateful enough when we get told how high to jump.

Even when it comes to the EU (European Union) where there is no US direct involvement, the US has pressured the EU to take in former Eastern European Soviet Bloc countries but because no personal US tax dollars go towards the EU there's never any complaint about the EU. :roll:

 

[gunner]

Bullcrap. Your very selective in your historical perspective. The Soviets would have lost if it was not for the US and UK providing the Red Army with weapons. The US could not have stayed out of the war for many many reason, and it was only because of the isolationist morons in the US congress that the US did not enter the war earlier. In fact some of those morons were rooting for the freaking Nazies and were never punished for such subversive anti democratic acts.

Like it or not, the US did not win WW2, the allies did. Each ally helped and the total combined force won WW2. If we did not have the industrial might of the US then Europe would have fallen. If we did not have the man power might (and disregard for human beings) of the Soviets, then the Germans would have had many many more men to fight the allies landing on the beaches of Normandy. If we did not have the will power and stubbornness of the Brits, then Europe would have been lost. If we had not had the French resitance then Normandy would have failed. If we did not have Titos partizans, then those hundreds of thousands of German troops would have been moved to the Russian front. If we did not have the commonwealth troops then Egypt would have fallen.

Did US troops have an impact on the fighting it self? Sure, but by the time the US troops entered the war the key battles that started the big Nazi retreat had been fought without them. Stalingrad and El Alamein all happened before any US troops set foot in Europe in a combat way. And the drain on German manpower and resources on the Eastern Front made it possible for the western allies to do things like Italy, Normandy and so on, with minimal casualties.



Err, it was in the US interest to keep the Russians at bay. And NATO was formed with the specific rule that the military commander had to be American, where as the political leader had to be non American.



LOL, again get your school money back. The only thing the US troops provided to WW1 was a moral boost to the allies and a moral break to the axis. The US troops preformed horribly during WW1, with incompetent moronic officers. These officers single handed got American men killed because they refused to listen to the experiences of their allies. Did you know that the American officers insisted on using tactics that the other allies used early in the war and found horribly costly in man power?



Who was an arrogant jackass. His refusal to listen to his allied peers resulted in the deaths of many many Americans, deaths that could have been avoided.



Hmm lets see.. The French had 44 divisions, the US had 8 divisions and the Birts 4 and the Italians 2 divisions in the area. Did the US troops help? Sure, but so did the British and Italians, and most of the fighting by a long shot was done by the 44 French Divisions. It was all under a French commander and resulted in that the French head of the Allies went on the offensive and forced the German surrender. So yea, you "controlled 25% of the forces in battle"....... :roll: And the French won the battle, with allied help.

Just to add, the British and Americans do not appear in the top ten battles of WW11 in terms of men committed or men lost.

Paul

 

[repeter]

Just to add, the British and Americans do not appear in the top ten battles of WW11 in terms of men committed or men lost.

Paul

World War 1 or 2? In 1, yes, because we had to take several weeks to ferry our men across the Atlantic, and we only had so many landing boats. The British were fighting to help an ally, not themselves. The French, and low countries were fighting for their lives, their freedom, and their civilization, so of course they would have more men deployed then far away allies.

 

[gunner]

World War 1 or 2? In 1, yes, because we had to take several weeks to ferry our men across the Atlantic, and we only had so many landing boats. The British were fighting to help an ally, not themselves. The French, and low countries were fighting for their lives, their freedom, and their civilization, so of course they would have more men deployed then far away allies.

In WW2, even the Normandy landings do not get into the top 10. Just keeping our contributions in context.

Paul