However you seem to think the idea of a united Europe is good idea. I disagree, I'm quite proud of my tribal cracks to be honest and would not want to throw them away for some united European nightmare.
......Again a generalised assertion refering to Europeans as if they are one people.
Of course it is a matter of interests. America was interested in ridding itself of the 12 year baby sitting burden and Europeans were interested in having America continue the burden for them. "Stability" in the Middle East meant America maintaining the dictator. Notice I didn't use Europeans here. Only America was to be criticized by Islamic zealots and religious monsters over its continued presence and its evil tyranny "against Muslims." And oh yeah...the UN mission to starve out Iraqi children? ...also an American focus of blame, not Europeans.
So you are damn right it was in our interests to rid ourselves of Hussein. I would think that our "friends" across the ocean would understand this and support us. But instead, it pretended to be ignorant of the prior twelve years and criticize us for BS "WMD" excuses to take him out.
This is an empty argument. America already had concreted influence throughout the region with these governments. Before Hussein kicked off into Kuwait, we had him standing between Iran and the rest of the region. After we rid Kuwait of Hussein, we had Kuwait as a part of our influence in the region. Jordan's king was already a fan of America. Egypt was already a business partner and ally. Turkey was already an ally of America. And Israel is more of a public friend than anybody in continental Europe is.
This argument that America wanted "influence" in the region as if we didn't already own this is misleading. The reason we lead every international effort is because we don't have another nation to burden our needs and wants to like the rest of you do. I suppose we wanted to gain influence in the former Yugoslavia too, huh?
This was a Bush mistake.
Yet.....America has never kept any acre of land anywhere outside its borders has it?
In our mission to protect our interests, we constantly sought to do it with far more respect towards local human beings than any European country in history. The fact is that America recognized that its interests are better protected by fellow democracies a long time ago
But the Cold War is over. Somalia was about feeding the hungry. Bosnia was about stopping genocide for you Europeans. And we could have easily opted to take the easy way out in Afghanistan and Iraq and dropped in a friendly dictator, but we chose to do the right thing. It's you Europeans that are still stuck in Cold War mode and criticizing us for trying to be better. It's you Europeans that preferred the dictator that maintained "stability" over actually practicing what you preach. And it's you Europeans that are fond of tearing our effforts down by constantly accusing us of being friendly towards Saddam Hussein and the Tali-Ban at one point. Somehow, the fact that we are and have been facing forward against our former temporary mistakes isn't supposed to matter.
I would call this behaving responibly towards those Cold War efforts. The entire third world had been wrecked due to European colonialism. Where's the responsibility of Europeans here?
Don't pull the "France helped you in the Revolutionary War" bit. "Major" ally is very much exaggerated.
They did even less than the bare minimum
Such debt has been repaid over and over and over since with no like reciprocation.
Now....if one were to state that America was a "major" ally to France during WWII, then it would be accurate because France didn't even exist anymore when American troops rolled through liberating it.
In fact, the first time France had a chance to prove that it is a friend it failed by sending the bare minimum to Afghanistan with conditions of safety.
This "interest" argument is far more a European attitude and prescription than it is an American one. After all....who more than once lobbied the UN to at least take a glance at the genocide in Darur? Was it a continental European nation or America and Britian?
Again you invoke Cold War efforts as if America is to never evolve away from. As if maintaining the European status quo of world orders is supposed to be an American agenda. The Cold War is over. The only ones confused of this is Europe.
Like not talking about the German scourge across the border was supposed to mean that they weren't a threat?
Europe has a way of pretending their way into disaster. Bill Clinton also refused to talk about religious terror and the exponentially growing threat. 9/11 was our reward. And as immigration into Europe continues to exponentially grow amidst mass growing unemployment for those immigrants and the native Europeans...religion and it's voilent product will be your rewards.
Yeah sure. Like the Gulf War, it will be a grand showing of international cooperation with America bearing the burden. The interantional community has been not dealing with this pirate mess for years. A mess Asian, Middle Eastern, and European nations helped create via toxic dumping in their fishing waters.
Not once has any of you amassed an effort to deal with it.
But now that America is involved (which is what everyone always waits around for), we will deal with these pirates for our own self interests. And like always, protecting ourselves means others will benefit. Just once maybe America can benefit under somebody else's efforts and sweat. Just once maybe the black eyes and global criticism can be directed some where else.
But the world likes being able to point at America doesn't it? When in doubt, wait for America to get involved.
OK, maybe it was not to gain influence. I found this article.........
I gave you examples of genocides not being stopped by Americans, dictatorships supported by Americans and democracies overthrown by Americans...and all you answer is that it has happened a long time ago and that it was "former temporary mistakes"?!
I don't claim that Europe has not wrecked Africa!
The article says the contrary
That sentence is illogical. If you pay a debt to someone, then the debt is over, you don't expect your creditor to "reciprocate"
It was China, because China sells weapons in this aera
it's still about protecting self-interest only
No, because Hitler had an army, he was not a terrorist
You see, you found the solution yourself: if someone gets education & a job, he doesn't turn into a terrorist/extremist! That's why it's useless to bomb foreign countries to stop terrorists!
So, basically, be it about terrorists, pirates, sea-pollution or the extinction of Brazilian neotropical otter, it's always those haughty and ungrateful Europeans who are to be blamed, while super-America resolves the problem by bombing the **** outta them (and bears the whole burden of course), and that for the sake of democracy!
French. Seals. Killed. Pirates. 2 days ago.
It's not because you pretend that America is always bearing the burden (and pretend that it's just for the sake of democracy) that it is the reality. You always talk about Afghanistan & Iraq but you never mention the French fighting in Ivory Coast (operation Licorn) or in Tchad (operation Epervier) or various countries involved in Lebanon
As for pirates in Somalia, what you say is not just ignorant, it's dishonest. Many countries are involved there, and the US operation (CTF-151) is a COPY of the European operation (Atalanta) which started a few weeks before
Les Américains mettent en place une force anti-pirates - bruxelles2 Europe de la Défense
You make no sense. Support for the EU does not make them one people by far. They are still Germans, French, Italians etc and to a degree still Normans, Bavarians, Tuscans etc. The business and governmental elites may support the EU and the people are not completely against but they don't want a superstate, they constantly vote against further integration, even on continental Europe the idea that they are one people is only popular amongst a tiny minority of the vomit-inducingly universalist and liberal.A united Europe under one organizatin is a joke of an idea. It proves to go only so far and then it becomes a fantasy of an idea. Once it is put to the real test, it will crumble into self interest and outside help will be the cry. And Europeans support their EU. Therefore, they are "one people."
Yes damn those Silesians. You argument makes little sense and looks like agenda-driven hackery.And besides, pretending that all of Europe hasn't sucked in the rest of the world into their affairs more than a couple times only looks to excuse it. As a group, they have been proven to be a menace.
It has got many referencesYour article is just an article.
It mentions every guess at a reason except one....12 years of putting up with Saddam Hussein was enough. Whatever comes from toppling the UN's untouchable dictator is called the fruits of war.
That's right. Temporary necessities during a threat of global nuclear holocaust. With the vast majority of the entire world not lifting a finger for anybody.....you choose to criticize America for doing sometimes and not all the time? You people use this as an excuse to do nothing. The Cold War demanded quick fixes for entire regions. The Cold War is over. Saudi Arabia is as "soveriegn" as China and we do business with both. However, unlike the Cold War, we do not pretend oppression and brutality isn't happening. Are you suggesting that your European soveriegnty laws are supposed to protect Hussein, but not Saudi Arabia and China? If America isn't tripping all over itself being perfect everywhere all the time, Europe is supposed to get a pass? It was America that organized the world to oust HUssein from Kuwait. It was America that organized NATO in Bosnia. It was America that led the humanitarian effort in Somalia.
The NEO Con believes in spreading American values and democracy as a form of long term defense. They started out as Democrats, recognized that the Liberal speach of the left was BS, and defected to Republican base because they liked Reagan. They did not like that Bush agreed with the UN to preserve Hussein's throne in 1991. They did not like the UN food for oil program. And they urged Clinton to attack Iraq in 1998. All over their ideals of what America's mission was supposed to be post Cold War.
There are many articles. The French supplied a naval presence with a few sea battles. The "War" was fought on land.
.And for this, France would later expect Americans to travel the ocean to bleed on french soil? This was perhaps the beginning of expecting Americans to give up far more than what was and is reciprocated.
Besides.....Boxer Rebellion, WWI, WWII, Cold War, embasies protecting business interests, Bosnia..... when is America supposed to get a favor returned? Afghanistan would have aided this, but we all saw and see that event.
So the debt ended with WWI, even though we gave far more than they did in the American Revolutionary War? What about WWII, Cold War, Bosnia...? Just credit to never be returned? Of course! America is supposed to serve Europe's needs and to travel the course that tzars, kings, and kaisers paved
Mmmm...no. It was Bush and Blair who forced the UN to take a glance towards Darfur. China was the one fitghing it.
And the confusion comes into play when people bicker over what the interest is. To do business with the dictator or to do business with a democracy?
Well, the dictator eventually dies, but not before he has brutalized his people to the point where they hate everybody he had ties with. Perhaps doing business with democracies is the preferred method and is in our better interests.
Yet Europeans chose not to talk about Hitler as a threat because certainly he wouldn't dare break the rules of "soveriegnty" and such. Europeans have always had this habit of ignoring the threats until they have to react.
France sold the continent out when the Ottoman's were terrorizing the country side. France saw a great threat in Germany and pretended that it would simply go away.
They are doing the same today with Islamic terrorism even as immigration from these nations are exponentially growing and terrorist campaigns are plotted in your cities.
Always seeking to react rather than deter. Let's look at the piracy issue. America got its man back and will no doubt deal some wreckage to the Somalis over it. This will wind up serving the world's needs. But what will they have learned from America? The rest of the world could have done something a long time a go when their ships were being raided over the last few years, but it didn't. It chose to do nothing but react.
With Europeans waiting for threats to knock on the door before they acknowldege them, I'm not suprised that you all still think that this is true. But with jobs being scarce on a regular basis in Europe
and the religious laws undermining Islamic laws....you all have chosen to fight them in Paris and Berlin.
For the sake of "OUR" democracy. The rest of the world merely benefits. And it is a fact that this world continues to be wrecked via European, Middle Eastern, and Asian activity....
* North Korea launches rockets and China looks away. And the whole world looks to see what America is going to do about it.
* You all dump toxins and nuclear waste in Somali waters and the result is exponentially growing piracy where once men used to simply fish. And the whole world waits for America to have to get involved to either resolve or lead the way to resolve it.
* Genocides in Europe go unchecked while Europeans wait for American troops to cross the ocean. And all you all can do is criticize us for ignoring Africa as if you all were leading a charge.
If most Americans had it there way, we would keep the world at an arms length like we used to before we got sucked out into it. As long as we control the seas and can drop our military in multiple places in a day's time....we don;t need to be out there dealing with the world you all messed up. Like I keep saying, "The Cold War is over." WWII came in two parts. With the second part over with, protecting Europe is no longer our burd
en.
And good for them. Now when will France lead the charge? Or will they be expecting America to do it now that we had to deal with our own piracy issue? Face it. Had the pirates not crossed the line on an American ship, you all would deal with your own piracy issues for years. If anything happens, it will be largely made up of American military power and technology with some individual nations lending a small hand just to be counted as a part of the "international" effort. One month of an American Naval force chasing down every boat they see with Marines and Navy Seals hitting specific targets in ports, and this would be a memory.
Yet...nobody cares and no real results will be seen until America gets involved. It's the same every time. It's historical.
You criticize us for getting into WWI late after not being able to fix your own problems. You criticize us for getting into Euorpe's side of WWII late after not being able to fix another one of your own problems and as if you were greatly involved in the Pacific for us.
And here, we see a piracy issue that should have been dealt with long ago but America will be criticized for coming late to deal with your mess again.
And we certainly don't want "friends" who leap at a chance to ridicule us while reserving the right to demand we show up and lead.
A united Europe under one organizatin is a joke of an idea.
As a group, they have been proven to be a menace.
The business and governmental elites may support the EU and the people are not completely against but they don't want a superstate, they constantly vote against further integration, even on continental Europe the idea that they are one people is only popular amongst a tiny minority of the vomit-inducingly universalist and liberal.
Sorry for being that guy but the E.U superstate would still over the long term be weaker than the U.S, our population is still growing rather fast and we have vast amounts of undeveloped land whereas the European population is dropping like a stone and our GDP per capita growth is faster than Europe's.
As for even forming a superstate I'm not saying it can't happen but I will say it won't happen. The E.U itself probably won't ever go away (Becoming somewhat of a local U.N) and the single currency/market will remain but thats the furthest it'll go. The individual states have long individual histories, languages and cultures that makes giving up their soveirgnty for unification unlikely.
In the U.S power rests heavily in the states, some states decriminalize marijuana, some states have healthcare plans, some are anti gun, some have agrarian economies, some have industrial and some have their own traditions but in the end their residents all speak one language and consider themselves American rather than New Yorkers or Texans. When someone asks you what country your from, do you say I'm European ? Thats the difference
Europe would actually have to defend itself in order to become "more powerful" than the US. Don't see too much movement toward that.
I don't think spending 5 or 7% of the GDP in defence is necessary. What we need is a few nukes to prevent China and Russia to attack, and special forces and intelligence services to fight terrorists. We also need to support moderate leaders abroad to prevent extremists from gaining power. Nothing else.
The economic "Crisis" has been taken way out of proportion by the media, the U.S economy shrunk only 6% in the last quarter, the problem is far worse in eastern europe with some countries on track to shrink as much as 15%. And I think your focusing on a passing bubble, the long term trend of negative population growth there, positive growth here and faster gdp per capita growth here is still present and is unlikely to be derailed by a common recession.
:lol: Getting countries to hand over armies'll be a lot more difficult than the police force
Now were comparing apples and oranges :roll:, When I go to Europe I don't say I'm North American, I say I'm Canadian (Generally Europeans are more friendly when I tell them that rather than I'm American) I know plenty of German, English, French and Italian people but whenever I've benn introduced they've never claimed to be European
I disagree. 4% seems to be right on the money and nuclear weapons have proven to be mutually unusable in war.
:shock: Wow .... I wasn't prepared for you to concede the point, I'm a little frightened ... Sarcasm ???
Seriously 2% ??? I don't know, that probably works better for you guys because you only need to worry about Russia (Keep a close eye on Ukraine their next move will probably be to use the recession to push them back into their orbit) but we pretty much have several countries we don't trust in every continent.
I disagree. I mean lets just go through a scenario where India invades Pakistan, just as an example. Both have nukes but both also know if they use them the other side will nuke them back. So neither is likely to use them unless they know its over and they won't be able to negotiate a bearable peace. So in that case conventional weapons still win or lose the war nukes just serve as a bargaining chip to insure the nation won't be destroyed.
And conventional weapons are a useful tool in peace too. Part of the reason the soviet union fell is that we posted strong, expensive, conventional forces all along their border which forced them to match us by raising their spending above acceptable levels which in turn caused enough social unrest to do them in.
I think it would be terrible. Look at the USA today, the federal gov't has run rampant and is interfering in what were local and state rights all over the place. I certainly don't think the UK needs to join any such nightmare, what we need to do together loose alliances should be able to achieve.Do you think it's a bad thing if there is a single European army, one common currency, a single market...?
All the other things are decided at a more local level, just like in every federacy. I think it works like that in the USA, it's a single nation but there are 50 states that can rule about many things
Let's hope they (Ukraine) join the NATO and the EU!
As for Russia...why would they attack? Anyway within 30 or 40 years they won't have oil or gaz anymore and will turn to a third world country
They would never do that! At most it would be skirmishes along the border. And I don't see why India would attack, unless there is a kind of Islamist revolution in Pakistan, but I doubt it could happen.
I know that, my dad's unit was in Germany until 1993.
I think nukes would have been enough, but it's true that by forcing them to modernize their army every 5 or 10 years has caused their defeat, because it was just unbearable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?