I find it almost comical Europe's sad, current state. Once the stalwart of world politics. She had her hands in everyone's business. Now what? She can't even intervene in Yugoslavia. Euros new peacenik attitude shocks me a bit. I would understand why Euros would be against the military, over some little war called WWII. Then the exhaustion in the Cold War, Euros were fed up with militarism. But now the EU is becoming quickly a co-heisieve unit. The recent war in Iraq has shown that Euro-zone is still fractured, but France, Belgium, and Germany stood up to the American bully. But the US does have a point when she says that Europe is largely dependant on the US for her own defence. Apart from France and the UK the rest of Europe is largely defenceless, even laughable. The average age of a Belgic soldier is 40 YEARS OLD!

In comparsion to 1985 Europe has GONE down in terms of military numbers:

Index
(1985 = 100%)
2001"

Netherlands:47
Belgium:43
Denmark:77
United Kingdom:63
France:56
Germany:62
Spain:56
Italy:56
Portugal:60
Greece:88
Poland:51
Hungary:32

Can Europe really defend herself, and could she ever wish to wage a war like that was done in Iraq? I say to Europe wake up and start to unify to defeat your biggest enemy... the US.

The rest of Europe can wallow in self-indulgent neutralism. I surely hope that England (sod the U.K.) will gel with U.S policy and enjoy the freedom that that country maintains and fights for.

nico,
The objective is to become less militant, not more. Maybe you can jerk off while watching Starship Troopers and think it's wonderful - the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.

Welcome to my Ignore list. (Again).

And Deepuz, I'm not even going to bother. Keep nico company on the list.

The objective is to become less militant, not more. Maybe you can jerk off while watching Starship Troopers and think it's wonderful - the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.


You are putting me on ignore! After that Ad hom? LOL the damned irony! I know that Ireland is neutral, so I don't have a problem with it. But if you can still see me, let me ask a question. Euro is growing further away from NATO into it's own defence sphere, and with a growing Russia (again), Terrorism, and a viotile Balkans Europe can still thwart these threats alone? Please!

the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.

Don't be daft sparks, just because you have a bigger military dosen't mean that you are going to kill. Why put a negative connotation on it? Hey I was talking about Euro's military, those men could go into Africa as peacekeepers, but I forgot you don't anyone to die.... ohhhhhhh!
:rolleyes:

"And Deepuz, I'm not even going to bother. Keep nico company on the list."

Worthless shit.

"The objective is to become less militant, not more. Maybe you can jerk off while watching Starship Troopers and think it's wonderful - the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people"
And you can do all that whilst you are under attack? Your kind simply won't last long. That's OK if you have no ambition. If you have no will to survive. Submit submit, that's OK that's OK nevermind...........

That's OK if you have no ambition. If you have no will to survive. Submit submit, that's OK that's OK nevermind...........

Ambition! Ambition!?

Are you Sadam Hussian? Ariel Sharon? Adolf Hitler? Uncle Joe Stalin?

just because you have a bigger military dosen't mean that you are going to kill.

So exactly what are you going to use it for? and do you know how much it costs to have a large military?
Lets put it like this, if we took all the money we spent on tanks, planes and warships that money could feed cloth and educate every man woman and child on the planet many times over.

Euro is growing further away from NATO into it's own defence sphere, and with a growing Russia (again), Terrorism, and a viotile Balkans Europe can still thwart these threats alone? Please!

Hello!? What threats?
My god you have serious paranoia, Russia cant afford to pay its army, Europe isnt a primary target for terrorists and the balkan countrys dont have large armys! (large enough to engage in full scale invations of western europe). :eek:

ambition does link to conquering territories, basically yeah. surviving and terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, etc, all the current hype of why America chooses to go into war is not only a protective and aggressive defense but also an ambitious attempt. No, not exactly to take over, which Bush had spoke in one of his all too moving speech, that they never wanted to surmount any country.

And having a military DOES provide jobs and production, from yes, weapons, chemical departmental sections to develop newer technological findings, factory workers, and so on, read up on the WWII and booming babies era.

The problem with Europe, which even my european friends agree with me, is the lack of aggressiveness. Although I feel at times the current president does go too far in his biblical references and eradicating evil crap. I did feel at first that his visit to Asia, esp. in Korea was terrible due to his lack of diplomacy but he probably was prejudiced from the beginning, understanding and prepped to know the intricate details of oppression. And seeing the historical details of what goes on, maybe i too would be prejudiced. i don't know.

With the military being not it's most high priority on Europe's list, is due to it's socialistic and left wing thinking. It's just recently that we're experiencing more and more right wing thinking, maybe balancing both left and right. Europe wanted to spend millions, billions on the environment and not on military, which Bush wanted. The ideas differ greatly and France is a little too chicken but then again, France has always faced it's demons of cowardice and has been the butt of many jokes. Germany has had it's fair share not too long ago. There really is no need for a big military in europe, maybe in the UK, but otherwise, remaining neutral seems to be the safest, indifferent, or cowards way out. Before the outbreak of war, tens and thousands march against the war and I for one did not and will not participate. Not that I advocate war but what does it do? I've seen coverage of demonstrations against the vietnam war and before so why bother? The government will decide what's best for the people anyway.

The government will decide what's best for the people anyway.

Pretty good post until this apathetic nonsense.

it was meant in a sarcastic manner.
but i'll take your compliments anyway.

Originally posted by Marigny
it was meant in a sarcastic manner.
but i'll take your compliments anyway.

Now you've gone and blown it!

Where's your spunk???

If you don't have something to make an invasion of you not worth while to the invader you leave yourself open to attack. You end up stagnating just as the galapagos has without competition or predation. There is ALLWAYS someone interested in your downfall.

If you don't have the power to enforce a decision should the need arise you really aren't worth jack on the world stage. (though you don't want to have so much as to stand out and make yourself a target unless in doing so you put yourself ahead of everyone else)

besides, you're gonna have to do better than that if you want to see more than my sweeter, non aggressive side.
I think you guys have enough testestorone squabbles in this political forum.

Clocky, you're right, predatory as it sounds, i don't think America can help being the way they are (i've got some theories in my head besides the historical conditions) and standing out does instill deep resentment, maybe envy, fear, or admiration.

Hi all!
Got a question for you's.
Why did OBL choose New York rather than Paris, Milan or Whalley Range? I like to think It's because Europeans are nice folk who don't stick their noses where their not wanted (although their are exeptions).
Shouldn't the goal of any society be to get to the point where a standing army is just not needed? Guess I'm just another Euro utopian.
You can shout at me now if you want I don't mind I'm a European and that sort of thing just passes me by.
Take Care y'all
Dee Cee:cool:

There is allways some force, internal or external, that ants to eat you alive. Even if you stripped EVERYONE of their militaries you still are in danger of civil wars, terrorist groups, somebody else secretly building a military afresh, even some of the larger riots. Anything bigger than that your police force can handle instantly becomes fatal.

There is allways some force, internal or external, that (w)ants to eat you alive
Are all Americans paranoid or is it just you?
Hey Clockwood "The end of world is nigh". I got just the thread for you and Deepuz
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2607

Is that scary enough or would you like to wait for a major asteroid impact?
Dee Cee

As I have said before: Is it paranoia when people really are out to get you? I would perfer to have a defense against just about everything but man tops the list.

Nico: Can Europe really defend herself
No.

Nico: I say to Europe wake up and start to unify to defeat your biggest enemy... the US.
You advocate a senseless war? Why do you hate Americans so much that you're willing to wish for Europeans to go to war with the big satan?

Deepuz: I surely hope that England (sod the U.K.) will gel with U.S policy and enjoy the freedom that that country maintains and fights for.
I second that.

Sparks: The objective is to become less militant, not more.
Yes, we know Europeans believe that, which is why the United States does all your internal defense and policing.

Sparks: the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.
I find myself quite willing to kill when it comes to protecting my family. Apparently you don't.

Benji: and do you know how much it costs to have a large military?
Not as much as paying welfare for all the illegal immigrants. (in Europe)

Benji: if we took all the money we spent on tanks, planes and warships that money could feed cloth and educate every man woman and child on the planet many times over.

1) We're not allowed to interfere in other nations' affairs.
2) And if you want us to interfere, why the hell would I want to feed and clothe them? They will sit on their asses, lazy as hell, incapable of performing work, being parasites on society. (in general). Don't be a retard.

DeeCee: Shouldn't the goal of any society be to get to the point where a standing army is just not needed?
No.

DeeCee: Are all Americans paranoid or is it just you?
That isn't paranoia. It is logical. Just look at history. Obviously Europe must be doing badly because every couple of years they need the United States to bail them out of their inability to take care of themselves.

Well...
As long as we keep a sense of proportion a little security is perfectly acceptable. I just worry that the citzens of worlds last remaining superpower are getting the mushroom treatment, i.e kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.

Stay Well
Dee Cee

Originally posted by nico
Apart from France and the UK the rest of Europe is largely defenceless, even laughable.
We've got enough power to help those who need it (if we really send our armies - not just 1000 guys) and who would try/want to strike Europe? We've got no powerful enemy!
In comparsion to 1985 Europe has GONE down in terms of military numbers:

Index
(1985 = 100%)
2001"

Netherlands:47
Belgium:43
Denmark:77
United Kingdom:63
France:56
Germany:62
Spain:56
Italy:56
Portugal:60
Greece:88
Poland:51
Hungary:32
How many of these countries don't have military service anymore? France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal... :bugeye:

Originally posted by Jerrek
Nico: Can Europe really defend herself
No.
Last invasion?
Sparks: The objective is to become less militant, not more.
Yes, we know Europeans believe that, which is why the United States does all your internal defense and policing.
LOL... Have a look on google about something called UN.
Sparks: the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.
I find myself quite willing to kill when it comes to protecting my family. Apparently you don't.
Jerrek and his new psychological trick... "How to know how someone would react in an extreme situation without knowing him!".
Americans are still called "cowboys"! Any idea about the origine? :bugeye:
Benji: Ambition! Ambition!? Are you Sadam Hussian? Ariel Sharon? Adolf Hitler? Uncle Joe Stalin?
Don't be a retard. It is calling protecting your own people from your enemies.
Enemies?! Where?!
Oh, you're talking about the terrorists... You're right : a big army (such as the US one) is better to protect a country against the terrorists!
Benji: and do you know how much it costs to have a large military?
Not as much as paying welfare for all the illegal immigrants. (in Europe)
Are you serious or just uneducated?
Anyway, what's the point with the illegal immigrants here?! And for your information that's better to provide food, medics and drugs to immigrants than to pay some guys to shoot them in their own countries in aim to liberate their petrol... Ooops sorry, I mean "to liberate them".
Benji: if we took all the money we spent on tanks, planes and warships that money could feed cloth and educate every man woman and child on the planet many times over.

1) We're not allowed to interfere in other nations' affairs.
So, why did "you" (as a US fan) get in Iraq? You didn't want to help the Iraqis?!
2) And if you want us to interfere, why the hell would I want to feed and clothe them? They will sit on their asses, lazy as hell, incapable of performing work, being parasites on society. (in general). Don't be a retard.
If I would say what I'm thinking about, my post would be deleted... @#!/$

The end of your post is a crap too, so I'll no longer lose time for it...

Hello!? What threats?
My god you have serious paranoia, Russia cant afford to pay its army, Europe isnt a primary target for terrorists and the balkan countrys dont have large armys! (large enough to engage in full scale invations of western europe).

Where do I start to strike down this example of grand ignorance in the first degree.

Russia cant afford to pay its army

Funny, I thoght it was Russia who spends $50 billion on her military every year. Also being the world largest nuke country with 13000 just waiting to go. Also funny I guess to you would be this vital stats:

Conscripts: ca. 330.000
Actives: ca. 980.000
Reserves: ca. 2.500.000
Main Battle Tanks: 21.370
Armored Vehicles: 29.000
Artillery: 20.500
Armed Helicopters :1.700
Helicopters: 1.200

Ohhhhh yes so very funny isn't it? Shall we compare it to a Euro power like Germany:

Germany:

Conscripts: 105.468
Active: ca. 290.000
Reserves: 345.000
Main Battle Tanks: ca. 2.500
Armored Vehicels: ca. 5.500
Armed Helicopters: 212 (LOL)
Helicopters: ca. 350

Now Germany has always been the counter balance to Russia, and you cannot say Germany can't afford a large military. So Yes Russia is a big threat, not to mention that much of Euro's oil comes from her, and also that her economy is growing again at a healthy rate. ;)

Europe isnt a primary target for terrorists

This disgusted me for it's plan ignorance. Rome water supply was going to be poisioned, The houses of parliament were a target for attack, Munich 1972, IRA, etc.

the balkan countrys dont have large armys! (large enough to engage in full scale invations of western europe).

As my sisters says no shit sherlock, it not that those countries can invade Europe (lol), but there influence on Europe is great. Do you when know what happened in Yugoslavia? Those massive human rights abuses, economic damage, political damage, and Euro not doing anything! That is my point.

Nico: I say to Europe wake up and start to unify to defeat your biggest enemy... the US.
You advocate a senseless war? Why do you hate Americans so much that you're willing to wish for Europeans to go to war with the big satan?


:rolleyes: Obviously not like that Jerrek, but to defeat american hegemonic power. War with the US, lol.

How many of these countries don't have military service anymore? France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal...
Neither does the United States. Your point is moot.

Last invasion?
Look at the mess in the Balkans... 1995...

LOL... Have a look on google about something called UN.
And what does the U.N. have to do with the price of tea in China? And *cough* it usually goes like this. U.N. needs military personnel. U.N. begs from the U.S. U.s. agrees. U.S. maintains peace in Europe.

Americans are still called "cowboys"!
Yes, and what about it? You think it is bad?

Enemies?! Where?!
Just because you can't see them at the moment doesn't mean they're gone forever. *cough* World Wars I and II.

So, why did "you" (as a US fan) get in Iraq? You didn't want to help the Iraqis?!
I personally supported disarming Saddam because our ally is being threatened.

"Look at the mess in the Balkans... 1995..."

That wasnt invasion, more like civil war.

"And what does the U.N. have to do with the price of tea in China? And *cough* it usually goes like this. U.N. needs military personnel. U.N. begs from the U.S. U.s. agrees. U.S. maintains peace in Europe."

Overexaggerating as usual. But now Germany has the largest contingent fo peacekeepers in Afghanisatn. Funny that.

"Just because you can't see them at the moment doesn't mean they're gone forever. *cough* World Wars I and II."

So you prefer a regime of continuous war? You are nuts. WW1 and 2 could be seen coming from far away. The western powers currently and for the foreseeable future face no comparable power.

U.N. needs military personnel. U.N. begs from the U.S. U.s. agrees. U.S. maintains peace in Europe.
I can't believe someone wrote that :D
Hang on, it was Jerrek. I can believe it.
*sigh*
For the rational ones, it's in the UN Charter, Article 43.
Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

In other words, when the US ratified the UN charter (which it helped draft), it undertook to provide forces at the UNSC's call.
There's no begging involved. It's a legal requirement.

Perhaps we should supply one guy, a pack of C-rations, and a blunderbuss next time they ask.

necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security
The UNSC (in which the US has a major role, by the way) calls for the requisite amount of troops. The other nations provide them.
There's no argument. The US can't even reasonably complain since it's got a veto (and it's used it more than everyone else in there, often to the detriment of other people just for a pissing contest).

Face it clockwood, the US wrote the rules, it chose the field, it selected the ball, and now you're saying that the game's unfair.
Pah.

Washington DC Says: "Hey, nobody goes along with what we want so why should we be any better?"

I've said it before clockwood, but it's still true,
The US cannot (as in can not, is not able to, is incapable of) sever ties with the UN and the rest of the world. So they'll bitch and moan and wiggle as much as they can, but eventually they will, by whatever half-arsed standard is in current use in DC, play ball.

And the only thing the fecking about beforehand will accomplish, is to drive up the casualty figures whereever the peacekeeping troops are needed and increase the level of hostile feelings towards the US abroad.

Sound familiar? It ought to, I just described Liberia...

Of course, what the USA doesnt want is the rest of the civilised world deciding its had enough of hte USA and getitng their own defence industries going. At the moment, the UK is actually reorienting its defence industry and military posture to suit the USA.
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=593

Now, if we were to subsidise! (isnt that illegal?) our own defence industry, and encourage the rest of the Eu to keep going and build up bigger armies, it may be that we could then tell the USA to sod off, and take Africa and half of Asia as our sphere of interest.
Of ocurse, this is desirable only if you see massively powerful armies as a necessary part of humanities future. Which many of us here dont.

Yes America whines and complains but so does everybody else.... often about us.

Mainly that's because the US causes the problems for everyone else while pretending to be whiter than white, Clockwood.

I think ppl like Ei, are in a massive state of denial. Europe is falling behind by all accounts, which to me makes little logical sense. Europe has a very advanced defence system, like EADS. I don't understand why Euro isn't keeping up the pace with the rest of the world. Especially now none of us can actually deny that Europe is not at danger from new and old foes alike. Terrorism, Balkans, and a emerging Russia. But most interesting will be the dramatic superpower shift in the world where there will be two US, and China. EU is going to be left behind, I used to also believed that the era of militarism was dead as well but once 9/11 happened and the US increased her spending the world would follow. We are decending into yet another era of higher defence spending it's up to Europe to decide stay back and rely, or fight itself.

hi nico

I don't understand why Euro isn't keeping up the pace with the rest of the world

maybe we have other goals

...Terrorism, Balkans, and a emerging Russia....

terrorism ? ira ? eta ? lol ,they do no real damage
balkans ? they will calm down in some years !
emerging russia ? maybe ,but they won´t get europe´s enemy in the next 50 years !

once 9/11 happened and the US increased her spending the world would follow.

this would be the wrong way forthe world ;)
let those amis buy a million tanks and planes ,we don´t care about it !

the only thing that would be useful is a eu-army ( not bigger ,but united under the same command )


ps : save the palast :D

once 9/11 happened and the US increased her spending the world would follow
Nico
Could you please explain to me how a large standing army in europe will stop me going down to my local DIY store, stocking up on Nitrate weedkiller and throwing a pipebomb at Tony Blair?

Just wondering.
Dee Cee

Firstly Dee cee, i think theres been combustion suppressants in nitrate weedkiller for quite a few years now, so your bomb wont do more than fizz or something.

"Europe has a very advanced defence system, like EADS. I don't understand why Euro isn't keeping up the pace with the rest of the world."

What pace of the rest of the world? What is the rest of the world doing that the EU has to keep up with? If your talking about the USA, with the largest offense spending in the world, then it can never keep up. If your talking abotu economics, again, cant keep up. The only way to beat the USA at these status symbols is either to have a gigantic economy, of a similar sort, or be a dictatorship, or something. The EU has as score orf memebr states, with less cohesion than the USA, more history, and a large number of different languages. It is imopossible for us to beat the USA at these games, without becomign totoally unified. Or else we could become as ercenary and economically minded as the USA, but it seems to me that the EU has other goals. So, you acn take your USA superiority and shove it. We're playing a diffferent game. Or aught to, i cant exactly speak for our "leaders".

The only way to beat the USA at these status symbols is either to have a gigantic economy....

well ,it seems that is not enough !
there are countries that have a better economy than the usa ....

Well, i said gigantic, ie largest, which teh USA is, therefor eit has a theoretical advantage in numbers, as well as research scientists and production afcilities. (although you could say thats changing, look at boeing building in China for example let alone mexican maquiladoras) and I notice you say better, rather than bigger. Which is the whole point of Eg Germany in europe, it has a better ecoonomy rather than a bigger one. Although it is nto the best one to withstand gloablisation.

Nico
Could you please explain to me how a large standing army in europe will stop me going down to my local DIY store, stocking up on Nitrate weedkiller and throwing a pipebomb at Tony Blair?


Hey I don't care about Tony, shit do it. But let me ask u a question, should the terrorists be state sponsered and u know which state it was. Would u attack? Another thing chances are that the US might not help out. So would Europe be able to teach that nation a lesson? I very highly doubt it.

What pace of the rest of the world? What is the rest of the world doing that the EU has to keep up with? If your talking about the USA, with the largest offense spending in the world, then it can never keep up

The US is only one aspect, China is also exploding defence spending, Japan alone has $50 billion in it, NK has $5 more than most Euro nations. The EU has a larger economy than the US already (barely,and if u add the new states), also she has a bigger population. So yes the EU very much can do this.

well, how much bombs do you need to teach a state a lesson? How much sanctions, bloackades etc do you need to use? You dotn need to invade, occupy and rip it apart.
And in all that, the Eu ocudl do it well enough.

For a terrorist all he needs is one, wouldn't u say?

How much sanctions, bloackades etc do you need to use?

:bugeye: I truly hope u are not serious on this one? Iraq had sanctions too remember... lol. If the Euros had to face up to aNK then you would be screwed.

You dotn need to invade, occupy and rip it apart.


Even if it proven that they are actively supporting terrorism within your country and they have killed thousands?

And in all that, the Eu ocudl do it well enough.

Everything but the war it seems.

Originally posted by nico
If the Euros had to face up to aNK then you would be screwed.

we would talk to them in a way that they wouldn´t be losers ;)

That wasnt invasion, more like civil war.
The keyword here being "war." Thank you, come again, end of discussion.

Overexaggerating as usual.
Prove it.

But now Germany has the largest contingent fo peacekeepers in Afghanisatn. Funny that.
Citations please.

"Just because you can't see them at the moment doesn't mean they're gone forever. *cough* World Wars I and II."

So you prefer a regime of continuous war?
Go back and read my post six more times. That isn't what I said, was it? :)




Hang on, it was Jerrek. I can believe it.
What, off your ignore list so fast?


The UNSC (in which the US has a major role, by the way) calls for the requisite amount of troops. The other nations provide them.
OK. Now where are the forces from Portugal, Columbia, Thailand, and Uzbekistan?


what the USA doesnt want is the rest of the civilised world deciding its had enough of hte USA and getitng their own defence industries going
Don't be a retard. It is the socialists in Europe that can't stand the thought of spending a dollar on national defense when some poor immigrant is starving.



I think ppl like Ei, are in a massive state of denial.
For the first time ever, I agree with nico.

I don't understand why Euro isn't keeping up the pace with the rest of the world.
Come again? Rest of the world? eeeh??




there are countries that have a better economy than the usa ....
really? Name them.

really? Name them.

for example compare germanys gnp and the gnp of the us OF a !
well,now compare the population and the size of both countries !!!

for example compare germanys gnp and the gnp of the us OF a !
well,now compare the population and the size of both countries !!!

GNP/GDP overall dosen't matter it is GDP per capita:

USA
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $36,300

Germany:
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $26,600

Japan:
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $28,000


Those are the big three, the US still has more productivity, and purchasing power that her nearest competitors. But don't worry China is coming up...fast! YEAH!

ps : save the palast

THATS RIGHT SAVE IT!

http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/tui/96nov/gif/kubus.gif

for example compare germanys gnp and the gnp of the us OF a !
well,now compare the population and the size of both countries !!!
OK. First, realize that most of the world switched to GDP from GNP more than a decade ago. Then, listen up...

Germany:
- GDP: purchasing power parity - $2.184 trillion (2002 est.)
- GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $26,600 (2002 est.); (2002 est.)


United States:
- GDP: purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion (2001 est.)
- GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $36,300 (2001 est.)



Seems the U.S. beats poor Germany by about $10,000 per person...

Nico, what is with your Chinese fetish? And they may be coming up, but ...

GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $4,600 (2002 est.)


Pathetic.

Well Jerrek I do have one... MEOW! but seriously $4,600 per person in a country of 1.2 billion is totally different than one in the US with a small population.

What is not Pathetic. is this:

China:

GDP: $350 billion, per capita $320; real growth rate 11% (1988)

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $6 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
8% (official estimate) (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $4,600 (2002 est.)


Never in human history has a country grown so fast like China, not one year under 8% growth. That is outstanding, also by 2007-2015 China's GDP will far outnumber the US.

also by 2007-2015 China's GDP will far outnumber the US.

and

GNP/GDP overall dosen't matter it is GDP per capita:




Make up your mind... When will the GDP per capita exceed the U.S.'s GDP per capita you think?

"For a terrorist all he needs is one, wouldn't u say?"

But thats not a state. Look, we had all the state supported terrosism stuf fback in the 80's, eg libya, iran, and we havnt invaded/ nuked them. there are ways and means of dealing wiht terrorists, and having a massive army isnt one of them.




"I truly hope u are not serious on this one? Iraq had sanctions too remember... lol. If the Euros had to face up to aNK then you would be screwed."

And Iraq has done what to whom in the last 11 years? FAce it it was as dangerous as a legless lion.


"Even if it proven that they are actively supporting terrorism within your country and they have killed thousands?"

Firstly, you try and avoid such a situation starting ion the first place, then you can always beomb them to hell, like the USA does.

"Everything but the war it seems."

So you like to say. But your wrong. Stop judging us by USA eternal war standards and use some common sense.


Jerrek, firstly prove the staments that i am calling exxaggerations are true and honest statements of things.

Germans in kabul:
http://www.isafkabul.org/structure/ge-cont.htm
I cant find where i read they were the largest contingent, but out of 4600 i think 2289 is a rather large percentage. Canad is next, with 1800, they jsut took over command after germany and teh netherlands shared it for a while.

And your being a cynical bastard really about them never going home.

Continous war is a bad idea.


"Don't be a retard. It is the socialists in Europe that can't stand the thought of spending a dollar on national defense when some poor immigrant is starving."

Once again, a blatant troll of an exaggeration. The Eu spends far more on defence than it does on immigrants. Besides we use pounds, or Euros or other european currency.



"there are countries that have a better economy than the usa ....
really? Name them."

Better for whom is the point. Take germany for example, less social division than the USA, just as good standard of living etc.

Well Jerrek I understand what u are saying but China's GDP per capita will never be $36,000 + because there are way too many ppl. So in exceptional circumstances GDP wins over. Get it, good.

The objective is to become less militant, not more. Maybe you can jerk off while watching Starship Troopers and think it's wonderful - the rest of us are somewhat less willing to kill people.

I found this pretty funny. Not because I disagree with it, just because I found it to be a clever flame.

Lets put it like this, if we took all the money we spent on tanks, planes and warships that money could feed cloth and educate every man woman and child on the planet many times over.”

I’m kind of curious. Is this possible? How much exactly do we spend on the military? There are around 6 billion people on the planet, and I’m pretty sure at least a good deal of them can take care of themselves (for the most part). We wouldn’t have to cut military spending as much as this, I think, we’d probably only have to take a small chunk out to pay for a ton of social programs, good Samaritan stuff, etc. Plus being so damned peace-loving will undoubtedly get you into another huge war somehow (a la WW2), so I feel that for the time being there does need to be a powerful military force on the planet, and that when compared to a great deal of the other nations on the planet, the United States is the best candidate to have such a large force. However, the force does not need to be so large. We are too powerful, the money could be spent on so many better things.

My god you have serious paranoia, Russia cant afford to pay its army, Europe isnt a primary target for terrorists and the balkan countrys dont have large armys!

As far as actually challenging US hegemony, I’d put my money on China and Britain. Britain seems to be a pretty close ally, and elites on both sides of the Pacific are tied together through various trade agreements. So in the current state that we’re in now a big war doesn’t seem too likely, however the chance would decrease exponentially if we were to have even a Democratic president—still inherently evil, but the lesser of two.

I find myself quite willing to kill when it comes to protecting my family

Did the Iraqis realistically threaten your family, Jerrek? What about the Vietnamese? The Kaiser? The Spanish, the Mexicans, the Native Americans, the British? The list goes on and on…

Not as much as paying welfare for all the illegal immigrants. (in Europe)

Unmitigated bullshit. My god…you actually believe that? Get this man a firehose, he’s covered in bullshit! (anyone watch the Daily Show?—Ari Fleischer)

We're not allowed to interfere in other nations' affairs

We have and will continue to interfere in the affairs of many of the nations on this planet as long as American Imperialistic interests are at stake. So if this rule is written down anywhere it certainly isn’t valued by anyone at the top.

And if you want us to interfere, why the hell would I want to feed and clothe them? They will sit on their asses, lazy as hell, incapable of performing work, being parasites on society. (in general). Don't be a retard.

Funny, before Hellenistic civilization came along, the starving people seemed to get along pretty well on their own. I’m pretty sure they’re starving for reasons other than being simply lazy, Jerrek. They aren’t parasites. They’re the slaves that have built society.

Now Germany has always been the counter balance to Russia, and you cannot say Germany can't afford a large military

I think after losing two World Wars the Germans had enough of military conquest, at least for the time being. Russia’s military is outdated and weak. The Russians spend fifty billion on their military while the US spends a few trillion, right?

And what does the U.N. have to do with the price of tea in China? And *cough* it usually goes like this. U.N. needs military personnel. U.N. begs from the U.S. U.s. agrees. U.S. maintains peace in Europe.

That’s because the UN was created to serve the interests of the United States as well as France and Britain.

Well, i said gigantic, ie largest, which teh USA is, therefor eit has a theoretical advantage in numbers, as well as research scientists and production afcilities. (although you could say thats changing, look at boeing building in China for example let alone mexican maquiladoras) and I notice you say better, rather than bigger. Which is the whole point of Eg Germany in europe, it has a better ecoonomy rather than a bigger one. Although it is nto the best one to withstand gloablisation.

The Chinese are making a comeback. They had their time, awhile ago, when Europe and the white man were barbarians China was the center of science and cultural development. Subsequently through internal strife, weak government and growing European influence China fell behind. However, the United States’ GDP grows by 1% every year. Unless we go to war with them and somehow manage to kick their asses (for one reason or another, hell, we live in a crazy enough world as it is) the Chinese will eventually emerge as the dominant superpower within our lifetimes. Better break out the Learn Mandarin software…

Seems the U.S. beats poor Germany by about $10,000 per person...

Jerrek, this is only because Hitler was stupid enough to attack the Russians during WW2. They did 80% of the fighting, and were undoubtedly responsible for Germany’s fall (Howard Zinn—People’s History of the United States, if you disagree with the source find me one that is more agreeable to you). Germany would have defeated the US and would likely rule the world alongside the Soviets…if only…if only…
The way things have turned out seems to have been for the better, however it’s just some food for thought.

"However, the United States’ GDP grows by 1% every year. Unless we go to war with them and somehow manage to kick their asses (for one reason or another, hell, we live in a crazy enough world as it is) the Chinese will eventually emerge as the dominant superpower within our lifetimes. Better break out the Learn Mandarin software"

Its funny you shoudl say that....

Given that the USA will theoretically have a strnaglehold on the best oil reserves to last the next 50 years, China has to import a lot of its raw materials, and has according to The Economist, taken over all the little companies exploiting what small oil suppplies it has.

I think after losing two World Wars the Germans had enough of military conquest, at least for the time being. Russia’s military is outdated and weak. The Russians spend fifty billion on their military while the US spends a few trillion, right?


MUHAHAHAH! are you serious? LMFAO, Russia is Far from being backward, have u seen her new stealth fighters, or her AAM's that is actually a generation ahead of the US, or the SA-10's? Or the new T-95 with almost no turret? Please man don't make me laugh. Germany, well Germany can be a power again. And who even dared mention invasion. If anything I suggest Germany make a defencive military.

However, the United States’ GDP grows by 1% every year. Unless we go to war with them and somehow manage to kick their asses (for one reason or another, hell, we live in a crazy enough world as it is) the Chinese will eventually emerge as the dominant superpower within our lifetimes. Better break out the Learn Mandarin software…

I mean is this serious? war with China? That can't and will not happen. :rolleyes:

But thats not a state. Look, we had all the state supported terrosism stuf fback in the 80's, eg libya, iran, and we havnt invaded/ nuked them. there are ways and means of dealing wiht terrorists, and having a massive army isnt one of them.


The terrorists of the 80's and prior were very different than those of today. Now chances are they are going to cause massive general damage on the population. e.g. a dirty bomb in the middle of London city, imagine the economic and actual damage. one such bomb can ruin a economy.

And Iraq has done what to whom in the last 11 years? FAce it it was as dangerous as a legless lion

Iraq was decaptiated in terms of military power, but it still existed and that's the point. Sanctions are questionable.

So you like to say. But your wrong. Stop judging us by USA eternal war standards and use some common sense.


For I am not, I am judging u by logical human sense. The condemn the US actions in Iraq. But if they had real hard proof that Iraq was part of 9/11 or something then I think maybe I would different, as would u. Now logic dictates that if they want to kill u, kill them first. Simple as 1,2,3.

Jerrek, firstly prove the staments that i am calling exxaggerations are true and honest statements of things.
The "exaggerations" as you call them are true. Look them up in a history book.

http://www.isafkabul.org/structure/ge-cont.htm
So you're trying to tell me that only the ISAF has a presence there? If so, you're sadly mistaken...

Once again, a blatant troll of an exaggeration. The Eu spends far more on defence than it does on immigrants. Besides we use pounds, or Euros or other european currency.
You're separating flyshit from pepper. The EU spends less money on national defense than on welfare.

Better for whom is the point. Take germany for example, less social division than the USA, just as good standard of living etc.
Eh right, where the majority of the population lives in matchbox sized houses and can only afford one small teeny weeny econobox car. Good standard of living my ass. Just take a look at east Germany.

Did the Iraqis realistically threaten your family, Jerrek? What about the Vietnamese? The Kaiser? The Spanish, the Mexicans, the Native Americans, the British? The list goes on and on
No? And what is the point of that? I don't go to war for protecting my family, well maybe, but that is very, very, very unlikely. You serve in the armed forces to defend your COUNTRY. And I said I'm willing to kill if someone threatens my FAMILY, meaning, if you break into my house with an axe, you might end up dead.

Germany would have defeated the US and would likely rule the world alongside the Soviets
Unlikely. We had the nukes.

Originally posted by Jerrek

Unlikely. We had the nukes.


:rolleyes:

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymour/32/sangerch.jpg

Amerika Bomber (http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html)


just one those cute nazi-toys

ps : yes , i know ,this picture isn´t real ;)

should the terrorists be state sponsered and u know which state it was. Would u attack? Another thing chances are that the US might not help out. So would Europe be able to teach that nation a lesson? I very highly doubt it.
Whats the difference between a state sponsored terrorist and a state sponsored army, other than their tactical deployment?
If any army invades my homeland of course I'll fight back but only after diplomacy has failed.
How am I gonna 'teach that nation a lesson'?
Well ideally I'd teach them the lesson before they attacked by showing them the benefit of friendship over emnity. If you have to go to war you've already lost the peace.
What are you on Nico?
There's a strong whiff of paranoia running through this thread.
'But they really are out to get us' I hear.
Balls!
They may be out to get you but they ain't after me. (Well considering Tonys current efforts maybe they will be soon
:( )
Who are 'they' anyway?
Let me ask you one question Nico just one. If the worst happens and you wind up dead is the person responsible more likely to be a 'terrorist' or some mugger at your local ATM?
Get real all of you before you kill or imprison everybody just to feel safe.
I'm tired now and the ramblings of the right just make me think of my darkest childhood.
"Big Johnnies after you and your gonna get battered"
"Behave now children or the bogeyman might get you."
"Were gonna cancel your membership and confiscate your badge"
I'm going to bed and I'm not getting up until 'their' landing craft come sailing up the ship canal.
Should be a nice long kip then:p

Sorry 'bout all that but I just had to get it out. (night work does my head in)

Good night. Good morning. Whatever.
Dee Cee

"The terrorists of the 80's and prior were very different than those of today. Now chances are they are going to cause massive general damage on the population. e.g. a dirty bomb in the middle of London city, imagine the economic and actual damage. one such bomb can ruin a economy. "

POssibly. But first they have to get the stuff, deploy it etc. Dee Cee is right, theres a strong thread of paranoia running through this. And again, you dont need to ahve a world superpower army to threaten a country back if it does support such terrorists.
The chances of a dirty bomb of any other suck strike are fairly low for the next decade or two.

"Iraq was decaptiated in terms of military power, but it still existed and that's the point. Sanctions are questionable. "

It still existed, but didnt do anything, so was a threat to us all! wow, you are getting paranoid.

"For I am not, I am judging u by logical human sense. The condemn the US actions in Iraq. But if they had real hard proof that Iraq was part of 9/11 or something then I think maybe I would different, as would u. Now logic dictates that if they want to kill u, kill them first. Simple as 1,2,3."

Logic says, when your killing people for that reason, where are you going to stop. What sort of proof before action do you want? How accurate are your surgical strikes to kill people before they try to kill you?

As for peacekeepers in Kabul, they are needed there by the USA to help keep the gvt intact, but their sphere of influence isnt very large, in part because the USA supported the northern alliance warlords, then buggered off, leaving the UN to pick up the pieces.

"The "exaggerations" as you call them are true. Look them up in a history book."

Yeah, right. care to provide a few links?

"You're separating flyshit from pepper. The EU spends less money on national defense than on welfare."

Thats because we dont need to spend so much on defence. Different priorities, and siomply saying wed rather spend money on immigrants than defence is such a blatant exaggeration its stupid.
And what is it with your EU bashing, your as bad as all the america haters you dislike. Just because we are more crowded, have ledss room for 2 acre houses and 8 lane freeways seems to make up inferior in the eyes of a lot of people. And as you well know, or would if you read any history, East germany was under a dictatorship until 14 years ago, adn it badly damaged the west german economy to try and bring east germany up to western standards, and it still not quite there yet.

Obviously u seem to unaware of the lax security in Kazakhstan, and parts of Russia. Dirty bombs are quite easy to get, and with NK starving for money surely she can also make some. The threat is very real, don't be in denial.

Dee Cee is right, theres a strong thread of paranoia running through this.

It's not paranoia man, it's reality. If I said the events of 9/11 were going to happen on 9/9 you would be saying the same thing. I mean does anyone actually doubt that dirty bombs will be used?

And again, you dont need to ahve a world superpower army to threaten a country back if it does support such terrorists.


Using your logic then East Timor should have little problem over Australia. :rolleyes: When Russia comes calling on your doorstep don't cry baby.

The chances of a dirty bomb of any other suck strike are fairly low for the next decade or two.


LMFAO.... OMG........ You are a moron.

It still existed, but didnt do anything, so was a threat to us all! wow, you are getting paranoid.


Not to Europe or the US no, but giving $7 million to terrorists, and up to $20,000 to suicide bombers families in Palestine? Get a clue.

Logic says, when your killing people for that reason, where are you going to stop.

The reason they kill us is because we are rich, we are free (relatively), and we own them (economicly).

What sort of proof before action do you want?

Proof, hard, undeniable proof.

As for peacekeepers in Kabul, they are needed there by the USA to help keep the gvt intact, but their sphere of influence isnt very large, in part because the USA supported the northern alliance warlords, then buggered off, leaving the UN to pick up the pieces.


Actually the reality is that the US only controls Kabul and barely at that. Germany does have the largest contingent in Afghanistan. The thing in Afghanistan is that outside Kabul the warloads reign supreme.

Whats the difference between a state sponsored terrorist and a state sponsored army, other than their tactical deployment?


There isn't they both kill, I realize this. But in real Politik you have to act like a arse sometimes.

How am I gonna 'teach that nation a lesson'?


What I meant by nation is the government the ppl of the country shouldn't suffer.

Well ideally I'd teach them the lesson before they attacked by showing them the benefit of friendship over emnity. If you have to go to war you've already lost the peace.


No shit sherlock! LOL:rolleyes:, if they attack u first is it your fault? It's called DEFENCE, I am not advocating offence actions like the US, that only creates more terror.

What are you on Nico?

The realities of today's geo-political situation i don't about u. SOmetimes too much idealism can blind the individual alas u.

Who are 'they' anyway?


They could be everything from Islamic fundamentalists, to the IRA, to Koreans, to the KKK. Whatever.

If the worst happens and you wind up dead is the person responsible more likely to be a 'terrorist' or some mugger at your local ATM?


Red Herring, using your faulty logic if a bomb goes off in a mall, is it going to be your local thief? Or a dirty goes off downtown it's going to be a homeless person? LOL get real.

Get real all of you before you kill or imprison everybody just to feel safe.


WTF are u talking about now? Now this is getting stupid. :rolleyes:

+ I'm tired now and the ramblings of the right just make me think of my darkest childhood.


Me....right wing, please anything but.

Nico,

on the topic of funding a large EU army:

The EU has a larger economy than the US already (barely,and if u add the new states), also she has a bigger population. So yes the EU very much can do this.

Yes, but i think that the EU is importing more weapons than the US. The latter is pumping that money directly into her own economy while the EU would see perhaps large portions of the increased defence funds leaking to the U.S.

Unless, of course, the EU switches to home cooked weapon systems only... i'm not so sure whether this is a good idea either.

Unless, of course, the EU switches to home cooked weapon systems only... i'm not so sure whether this is a good idea either.

It makes logical sense to do so, I mean the EU has a very advanced defence sector. It really boggles my mind as to why the EU doesn't suport her own defence sector as much as she should. I mean the tech. advantage of the US should be in reach by the Euros. Europe can already outdo most of the world with the possible exceptions of Russia, and the US.

Yes, but i think that the EU is importing more weapons than the US

The US imports:

$346 million in arms a year
Exports: 3.941 billion a year.

The UK alone imports:

$575 million
and exports: $719 million.

Explain how the EU is defenceless when Britain has the world's second navy and UK-France have 500 Nukes between them?

Japan by leaps and bounds has the world's second best navy, and the second most powerful is the Russian. The UK is #3, but it is not really the UK ir France I am angry at it's the rest.

UK-France have 500 Nukes between them?

So what? They will never use them. They don't have a first use policy,Point?

Originally posted by nico
Russia is Far from being backward, have u seen her new stealth fighters, or her AAM's that is actually a generation ahead of the US, or the SA-10's? Or the new T-95 with almost no turret? Please man don't make me laugh

Have you seen Britain's planned fighterbomber?

And I wouldn't put too much faith in Russian equipment. This is the equipment that went against the Brits in Desert Storm, where the British Army didn't lose a single tank for 300 confirmed tank kills.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993590

http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/0103/replica2uk.jpg

Originally posted by nico
UK-France have 500 Nukes between them?

So what? They will never use them. They don't have a first use policy,Point?

The point? Glad you asked. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.

Have you seen Britain's planned fighterbomber?


Firstly if u are talking about the JSF, that is 90% American 10% British so...please spare me. And that thing,so what the Americans are probably going to kill it, or the Uk can't afford it. Anyways the UK has the Eurofighter now. Have u seen the Russian S-37 Berkut which is stealth and is more than just a toy on a rod?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/s37030_small.jpg

And I wouldn't put too much faith in Russian equipment. This is the equipment that went against the Brits in Desert Storm, where the British Army didn't lose a single tank for 300 confirmed tank kills.


Firstly you were talking about navies not armies, so this was illogical response, but i'll answer anyways. Russian tanks in Iraq were downgraded the USSR would not give her tanks full standard to Iraq, and Iraqi troops were not well trained. Have u seen the invincible Russian SSM's lately? Or her 200 km/h torpedo?

The point? Glad you asked. No country with nukes has ever been invaded

Wait until NK gets a go. ;)

Originally posted by nico
Have you seen Britain's planned fighterbomber?
Firstly if u are talking about the JSF, that is 90% American 10% British so...please spare me. And that thing,so what the Americans are probably going to kill it, or the Uk can't afford it.

Nope, follow the first link I gave you ;)

And I hope NK don't get them :(

The argument was "Is Europe Defenceless?" My answer is "no." that's all.

Big whoop! The UK couldn't even afford the Tornado alone, teh Typhoon, and you expect to develop alone, a stealth fighter? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nico
Big whoop! The UK couldn't even afford the Tornado alone, teh Typhoon, and you expect to develop alone, a stealth fighter? :rolleyes:

Well, the expertise is there. Look at Concorde. :)

Again the UK did not do that alone, that was a anglo-French program. :)

Originally posted by nico
Again the UK did not do that alone, that was a anglo-French program. :)

See? Europe has expertise ;)

(Never said Britain, i'm just defending Europe.)

See? Europe has expertise

(Never said Britain, i'm just defending Europe.)

Actually again that is lacking logic, let me show you:

Big whoop! The UK couldn't even afford the Tornado alone, teh Typhoon, and you expect to develop alone, a stealth fighter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, the expertise is there. Look at Concorde.

U quoted my UK not Euro post, so u did essentially mean the UK. :)

And I hope NK don't get them

NK's got them now so.... what do we do now eh?

The Concorde: one of the world's loudest aircraft. It is even banned from landing at most airports due to this.

Originally posted by Clockwood
The Concorde: one of the world's loudest aircraft.

Yep. Remember it's a little unfair to compare it to normal commercial aircraft for many reasons.

Concorde uses Rolls-Royce Olympus engines with reheat (afterburn). Olympus engines are turbojets, almost all planes flying now use turbofans, including combat aircraft (the difference is a turbofan has a bunch of blades at the front of the turbine to blow air to the side as extra force and needs less fuel to do the same work.)

Had they designed Concorde with turbofan engines (Trent, RB199 or EJ200 as an example) it would easily meet limits for all airports.

It also has four engines against combat aircraft (the only other plane with reheat as standard) which normally have 2 or 1.
Remember it flies more than twice the speed of any other commercial airliner too.

For an aircraft with no computer guidance whatsoever it flies quite well.

Originally posted by Jerrek
How many of these countries don't have military service anymore? France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal...
Neither does the United States. Your point is moot.
No, you just don't understand it! (I hope for you that you just didn't TRY to understand it).
Last invasion?
Look at the mess in the Balkans... 1995...
Pfffff... Civil war = invasion? You should open a book (and read it) from time to time!
Americans are still called "cowboys"!
Yes, and what about it? You think it is bad?
Lake of culture... sorry for you!
So, why did "you" (as a US fan) get in Iraq? You didn't want to help the Iraqis?!
I personally supported disarming Saddam because our ally is being threatened.
"our ally" : which one?!
Jerrek, firstly prove the staments that i am calling exxaggerations are true and honest statements of things.
The "exaggerations" as you call them are true. Look them up in a history book.
With you, everyone have to prove everything. Can't you do it when you are asked for?
Better for whom is the point. Take germany for example, less social division than the USA, just as good standard of living etc.
Eh right, where the majority of the population lives in matchbox sized houses and can only afford one small teeny weeny econobox car. Good standard of living my ass. Just take a look at east Germany.
Bad, bad germans... they are using cars that polute less than you trucks (sorry, you still call it "cars").
Did the Iraqis realistically threaten your family, Jerrek? What about the Vietnamese? The Kaiser? The Spanish, the Mexicans, the Native Americans, the British? The list goes on and on
No? And what is the point of that? I don't go to war for protecting my family, well maybe, but that is very, very, very unlikely. You serve in the armed forces to defend your COUNTRY. And I said I'm willing to kill if someone threatens my FAMILY, meaning, if you break into my house with an axe, you might end up dead.
Two points here :
- Nice to see that you understand the US soldiers that want to come back from Iraq.
- Stop dreaming, if someone want to break into your house, he will not use an axe!
Germany would have defeated the US and would likely rule the world alongside the Soviets
Unlikely. We had the nukes.
Hitler did a few mistakes, but he could have won... And you had no nukes! Just atomic bombs and not so much. Hitler sent millions of guys in Stalingrad, do you really believe that he would have fear 3-4 "atomics"? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nico
I find it almost comical Europe's sad, current state. Once the stalwart of world politics. She had her hands in everyone's business. Now what? She can't even intervene in Yugoslavia. Euros new peacenik attitude shocks me a bit. I would understand why Euros would be against the military, over some little war called WWII. Then the exhaustion in the Cold War, Euros were fed up with militarism. But now the EU is becoming quickly a co-heisieve unit. The recent war in Iraq has shown that Euro-zone is still fractured, but France, Belgium, and Germany stood up to the American bully. But the US does have a point when she says that Europe is largely dependant on the US for her own defence. Apart from France and the UK the rest of Europe is largely defenceless, even laughable. The average age of a Belgic soldier is 40 YEARS OLD!

In comparsion to 1985 Europe has GONE down in terms of military numbers:

Index
(1985 = 100%)
2001"

Netherlands:47
Belgium:43
Denmark:77
United Kingdom:63
France:56
Germany:62
Spain:56
Italy:56
Portugal:60
Greece:88
Poland:51
Hungary:32

Can Europe really defend herself, and could she ever wish to wage a war like that was done in Iraq? I say to Europe wake up and start to unify to defeat your biggest enemy... the US.

At least we have people who think for a change

"Obviously u seem to unaware of the lax security in Kazakhstan, and parts of Russia. Dirty bombs are quite easy to get, and with NK starving for money surely she can also make some. The threat is very real, don't be in denial. "

The threat is very real, tahts why the USA and other countries have real and useful programs aimed at getting teh stuff into secure locations. Or had, i read about them a while ago. Thisis a problem that is ameliaratable by normal methods, not by having a massive army to invade wherever you will.

"Using your logic then East Timor should have little problem over Australia. When Russia comes calling on your doorstep don't cry baby. "

HArdly a good example, and we have a good navy adn airforce and nukes. Thats not the same as being able to take and hold an entire country.

"LMFAO.... OMG........ You are a moron. "

PAthetic inults now? I said fairly low, not non existent. And standard anti terrorist methods are fairly good against taht sort of thing, and again, either way you dont need a massive army to deal with them.

"Not to Europe or the US no, but giving $7 million to terrorists, and up to $20,000 to suicide bombers families in Palestine? Get a clue."

So that justifies the illegal invasion of a country, the killing of over 6,000 civilians etc etc, just to stop that? If tahts justificaiton enough, Israel should have nuked all the surrounding countries by now.

"The reason they kill us is because we are rich, we are free (relatively), and we own them (economicly)."

So theyre fighting a war of freedom then? And i meant taht statement about why the USA has gone to war.

"Actually the reality is that the US only controls Kabul and barely at that. Germany does have the largest contingent in Afghanistan. The thing in Afghanistan is that outside Kabul the warloads reign supreme."

YEs, precisely, and it needs UN help to do so. So the point is that americas war of liberation and freedom and promises to help rebuild, are nearly worthless. (alhough they are doing some good, so the ultimate thing will be to wait a few years.)

The threat is very real, tahts why the USA and other countries have real and useful programs aimed at getting teh stuff into secure locations.

No shit... and secondly NK? What are u going to do there? Secondly US funding Russia's nukes some men in Washington are against that. Secure locations, well in Kazakhstan they have the plague in fridges, like the one u have at home. Protection.. a pad lock.

HArdly a good example, and we have a good navy adn airforce and nukes. Thats not the same as being able to take and hold an entire country.


What is it with u? That was extreme sarcasm wasn't even meant to be a example... get a clue.

PAthetic inults now?

Like the insult to my intelligence that was this:

The chances of a dirty bomb of any other suck strike are fairly low for the next decade or two.


That's the lowest of the low.

. And standard anti terrorist methods are fairly good against taht sort of thing, and again, either way you dont need a massive army to deal with them.

NO? If NK is the supplier you're just going to let is slide? Or Pakistan? And u do need a army in Kazahkstan to protect all WMD sites.

So that justifies the illegal invasion of a country, the killing of over 6,000 civilians etc etc, just to stop that? If tahts justificaiton enough, Israel should have nuked all the surrounding countries by now.


I was one of the staunched anti-war posters. I don't know where got the clue that I supported the war against iraq. Israel IMO has a reason to invade Iraq but she won't, and Iraq / Israel. Not the US.

So theyre fighting a war of freedom then? And i meant taht statement about why the USA has gone to war.


Muslims on this board would agree with my statement. Yes this is a war for the liberation of Islam from the West. Do I support it hell no, but that's the situation.

YEs, precisely, and it needs UN help to do so.

UN,NATO, SHATO, MOMO, doesn't matter you have to eventually fight the war loads. The question does the US or UN have the stomach for that?

So the point is that americas war of liberation and freedom and promises to help rebuild, are nearly worthless.

BINGO! We have a winner of the deadly obvious game. The USSR said the same thing in the 80's.



:rolleyes:

"No shit... and secondly NK? What are u going to do there? Secondly US funding Russia's nukes some men in Washington are against that. Secure locations, well in Kazakhstan they have the plague in fridges, like the one u have at home. Protection.. a pad lock. "

Yeah, and taht still doesnt jsutify having a massive army. All you need to do is egt hell for leatehr on enforcement and get those germs etc under decent lock and key. Oh, and try help build decent gvt in the region however you can. Oh dear, it seems teh west isnt interested in it. Well, in that case, yes saying we shoudl prepare for war is likely the only option left, but I say it again, it doesnt have to be that way.

"What is it with u? That was extreme sarcasm wasn't even meant to be a example... get a clue. "

One could say the same thing with you, and your getting all personal and agressive now.


"That's the lowest of the low. "

Nope, merely an assessment from a skecptical cynical member of the public, who knwos how much gvts etc lie to usand is not qilling to play up the risks. And i still said low risk, not non existent.


"NO? If NK is the supplier you're just going to let is slide? Or Pakistan? And u do need a army in Kazahkstan to protect all WMD sites. "

Jeez, whose fantasising now? NK knows that supplieing that sort of thing means game over, the end. Its trying to blackmail us, not bring about the end of the world. And pakistans our friend, remember?
And you still can get away with not having a massive military for all these things, what do you want, a UN army? It might be worth trying.

"I was one of the staunched anti-war posters. I don't know where got the clue that I supported the war against iraq. Israel IMO has a reason to invade Iraq but she won't, and Iraq / Israel. Not the US. "

I know you were, and I'm willing to give you credit for it all. But im still a little puzzled about why your starting on this way now.

Yeah, and taht still doesnt jsutify having a massive army.

Of course it does, if a state is actively sponsering terror or building these weapons the only European states that can even dare do anything are the UK and France. The rest can't that is problematic. Even with there secondary. power status they would lose horrbily against a NK or Pakistan.

Oh, and try help build decent gvt in the region however you can. Oh dear, it seems teh west isnt interested in it.

Well Guthrie I am against western imperialism, stable government according to whose standards? The West did that in Iraq, Iran,etc. Me and you complained of the US influence in Iraq now let's not get hypocritical.

One could say the same thing with you, and your getting all personal and agressive now.


Sorry i will try to be objective from now on.

Nope, merely an assessment from a skecptical cynical member of the public, who knwos how much gvts etc lie to usand is not qilling to play up the risks. And i still said low risk, not non existent.


The risk IMO is very real, they (terrorist) have already tried to steal WMD from Russian stockpiles. One can only imagine how many were succcesful? :confused:

NK knows that supplieing that sort of thing means game over, the end.

NK #1 doesn't really care, and #2 NK needs hard currency and if that's what it takes then so be it. The only way to curb NK doing that is to invest in the country, not aid, investment.

Its trying to blackmail us, not bring about the end of the world.

Are u in the US? If not they aren't blackmailing u. And what a greater bargining toll than dirty bombs?

And pakistans our friend, remember?

Taliban elected into power in Peshawar, not for long I should say.

And you still can get away with not having a massive military for all these things, what do you want, a UN army?

I want a UN army, but it won't happen to many interests at stake.

But im still a little puzzled about why your starting on this way now.

Because I am anti-war, but i am pro-war if it can be proven that one country is threatening yours overtly or not.

cAnt really say much to what youve said, its too late at night, im in the UK, the ex-imperial ruler of half the world. The point im making is you dont need a massive army if your trying to promote peace and understanding in a genuine workable way. Ultimately, your saying that istn wahts ahppenign jsut now so you need to beef up defence spending in order to make sure all the nasty things goign on dont happen to you. Which is more of a part of the problem than part of the solution answer. I mean i can see where your coming from but dont hink the actions are as necessary as you say, yoru kind of goign worst case scenario, the usa messes everyone up and well need big armies to keep the enraged middle east from our doorstep. oops, that look horribly realistic now.....

Guthrie what I am adovcating is a totally defensive European army. If they attack you you fight back, never should Euro zone be given the right to pull of a Vietnam or Iraq. But what u are saying is well let's not increase spending and take our chances with the sorry state of our military now. Now obviously we don't want a defenceless Euro zone but the say it's looking sure looks like. Also I want Euro be on her two feet to finally curb American hegemony. We bitch about it, I can't do anything about it, but you can. I say Euro see what she has to do, now do it.

HHmm, im tempted oto agree with you about the defensive army bit. Thats what switzerland has after all.

My plan makes logical sense, Euro is throughly anti-american and she wants the US out well how can you honestly expect the US to leave if u don't have a unified and strong army. I mean Euro has some great special forces and great tech. It really boggles my mind at how stupid Euro has become. Peacenik doesn;t work when u are the only one following it. I mean I don't want Euro to pull another 1938. :)

now the world, hehehe evilknievel!

where is it you bastard?:D

Originally posted by spookz
where is it you bastard?:D

Holy thread resurrection batman! :)