F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

But still China is growing at an alarming rate and providing it continues at that rate it will surpass the US. But I guess time will tell.

They have an environmental nightmare and a history of corruption second to none. This just yesterday. From Business Week.

"Broken China a Dysfunctional Nation"
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... ation.aspx

Quote:

Not really. I don't think you really understand the EU and how integrated it really is.

But I do understand the EU. Although the goal may be integration it is not yet there on par with the US. There are still many factors which make the EU more like NAFTA economically than the US.

The currency is not universal
The ECB does not set Interest Rates for the entire EU
Each nation continues to have it's own foreign policy
Each nation continues to field it's own armed forces
Each nation can opt out at any time
Each nation ultimately determines it's economic policy (remember all those deficits Germany and France where running)

You had voltage changes rammed down your throat we are having metric rammed down ours. Why, economics plain and simple.

Lastly, each nation in the EU has it's own vote in the various International bodies.

Quote:

Personally I object to EU integration, a super-state isn't going to affect my quality of life for the better.

You may be right. France and Germany may finally get their way in Europe without a drop of blood shed. Churchill must be turning in his grave. Add to that the Nordic nations and the new Europe nations that feel compelled to join for economic reasons. No different from WWII except there is no bloodshed. A shame really.

Quote:

Well the UK military in generally ranked second behind the US in terms of military power

I would not be too sure of that. Especially in Europe. The Russians would roll right on through. The German army is but a shadow of itself and the rest of the nations combined just don't have the cohesion or numbers to stop them. Frankly it's scary because I would not be too sure of the US coming to Europe's aid in the future.

I do agree with Thumper on many of the above matters. Europe is many, many generations away from becoming "one" nation. We won`t see it in our lifetime, if ever. Why?

The French see themselves as "French", the Germans as "German", the British as "British". That is a tough nut to crack bound by nationalism and history.
Europe is just a huge business conglomerate whose only tie is geography. I hate to upset the "Union" supporters but I can never, ever see a "unified" Europe in a political, foreign policy or language, shared value sense. We are too different. This is the reality in my opinion.

When things get tough, European nations quickly retreat to nationalism and isolation, selfishness. A "Single" unified Europe is a pipe dream IMO. Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is supposed to be a single force, in reality, individual nations are turning their cheek while UK, US and Canadian forces are fighting and bleeding. I know that is political but it illustrates the deep divisions.
As for Britain being able to block a conventional Russian attack, the UK military would be the first to admit that would be a ridiculous notion, our armed forces are too small although would put up one hell of a fight...alone. The English channel will allow us to do that.

The rest of Europe would capitulate or be overrun in short order, the surrender monkeys would have their day! A combined European defence is a no-brainer without the US. Name ONE European commander/general with experience of commanding anything larger than a single division?

Ok, maybe I am being harsh, SOME nations may put up a fight, it would be a forlorn one though.The US coming to our aid? I think the answer would be a resounding "yes" because it would not be in America`s interest to have a "Russian" continental Europe.

We should have kept the original name of EEC, "European Economic Community", instead of "European Union"because we are better at business than nation building. Look at the countries wanting to join the EU, do they want better economic opportunity or nation/state building? Money talks.

At least China have "Nationhood" and unity.

F-16.net Sponsor

I didn't say the EU is on par with the US, but it is certainly beyond half way.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The currency is not universal
The ECB does not set Interest Rates for the entire EU

If you're referring to EU countries outside the "Eurozone" then you're quite right. The majority of EU countries are in the Eurozone and all the remaining countries (except the UK and Denmark) are committed to join the Eurozone soon. However the UK will unfortunately surrender the pound one day and adopt the Euro.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Each nation continues to have it's own foreign policy
Each nation continues to field it's own armed forces

Yep and Thank God is all I can say.

Thumper3181 wrote:

You had voltage changes rammed down your throat we are having metric rammed down ours. Why, economics plain and simple.

240V to 230V isn't really an economic benefit, just something else for the UK to say they have in common with the EU.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Each nation can opt out at any time

True but very unlikely. It would have to be something really drastic for a member to leave and even then its not easy. I think Texas had the right to leave the US but whether it still has that right I'm not sure. Even if it did I think there would be a higher chance of seeing a P-51 shoot down an F-22 than Texas leaving the US.

Snypa777 wrote:

I do agree with Thumper on many of the above matters. Europe is many, many generations away from becoming "one" nation. We won`t see it in our lifetime, if ever. Why?

Its goal is more to become a highly integrated union more than a single nation. Already Brussels has a lot of control in the UK and that is still set to expand. I'm sure it won't be long before the next proposal for an EU constitution come through enabling further integration.

I'm not a fan of the EU and I don't think many on here from the UK are, but unfortunately we are not a majority in the UK. The EU is expanding and gaining more powers (by taking them away from individual nations) and unfortunately we just have to face the facts.

thumper3181 wrote:

I would not be too sure of that. Especially in Europe. The Russians would roll right on through. The German army is but a shadow of itself and the rest of the nations combined just don't have the cohesion or numbers to stop them. Frankly it's scary because I would not be too sure of the US coming to Europe's aid in the future.

Well put it this way, the UK military expenditure alone is more than that of Russia's. In the last days of the USSR, the Taliban kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan in what was to be known as 'The USSR's Vietnam'. The defeat, amongst other things, was due to the shortcomings of the Soviet military. Russia is no USSR, most of her navy now sits rusting in Russian ports and the army hasn't fared any better since. Sure it has large numbers, but they mean nothing if you can't deploy and support them properly. The UK maintains a smaller but highly professional force with excellent projection capabilities. So combined with other European countries the Russians would not roll through, simply because the Russians wouldn't be able to sustain a campaign.

And even if that ever did happen (which of course is extremely unlikely) the US would be deployed because its in their interests as well as Europe's.

Quote:

The French see themselves as "French", the Germans as "German", the British as "British". That is a tough nut to crack bound by nationalism and history.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism as long as it is not taken to extreme. While it is bad for the "EU", national identity is good overall and it should not be subverted for the whim of some bureaucrat in Brussels. Should you subvert 1200 years (the good and the bad) of European history. Surely peace in Europe does not carry such a high price.

Quote:

When things get tough, European nations quickly retreat to nationalism and isolation, selfishness.

Yes we have seen that in many (not all) European nations of late.

Quote:

The US coming to our aid? I think the answer would be a resounding "yes" because it would not be in America`s interest to have a "Russian" continental Europe.

Don't take it for granted. Roosevelt dragged the US kicking and screaming into WWII. It took 4 years of bad press about Tokyo, Berlin and Rome as well as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to finally get us engaged. I know for a fact that on the home front there was a lot of resistance to actively entering the war prior to Dec 7, 41. WWI was much the same, in fact leading up to WWI there was serious debate about whose side to take.

It would be worse now. The Russians would have to be filmed pitch forking babies and raping the women. Further they would have to then attack us. No, I'm sure we would not engage. We would look at the cost and everyone would say why shed blood for Europe. Sorry, but that's just the facts. I would be willing to bet we would go at China over Tiawan quicker than the Russians rolling through Europe.

England may be different because of our alliance and the body count would not be as high but I would not place my bets on it either.

Quote:

If you're referring to EU countries outside the "Eurozone" then you're quite right.

So subtract the $3.0 trillion the UK and Denmark produces and then the economic construct you call the EU and it's GDP is clearly lower.

Quote:

However the UK will unfortunately surrender the pound one day and adopt the Euro.

That would be a shame since the Pound is a currency fully able to stand on it's own. I do not see the benefit of surrendering your monetary policy to the Germans.

Quote:

240V to 230V isn't really an economic benefit, just something else for the UK to say they have in common with the EU.

Like the metric system is for us?

Quote:

I think Texas had the right to leave the US but whether it still has that right I'm not sure.

Our civil war 1860 - 1865 was fought over a state's right to leave the Union. The north won. Texas has to stay.

Quote:

The EU is expanding and gaining more powers (by taking them away from individual nations) and unfortunately we just have to face the facts.

Your ancestors are turning in their grave.

Quote:

In the last days of the USSR, the Taliban kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan

They got kicked out because the USSR collapsed. The Taliban fought the USSR to a standstill for 10 years because of geography and the active support of the west. Don't confuse the two situations. The plains of eastern Europe are not the mountains of Afghanistan. The Russians would roll right through Germany today. Snypa is right on this.

Quote:

the US would be deployed because its in their interests as well as Europe's.

Don't be too sure about that. For what reason would we call up a draft, mobilize, and see thousands of Americans dead in Europe? I can tell you now, my kids aren't going to that party and I don't think too many other parent would let their sons and daughters die over Europe. Been there, done that, twice within the last 100 years.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Speak-the-truth wrote:

240V to 230V isn't really an economic benefit, just something else for the UK to say they have in common with the EU.

This was done for standardization. No biggie. It is of economic benefit because firms don`t have to make changes to products to get them working in some EU nations and it makes the export of "power" less fussy.

Speak-the-truth wrote:

The EU is expanding and gaining more powers (by taking them away from individual nations) and unfortunately we just have to face the facts.

Speak-the-truth, any new law introduced by the EU we really don`t like is vetoed and not written into our statute books. This happens all the time. A European constitution would be lunacy, many Euro` nations have already voted "Non" on that one.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Don't be too sure about that. For what reason would we call up a draft, mobilize, and see thousands of Americans dead in Europe? I can tell you now, my kids aren't going to that party and I don't think too many other parent would let their sons and daughters die over Europe. Been there, done that, twice within the last 100 years.
Roosevelt dragged the US kicking and screaming into WWII. It took 4 years of bad press about Tokyo, Berlin and Rome as well as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to finally get us engaged. I know for a fact that on the home front there was a lot of resistance to actively entering the war prior to Dec 7, 41. WWI was much the same, in fact leading up to WWI there was serious debate about whose side to take.

That was then, this is now. The world changed forever after WW2.
The reasons are many, economic and political. Why did the US go to war with Iraq? Economic reasons. The tens of thousands of US forces based all over Europe reaffirms America`s commitment to the alliance. There will be a draw-down of troops, but only because of reduced tensions and commitment to Iraq/Afghanistan. This draw-down can be seen the world over, not just in Europe. Basing troops overseas in vast numbers is too costly, the purse strings are tight for the first time since WW2.

In fact, the US is to replace units in Europe with elite paratrooper brigades and more mobile brigades. Ramstein AFB in Germany is to undergo a huge expansion. Economically, the US does a huge amount of trade with Europe, they will not lose that to Russia easily. The US is committed to defend Europe by treaty. In defending Europe, the US would be defending itself, the alternative is to be surrounded by enemies who grow stronger militarily and economically and get more brazen. Eventually your enemy will be at your door and Americans will be kicking themselves they didn`t act sooner. Sure America will defend Europe in the face of a Russian attack. To sit idle would be a cataclysmic mistake for the US, I know America is smarter than that.

Where would the US be now if Hitler had been given free reign? His forces would have been knocking on your door in the 1950`s. What about Kosovo? Why did the US get involved in that one? I know the US is sick and tired of pulling Europe out of the proverbial but that goes with the territory as the only superpower. The alternatives are pretty nasty for the US. I don`t drool at the prospect of war and neither does the US, but sometimes good men have to stand up because I am sure Europe would never do anything to "provoke" a Russian attack, a "weak" US may just do that.

snypa777 wrote:

Speak-the-truth, any new law introduced by the EU we really don`t like is vetoed and not written into our statute books. This happens all the time. A European constitution would be lunacy, many Euro` nations have already voted "Non" on that one.

Non ?

.I`m not up to date, Eurocorps still stands ?

Quote:

The plains of eastern Europe are not the mountains of Afghanistan. The Russians would roll right through Germany today. Snypa is right on this.

Poland should slow them down a bit. Laughing

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

I wrote:

Speak-the-truth, any new law introduced by the EU we really don`t like is vetoed and not written into our statute books. This happens all the time. A European constitution would be lunacy, many Euro` nations have already voted "Non" on that one.

Cad wrote:

Non ?

.I`m not up to date, Eurocorps still stands ?

France and Holland killed the original constitution with their referendums. We will now get a very much watered down one, a treaty to be announced next week. The UK won`t be holding a referendum as France/Holland put the knife in any real constitution as said.

Thumper wrote:

The plains of eastern Europe are not the mountains of Afghanistan. The Russians would roll right through Germany today. Snypa is right on this.

Cad then wrote:

Poland should slow them down a bit. Laughing

Only if Russian BMPs` get into rush hour traffic around Warsaw. Cool

Quote:

Why did the US go to war with Iraq? Economic reasons.

Wars are rarely fought for a single reason and Iraq is no exception. Sure there was an economic component to it. There was also the fact that Sadam was thumbing his nose at us in defiance of literally a dozen UN resolutions. It was also because we could not continue to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, fly no fly zone missions and continue with UN sanctions. There was the threat of WMD as well as the potential for a haven for terrorists. Just because few actual WMD where found did not mean that the motive, the means and the desire to rebuild them did not exist once sanctions where lifted. Sadam was in effect the ultimate WMD.

Quote:

The tens of thousands of US forces based all over Europe reaffirms America`s commitment to the alliance. There will be a draw-down of troops, but only because of reduced tensions and commitment to Iraq/Afghanistan. This draw-down can be seen the world over, not just in Europe. Basing troops overseas in vast numbers is too costly, the purse strings are tight for the first time since WW2.

Actually basing troops overseas is usually cheaper than basing them here. The host country generally pays for the upkeep of the base.

The BBC is rarely right but in this instance their analysis is correct.

I suggest you read this and note why US forces are based in Europe and note the fact that there are only 26,000 combat troops there. That is a division.

Times have changed indeed. Europe is no longer the center of American foreign policy.

Quote:

Where would the US be now if Hitler had been given free reign? His forces would have been knocking on your door in the 1950`s.

He had a hard enough time with Russia. Hitler was not that dumb, 3000 miles of ocean and a continent to conquer would have been too much and he knew it. A treaty would have been signed and a pact with the devil made. There where many here who wanted it that way. My parents lived through it. I had uncles die in Europe and up until th day my grandmother died she always hated Roosevelt for getting her sons killed for a foreign war.

Quote:

What about Kosovo

Other than exposing Europe for the bunch of craven cowards what about it. No one came to the their aid. It was in Europe's back yard and still they did nothing until the US stepped in. Yet another reason why Europe is not worth fighting over.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

I suggest you read this and note why US forces are based in Europe and note the fact that there are only 26,000 combat troops there. That is a division.

This from the USAFE`s own website;
"Units-
USAFE is organized geographically through two numbered air forces -- 3rd Air Force, with headquarters at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England; and 16th Air Force, with headquarters at Aviano Air Base, Italy. The command has five main operating bases along with 80 geographically separated locations. The main operating bases are: RAF bases Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; Ramstein and Spangdahlem air bases in Germany; and Aviano AB, Italy. More than 42,000 active-duty, Reserve and civilian employees are assigned to USAFE."
That is just the USAF.

The US navy has at least 22,000 sailors forward deployed in Europe and have a specific European naval command based in Italy. The 6th fleet has it`s area of operations in Europe and the Med`.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... naveur.htm

US Army, two divisions in Europe which can be rapidly reinforced.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... vision.htm

I make that nearly 100,000 personnel, that`s commitment.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Times have changed indeed. Europe is no longer the center of American foreign policy.

I agree, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, N.Korea are at the center of US attentions. You cannot deny the US contribution to NATO in Europe though.

Quote:

What about Kosovo

Thumper3181 wrote:

Other than exposing Europe for the bunch of craven cowards what about it. No one came to the their aid. It was in Europe's back yard and still they did nothing until the US stepped in. Yet another reason why Europe is not worth fighting over.

Militarily Europe could have done very little without the military and political support of the US and we all know it. If the US came to the aid of Albanian Muslims, why wouldn`t they aid Europe against Russia? I am actually quite ashamed that Europe refuses to put money into defense and doesn`t have the military might or stomach to sort things out on it`s own, but there it is.....Britain didn`t have the strength to oppose Milosovic, I would have put money on the UK doing so if we had the wealth/forces the US has.

Your numbers prove nothing. At the end of the day there are only around 26,000 combat troops in Europe. Many of them are deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Using the Navy and air force numbers as an example is irrelevant. They are forward deployed. Europe is closer to the front (ME and Afghanistan) than basing them in CONUS.

From the BBC:
US troops in Europe

The US has 26,000 combat personnel and 34,000 military support and administration personnel on 294 military installations in Europe.

The US Army had planned to move two fighting divisions from German garrisons to smaller bases in Eastern Europe.

But the demands of the war on Iraq have put those plans on hold.

And the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, paradoxically, have reinforced the importance of the European bases, which have provided large amounts of personnel, armour and expertise for these conflicts.

In short, until the entire system of bases is redesigned, the European bases will remain vital to US operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Quote:

I make that nearly 100,000 personnel, that`s commitment.

No it's convenience.

Quote:

Militarily Europe could have done very little without the military and political support of the US and we all know it.

Bull$hit. England, France, Germany and Italy could have easily handled the job. Aside from England there was not the political will to do so.

Quote:

If the US came to the aid of Albanian Muslims, why wouldn`t they aid Europe against Russia?

Lets keep in mind that Clinton's actions on Kosovo where very unpopular here. Ground forces where not deployed because Congress would have had a fit over it. It was not at all a general war where thousands of Americans die and it happened over ten years ago during a different time. The Russians rolling through Germany in 2008 would be an entirely different proposition. Unless they attacked American bases or hindered them in any way there would not be a fight.

Let me put it another way. If Europe cannot even muster the will to shed blood for their own fellow Europeans, why should Americans shed blood for them.

Quote:

I would have put money on the UK doing so if we had the wealth/forces the US has.

That is one of the reasons why I cannot fathom why the British keep flirting with the EU. My opinion, the UKs interests more closely align with ours than that of Europe.

Last edited by SpeakTheTruth on Jul 20, 2007 - 09:29 AM; edited 1 time in total

Snypa777 wrote:

This was done for standardization. No biggie. It is of economic benefit because firms don`t have to make changes to products to get them working in some EU nations and it makes the export of "power" less fussy.

Not really seeing as power isn't even exported at 230V anyway, were talking about 100's of thousands of volts when it comes to export. And seeing as products have to be designed with a voltage tolerance of 10% which is what the max variation is on the continent, 240V to 230V has no economic benefit as the tolerance alone covers this easily. For countries operating at lower voltages such as 110V then yes it makes sense, for the UK it was a pointless exercise.

Snypa777 wrote:

Speak-the-truth, any new law introduced by the EU we really don`t like is vetoed and not written into our statute books. This happens all the time. A European constitution would be lunacy, many Euro` nations have already voted "Non" on that one.

We? How many votes did you personally have in passing these new laws? Because as far as I'm aware I havn't had any. Yes the government aren't going to let laws pass that will upset the majority, but it is the government who decides. And Labour is pro-EU.

Snypa777 wrote:

Only if Russian BMPs` get into rush hour traffic around Warsaw.

Lol!

Thumper3181 wrote:

He had a hard enough time with Russia. Hitler was not that dumb, 3000 miles of ocean and a continent to conquer would have been too much and he knew it. A treaty would have been signed and a pact with the devil made. There where many here who wanted it that way. My parents lived through it. I had uncles die in Europe and up until th day my grandmother died she always hated Roosevelt for getting her sons killed for a foreign war.

WW2 wasn't Britain's war either. Britain entered someone else's war like the US did later on. Britain like the US did not have the stomach for another big war, it still hadn't recovered from WW1 and its military hadn't fully recovered either. But after Chamberlain had been shown to be so wrong, people began listening to what Churchill had been saying for the past years, and Britain went to war.

Consistently Hitler offered Churchill a non-aggression pact, Hitler really didn't want to fight the British. They say Hitler viewed the British on level with the Germans, where as he saw the Russians as sub-level. Consistently Hitler offered Britain to stop fighting and to live alongside each other, But Churchill wouldn't budge.

The US didn't enter for the same initial reasons as Britain. What made it an American war? Well I think when Germany and Japan declared war on the US it was their war as much as anyone else's.

Remember Hitler had U-boats sitting in the Gulf of Mexico and sitting off the coast of New York. Not to mention they had designed a long range bomber that flew to the US and back (undetected) near the end of the war. If Britain or Russia had fallen, Nazi Germany would have surely been the sole superpower, and with Germany's mass of technology and how close they were to the A-bomb, the world would have been an unsafe place.

---

Also this idea of Russia rolling through Europe is nonsense. In the last days of the USSR the state of the army wasn't great, its even worse now. There are still conscripts who make up a large chunk on the numbers, their equipment in genenral is old, there is morale isn't great, training has suffered after the USSR collapse and their projection capabillities & logisitics are limited.

Its not the fact that a European force would stop a massive Russian war machine, its that Russia hasn't got the ability to mount a large campaign like you are all suggesting.

snypa777 wrote:

When things get tough, European nations quickly retreat to nationalism and isolation, selfishness. A "Single" unified Europe is a pipe dream IMO. Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is supposed to be a single force, in reality, individual nations are turning their cheek while UK, US and Canadian forces are fighting and bleeding. I know that is political but it illustrates the deep divisions.
As for Britain being able to block a conventional Russian attack, the UK military would be the first to admit that would be a ridiculous notion, our armed forces are too small although would put up one hell of a fight...alone. The English channel will allow us to do that.

The rest of Europe would capitulate or be overrun in short order, the surrender monkeys would have their day! A combined European defence is a no-brainer without the US. Name ONE European commander/general with experience of commanding anything larger than a single division?

Man, get a clue. I couldnt believe the kind of crap I just read above. We sent special forces and police men to the antipodes to deal with thugs in East Timor past the indonesia border (a territory that US couldnt care less for) were australian troops couldnt or wouldnt want to intervene directly but pose for the cameras. Both this scenario and Africa are constantly ignored by the US. We are also in Lebanon where we are under danger of being fired upon by both terrorists and Israelis, not to mention the hundreds that have been dying in Iraq and Afganistan. Just last week a dutch pilot and 6 spanish soldiers died in action.

Your view of what europe is, is completely distorted. BTW US wished it had as much counter insurgement operations experience as my country alone has. Maybe it makes sense the shrub wants to pull out and let the pinkoy chickens from europe do all the dying because the popularity rates are very low.

Whats worse is not the fact European peace missions are ignored by US public, but while US conducted an incompetent invasion in Iraq using fake proof as excuse, make it worse than what it was, and now have Europeans dying in the mess they created. Get your act together please.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Pilotasso wrote:

snypa777 wrote:

When things get tough, European nations quickly retreat to nationalism and isolation, selfishness. A "Single" unified Europe is a pipe dream IMO. Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is supposed to be a single force, in reality, individual nations are turning their cheek while UK, US and Canadian forces are fighting and bleeding. I know that is political but it illustrates the deep divisions.
As for Britain being able to block a conventional Russian attack, the UK military would be the first to admit that would be a ridiculous notion, our armed forces are too small although would put up one hell of a fight...alone. The English channel will allow us to do that.

The rest of Europe would capitulate or be overrun in short order, the surrender monkeys would have their day! A combined European defence is a no-brainer without the US. Name ONE European commander/general with experience of commanding anything larger than a single division?

Man, get a clue. I couldnt believe the kind of crap I just read above. We sent special forces and police men to the antipodes to deal with thugs in East Timor past the indonesia border (a territory that US couldnt care less for) were australian troops couldnt or wouldnt want to intervene directly but pose for the cameras. Both this scenario and Africa are constantly ignored by the US. We are also in Lebanon where we are under danger of being fired upon by both terrorists and Israelis, not to mention the hundreds that have been dying in Iraq and Afganistan. Just last week a dutch pilot and 6 spanish soldiers died in action.

What Portugal is doing around the world is commendable but wholly piecemeal as far as a "commitment from Europe in the bigger picture. What happened to Spanish troops in Iraq when scum killed 200 people on some trains? They got out of dodge. German troops don`t even venture out of their bases in "comfy" parts of Afghanistan and won`t commit more troops. France is conspicuous by it`s absence. Italy has tiny forces abroad. It is political mate, but we have an alliance called NATO. Remember that?

In fact, most European nations refuse to reinforce the NATO mission in Afghanistan while UK,US Canadian troops are bearing the brunt. The only country worth mentioning with some balls are the Dutch who are committed, along with Polish troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we don`t like the political aspects of Iraq/Afghanistan, why bother to get involved at all? We either get involved full bore or don`t do anything, not this piecemeal effort where nations with sizable armies send a couple of platoons.

Pilotasso wrote:

Your view of what europe is, is completely distorted. BTW US wished it had as much counter insurgement operations experience as my country alone has. Maybe it makes sense the shrub wants to pull out and let the pinkoy chickens from europe do all the dying because the popularity rates are very low.

Wake up and smell the coffee PILOTASSO, my view on Europe is what stands up in front of our eyes for all to see. We are great at business but on political unity where we could make a real difference in the world, we fall WAY short. Our commitment to defense spending and R&D is pitiful, we refuse to stand up on our own and rely on the US militarily.

Thumper, no matter how you slice it, the US IS committed to NATO and Europe. Painful as it may seem to you, that is fact. Why does Bush want to build a missile defense in Europe for example?
If you would rather all US forces be pulled back to the continental US you can be cosy in your isolation but your masters want to be world policemen, take up the issue with them.
In Kosovo, I said Europe couldn`t have intervened without US military and POLITICAL support, you are the big players, without the US "militarily" Europe combined could have got the job done but without US political support it could have become very dangerous. Ok, gutless Europe again, and I hate the fact that Britain is inexorably leaning towards European political integration. We won`t see it in our lifetime but I fear it will happen one day.
In terms of business Europe is great but I don`t want to see anything else. We have ZERO political cohesion, ZERO shared foreign policy, Europe is still bitching about money they OWE the UK for bailing it out in the 1980s` in the form of the rebate. What chance is there for mass integration?

Sheesh, this is a long way from China and the F-35, my apologies.

If you want to know why there is a lack of commitment from big European players such as Germany and France you can point the finger at one culprit - Iraq.

- After 9/11 Europe along with the world shows massive support for the US, the French (which is very rare to see something like this from them) said "We are all Americans". The war on terror had massive support.

- Then Iraq comes along. Seeing as the US and UK didn't even give the UN weapons inspectors the last 2 weeks they requested before they would call it a day says something. Anyway you dress it up that war was illegal, I initially supported it on the belief that Iraq had WMD's. Hearing the excuses after wards was an embarrassment to the US & UK.

- Iraq prove disastrous for relations between Europe and the US, the general public loses confidence in the American led campaign after seeing the actions of the US/UK in Iraq.

If we had just gone into Afghanistan we would have made more progress and had a bigger commitment. Even the US were initially sluggish with their commitment to Afghanistan.

Thumper, this isn't 1930's America. The US, as Synpa said, is the only superpower in the world, whats the point in having a massive military if your not going to use it when the time calls for it. If the US wanted an isolation policy then it would cut back drastically to a defense force and spend all that money elsewhere. Whats the difference between China going power crazy and invading Taiwan to Russia going power crazy and invading continental Europe? Seeing as Russia has a more sophisticated nuclear arsenal I would think the latter is more serious to global security not to mention the catastrophic effect it would have on the world economy.

Snypa777 wrote:

Sheesh, this is a long way from China and the F-35, my apologies.

Lol I mentioned China in my post so that kinda relates Rolling Eyes

.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1089 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

Why does Bush want to build a missile defense in Europe for example?

It ain't for the Europeans. Poland is just about ideal for hitting missiles coming from Iran and headed for the East Coast of the US. Any benefit to the Europeans is purely coincidental.

In July 2007, Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that if US-controlled missile defense systems were deployed in Poland that nuclear weapons would again be deployed in Kaliningrad.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

China - F-35