It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 29
1
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
OK Zibi, you called down the thunder and now you've got it.

By the by, I would like to think I'm a bit like those you listed. They've made detailed posts with a good deal of evidence in the form of comparisons of specs and anecdotal evidence.

I dug back through this thread to see your posts. I assumed that you had at some point made a detailed post before you started trying to correct everyone else with 1 and 2 sentence replies. Not so though. Your idea of proof is playing "is not, is so" and throwing out random snippets of GDP and allusions to kill ratios without giving any interpretation of the sources.

So, first let's sum up the argument and "proof" that I am refuting.

Your first post: Europe is not militarily powerful.
2nd: France is a joke, USA has a bigger GDP than the EU.
3rd: US, UK, and Germany are militarily superior to France, and EU isn't a major economic force.

4th: Abrams is the best tank in the world because of kill ratios, Eurofighter is inferior to F-15 based on kill ratios as well.

And from there you've continued to harp on kill ratios as viable indicators of combat power, not introducing appreciable further claims.

You make statements such as "The German IFV is better than the French IFV" with no supporting evidence at all.

Let me help you out. The "German IFV" is called Marder 1 A3 and France is using AMX 10 P. I'd take either one over the Alvis FV 10_ vehicles the British are using.


Let's dispense with Kill Ratios.
1. Keyword RATIO: it reflects who you've been fighting. In the case of the Abrams, it earned its fame destroying 60s and 70s vintage soviet export armor manned by undisciplined crews, lacking the technical support to keep those ridiculous soviet auto-loaders functioning properly, and above all, firing outdated steel penetrators, as opposed to the modern Tungsten or DU rounds that real armies now use.

2. It's apples to oranges comparison. The Spartans at Thermopylae had a better kill ratio than the US Army in WWII. Does that mean that a bunch of ancient greeks would take their spears and shields and hand General Patton his butt? Obviously the kill ratio that Spartans could achieve thousands of years ago have no bearing on what they'd do against the weapons of the 21st century. By the same token, the kill ratio that F-15 (a perfectly good aircraft) achieved starting in the 1970s hardly has anything to do with what it would do against modern aircraft such as Eurofighter. Compare apples to apples and the Raptor may be a decent match, but it is ridiculous to use kill ratios to claim that Europe is 35 years behind America in airpower.

Now we dispense with GDPs- not difficult. What was Vietnam's GDP?

Oh schnap, you're out of arguments!

So here's what you do now, you check out globalsecurity.org and at the very least learn the names and specs of the equipment you're criticizing, then you get into an encyclopedia and research the past effectiveness of 1. similar designs. 2. the doctrine those weapons support. 3. that particular design- WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING FORCE, and preference to technical trials as opposed to 3rd world smackdowns that don't prove anything.


While you're at it though, consider the strategic needs of Europe. America is half way around the world from everywhere, is knee deep in enemies, and has ambitious foreign policy goals. It needs a large, highly deployable force to do this.

Europe, comparatively speaking, is a stones throw from the middle east, isn't generally ambitious to the point of being willing to fight, and has fewer interests to protect against powerful allies (for instance Europe is in no danger of fighting China over South Korea). So Europe needs much less to be powerful. Powerful for Europe basically consists of being able to keep people off of their continent and being able to deploy light infantry to Africa.

Israel is an even better example. Israel is no match for the US or Europe overall- they certainly couldn't project force on a global scale like us, but they could but a serious hurt on a very important region on a whim. I'd say that's powerful.

The world is not simple. The world takes critical thinking to understand. 3 sentences and 2 statistics don't explain reality.




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Thanks for the effort Vagabond, but it wont help.

This particular member as the habit of stating completely irrelevant facts, unrealistic opinions, has an idiotic sensibility against even the slightest forms of criticism and will present weblinks as "proof" that simply arent proof for his points and are unrelated to the discussion, but then talks down on others that use simple logic or common knowledge to show the outlandish nature of his views ... including angry U2Us and a quick finger on the "ignore" button - actually he must have half the memberlist ignored by now. And if nothing else helps, he will always find a spelling mistake to "critizise" an unliked post.

I think this here sums it pretty well why we are wasting our times:

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by stumason
Can't say I'm surprised to see this post started by Zibi, the fanatically anti-french bigot that he is.....

This is offensive. I am not a racist. The fact that I hate the Germans and the French doesnt mean that I hate all other nations.


From his thread Jokes about the French; or another insightful example...

Now, usually I wouldnt care about a simple troll, and it was funny at first, but it slowly degrades to a real nuisance considering the amount of pages he clogs up with his "proof"... particularly since the Aircraft and Weaponry forums he trolls are usually quite "peaceful". I hereby advise anyone not to waste their time anymore on his mindless bubbles, unless you´re in it like me for the fun of searching the holes in an argument


(Yes, I will definately go to hell with my character...)

Noooow, if there is anything left to say on the Issue of Europes power (considering that this thread had already died once for good)... could we please hear some REAL arguments again?

[edit on 30/5/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
By the by, I would like to think I'm a bit like those you listed. They've made detailed posts with a good deal of evidence in the form of comparisons of specs and anecdotal evidence.

This is not true. They have never posted ANY message worth reading. ZERO! NULL! NONE!

Whereas I always provide proof to back up my claims. I don't care if someone disregards this proof (the CIA World Factbook, the BBC's website, etc.).

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Let's dispense with Kill Ratios.

The Kill ratio is the only honest measure of combat power of a plane. It tells you how the plane performs in real combat.

If a plane is not battle-proven, it cannot be claimed to be better than a battle-proven plane. This cannot be debated.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
In the case of the Abrams, it earned its fame destroying 60s and 70s vintage soviet export tanks manned by undisciplined crews

Not only them, but also tanks from the 80s, like the T-72. Not only that, but it also has been attacked with IEDs, RPGs and LAWs, and despite that, out of all tanks in the world it still has the best combat history.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
you started trying to correct everyone else with 1 and 2 sentence replies.

Because there's no need to elaborate. I've been talking about topics that cannot be debated - I've mentioned the facts. For example, I've said that the US has a higher GDP than all 25 EU countries combined. That is a fact (as proven by me). If it's a proven fact, it cannot be debated.

What you and the other people have been doing was just replying to my post with the same statement - "I am right because I am".

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Regarding kill ratios, I'll say it this way:

My tank has taken part in hundreds of fights, and has won 90% of them. Your tank hasn't taken part in a single fight, but its stats are better. Which tank is better?



Powerful for Europe basically consists of being able to keep people off of their continent


But Europe isn't. As I said, the German military is a joke, and so is the French military. The Polish military isn't a joke, but Poland alone cannot defend the entire European continent.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Lol Europe doesn't need a huge military like the US does because we are not hated worldwide like the Yanks are. Blair is a puppet for Bush and gets involved in things he doesnt need to. Thats why 7/7 happened. Britain has much more reliable troops than America. American troops in general tend to be retards. I remember hearing a story in the early days of this iraq war, a group of American soldiers actually called in an air strike on themselves, clowns. Americans have a ridiculous amount of Friendly Fire kills in past wars. Britain has the SAS - Worldwide accepted at the best Regiment in the World. American regiments like the Seals aren't # next to the SAS. But yeah anyway. If anyone invaded Europe
which isn't going to happen, we'd defend it easily. Just because Europe doesn't brag about its armies etc, doesn't mean we can't put up a fight. Yanks talk and talk and talk about how their the biggest Superpower in the world - Yeh also the mot hated and that will backfire in the longterm trust me. 9/11 happened because The US gets involved in far too many things it doesnt need to, and sorry to say but America deserved it. They've got to learn to keep out of other countries affairs. Let countries like Iraq get on with it, and lets be honest it was only about Oil anyway. The chances are the way America is going their going to upset someone alot bigger than Iraq or Iran, like China, North Korea or Russia and it will all just backfire on them because this time if their was a World War III, it would be mot of the World against American ... and probably Britain because Blair is an idiot and is just Bush's lapdog.

[edit on 31/5/06 by Liamoville]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liamoville
Britain has much more reliable troops than America. American troops in general tend to be retards. I remember hearing a story in the early days of this iraq war, a group of American soldiers actually called in an air strike on themselves, clowns.

I wasn't bashing the Britons, I was bashing the French and the Germans.


Originally posted by Liamoville
Just because Europe doesn't brag about its armies etc, doesn't mean we can't put up a fight.

The 3000 years of European history suggest that Europe cannot.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
3000 Years of history also shows the Britain owned 2/3 of the World.

[edit on 31/5/06 by Liamoville]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liamoville
3000 Years of history also shows the Britain owned 2/3 of the World.

Great Britain is not Europe (at least Churchill said it isn't).



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Lol Yeah lets be honest though .... It is. We have more say on what goes on than anyone else in Europe and we have a much better military.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liamoville
We have more say on what goes on than anyone else in Europe and we have a much better military.

Your first claim is wrong. How can Great Britain run Europe if in the EU Council of Ministers it has only 9% of the votes? How can Great Britain run Europe if its economy is weaker than the German economy?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Never mentioned the economy. But when it comes to war who is the one that is always at the forefront of it, Britain. The Europeans follow us. Britain doesn't want to be a part of the EU anyway there has been voting over here recently i remember to see how many people actually wanted to be apart of the EU and if im right more voted in favour of not being with the Eu. Mainly because of 1. We hat the Germans. 2. We hate the French.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Your first claim is wrong. How can Great Britain run Europe if in the EU Council of Ministers it has only 9% of the votes? How can Great Britain run Europe if its economy is weaker than the German economy?


our puny island (britain) has the 4th largest economy in the world?


edit:- just done some googling, china overtook us in december 2005 (they have the fastest growing economy so no doubt will soon be 2nd)!! - also never knew germany was the 3rd, that supprised me.

www.guardian.co.uk...

so heres the list:-

1st US
2nd Japan
3rd Germany
4th China
5th Britain

i apologize










[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liamoville
if im right more voted in favour of not being with the Eu. Mainly because of 1. We hat the Germans. 2. We hate the French.


- No.
You're not right.

It's true there is probably the largest 'euro sceptic' opinion in the UK out of all the EU countries but they are nowhere near a majority.
We aren't about to elect a Government seriously set on leaving.

Britons might not 'love' the EU (and just what sort of looper would 'love' a multinational political and economic body anyway?) but we are in it for the duration......and in any event poll after poll shows the EU ranks pretty low on most British peoples' priority listings.

The British anti-EU side is reduced to opportunistic quibbling from the sidelines complaining as and when a 'profitable' issue arises for them.
But, there is no serious political support or party standing on the platform for leaving the EU except for the UKIP party and their support at the polls is tiny.

Even the British tory party have pulled back from their worst and most ridiculous anti-EU rhetoric because they know it simply bores the voters senseless and makes them look absurd.
Leaving a situation where you enjoy favourable terms with your biggest single trading partners to go and deliberately create a worse set of circumstances with them might not be the most attractive proposition afterall.

It's true the traditional 'music hall' joke is we don't much like the Germans (but personally I think there is a lot in the idea that this is a 'protest too much' secret liking for the European nation possibly most alike us) and we aren't supposed to be too keen on the French (which is sort of ok as far as dumb jokes go I suppose) but the reality is that like them or not the French are our allies, political and economic partners.....and have been for over 100 years now (entente cordial was 1904?).



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
blahhhh to the EU,

britain has ruled the world 430 years out of the last 500!!

we never did that by being in a shiity european union












[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
britain has ruled the world 430 years out of the last 500!!

we never did that by being in a shiity european union


- You can live in the past all you like but those whos' jobs and livelihoods rely on the opportunities the EU has opened up live the reality.

The Empire is gone and never coming back.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
i'm not living in the past, i was joking - thats why i gave some tongue "
" at the end!!

but with the EU, are you saying there are no other opportunities/options for britain if we DID decide to pull out, because i can name several.













[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm not living in the past, i was joking - thats why i gave some tongue "
" at the end!!

but with the EU, are you saying there are no other opportunities/options for britain if we DID decide to pull out, because i can name several.[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]


It will never happen. Besides, Britain isn't the most powerful country of the European Union. I rather see it like this:



Just taking the mickey out of you guys, don't be mad
.

Britain is one of key players in Europe indeed, but I wouldn't put them on top of the list just because they support the US government both military and politically.


The Britain military is rightfully more powerful than that of other European countries, although I actually wonder how big the difference is between the UK, France, and Germany.

The Netherlands for instance has a powerful, and modern army (leopard 2A6 tanks, F-16s, Apaches soon: F-35s etc.) But as it is a small country it doesn't have a quantitatively big military, quality is a different thing. I either know you can't measure the force and power of a small (army) with that of a big army, on the other side we need each other these days, fighting a war on your own in countries such as Iraq is just not possible, no matter how big your army is.

If Britain doesnt adopt the Euro very soon they'll go down with the sinking American ship as well, when the US economy goes down, the British will go down as well, and then an army is useless.





[edit on 31-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

If Britain doesnt adopt the Euro very soon they'll go down with the sinking American ship as well
[edit on 31-5-2006 by Mdv2]


euro as in currency 'euro?' or 'euro' just as in europe?

but if its the currency your talking about, its funny you say that because a m8 of mine works in holland quite a lot, and the locals over there say it is the worst thing they've ever done switching from the former currency 'guilder' to the 'euro' (and the majority of holland think that also)!!

yes the euro is probably destroying the american ($) but the £ is still going strong.

if your talking about britain adapting more to europe, i don't think so!!

most brits don't even class themselfs as 'european', i class britain as a continent on its own!!

apart from the channel tunnel (worst thing ever built) we are in no way connected to europe.














[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
really? - its funny you say that because a m8 of mine works in holland quite a lot, and the locals over there say it is the worst thing they've ever done switching from the former currency 'guilder' to the 'euro' (and the majority of holland think that also)!!

yes the euro is probably destroying the american ($) but the £ is still going strong.




The Dutch people always have something to moan about. It's indeed true that everything became expensiver after the introduction of the Euro, something which the government has always denied. A cup of coffee for instance used to cost 2 guilders (€1 = 2.20 Guilders), and nowadays the same cup of coffee costs €2.50,-

Several years ago I was against the Euro as well, some kind of patriotism and nationalism isn't bad at all is it?

However, now I can see the advantages of it, especially in the long-term and in times of global crisis. The Netherlands is one of the biggest exporting countries in Europe. If the US economy crashes, the Dutch will be hit very hard either, with the guilder as national currency the situation (inflation) would be even worse.

The British currence is and always has been a stable and strong currency, but as mentioned, if it the US Dollars goes down, Britain will feel the consequences of it much harder than other European countries that adopted the Euro currency.


Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.







[edit on 31-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
OK Zibi, you called down the thunder and now you've got it.

By the by, I would like to think I'm a bit like those you listed. They've made detailed posts with a good deal of evidence in the form of comparisons of specs and anecdotal evidence.

I dug back through this thread to see your posts. I assumed that you had at some point made a detailed post before you started trying to correct everyone else with 1 and 2 sentence replies. Not so though. Your idea of proof is playing "is not, is so" and throwing out random snippets of GDP and allusions to kill ratios without giving any interpretation of the sources.

So, first let's sum up the argument and "proof" that I am refuting.

Your first post: Europe is not militarily powerful.
2nd: France is a joke, USA has a bigger GDP than the EU.
3rd: US, UK, and Germany are militarily superior to France, and EU isn't a major economic force.

4th: Abrams is the best tank in the world because of kill ratios, Eurofighter is inferior to F-15 based on kill ratios as well.



That's funny, Zibi accused me, like he accused many others of the following:


Zibi's comment on my behaviour:

Originally posted by Zibi
Firstly, they (his claims and statement) are not baseless. Secondly, that is not the reason. The reason for why is that you state nonsense, refuse to back this up, and when someone proves you wrong, you offend this person.


I am not sure why he is trying to reflect his own behaviour on me.




top topics



 
1
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join