Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
So, America doesn't have 8,000 extra troops now, huh? We have half a million men in our army alone, and just 150,000 are in Iraq. The British were not necessary. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just a biased Brit.

America wanted other nations to chip in. The British gave more support than anyone. It's appreciated. It doesn't go beyond that.

And Europe's military power is not anywhere near comparable to America's. Europe, even their combined strength, does not rival America's. Just remember, Europe, you guys couldn't even have dealt with Iraq after years upon years of sanctions.

America's military strength has been drastically cut since the end of the Cold War, and we're still ahead of the combined strength of Europe. America spends more per man then probably anyone in the world. We have the best equipment in the world in just about every aspect.

Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army. No military in France is suited for wide deployment. How much support could the UK even give to mainland Europe if they were attacked? I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two at least. In that time America could probably have taken most of Western Europe.


sometimes what a child (the US) needs from the adults (europe) is a good kick in the arse to teach it some hard learnt lessons


[edit on 31-1-2005 by drfunk]




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Couldn't agree more,



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
First,


Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army. No military in France is suited for wide deployment. How much support could the UK even give to mainland Europe if they were attacked? I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two at least. In that time America could probably have taken most of Western Europe.


Belgium and Holland's military are specialized forces trained and reformed to have a specific role in the EU and Nato force.

Before dissing France, I suggest you check out the Foreign Legion. Last I saw, they count about 150k soldiers and in contrary of what you say, they are constantly deployed at a moments notice for all the highest risk missions.

Then, about that statement that we don't elect the EU politicians. If I'm not mistaken, we did have European elections just last year or 2 years ago.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
benidict arnold as to wether europe can ever be as powerful as the US of A I don't know but what I do know is WE- Britain have always been and always will be your Backbone to give you a little spine



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
So, America doesn't have 8,000 extra troops now, huh? We have half a million men in our army alone, and just 150,000 are in Iraq. The British were not necessary. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just a biased Brit.

America wanted other nations to chip in. The British gave more support than anyone. It's appreciated. It doesn't go beyond that.

And Europe's military power is not anywhere near comparable to America's. Europe, even their combined strength, does not rival America's. Just remember, Europe, you guys couldn't even have dealt with Iraq after years upon years of sanctions.

America's military strength has been drastically cut since the end of the Cold War, and we're still ahead of the combined strength of Europe. America spends more per man then probably anyone in the world. We have the best equipment in the world in just about every aspect.

Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army. No military in France is suited for wide deployment. How much support could the UK even give to mainland Europe if they were attacked? I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two at least. In that time America could probably have taken most of Western Europe.


sometimes what a child (the US) needs from the adults (europe) is a good kick in the arse to teach it some hard learnt lessons


[edit on 31-1-2005 by drfunk]


100s of years, and Europe still couldn't learn that you stop a war-mongerer when he goes on a conquest (i.e. Hitler). Europe always has complained and bickered and always will. Actually, what Europe needs is a good swift kick in the arse from the U.S. All they do is complain, complain, complain, and they are a bunch of ungrates, trying to take away U.S. sovereignty, even though we practically re-built them after WWII. They bickered over each other with Bosnia even, until Clinton finally went in and did the job for them.

And now, over in Indonesia, the entire U.N. is screwing up the U.S. Navy's operations there because it is supposed to be a "global effort;" the navy has had to support all the U.N. folk over there who do nothing but act like they should be there. They call the U.S. cheap, yet then they are not at all willing to provide any navy ships for aid; you aren't seriously telling me the French navy or British or German navy can't send a supply ship or a carrier ship (yes Europe does have carriers, just smaller ones) to help with the effort.

But nope, Europe's idea of "help" is to just send some $$$, but put the brunt of the work on the U.S. military.

The problem with Europe is just as drfunk said; they consider themselves "adults" and the U.S. as a "child," even though it is the U.S. who saved their arses twice, and helped keep the Soviet Union away from them, and teaches them how to set standards for modern warfare. Not that Europeans can't fight, but in terms of naval and air power tactics, the U.S. leads the way.

And with the amount of responsibility the U.S. has around the world these days, I certainly would think it is the farthest thing from being a "child."



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

100s of years, and Europe still couldn't learn that you stop a war-mongerer when he goes on a conquest (i.e. Hitler). Europe always has complained and bickered and always will. Actually, what Europe needs is a good swift kick in the arse from the U.S. All they do is complain, complain, complain, and they are a bunch of ungrates, trying to take away U.S. sovereignty, even though we practically re-built them after WWII. They bickered over each other with Bosnia even, until Clinton finally went in and did the job for them.



Your so out of line here, first of all german would have stop'd in the end on WWII, sad to say but without US help, i dont dislike that most of us got to western side, still its true if US wouldnt have come, EU continent would be overflowd with Russians, if you have seen figures end of war, Russia just got its industry kicked on and there would have come well armed troops, alone if you see figures of tanks produced end of war by Russia, twice as much Germany made, US (88,500) did almost same number as Russia (102,300). In Europe continent war was mostly fought in land. Russia & rest of allied had race to Berlin, so dont forget who were involved in war US wasnt any more special than others on that effort, everyone did their share and US made sure those political toward em stayed on power. Everyone knew before WWI - WWII that there was going arms race in Europe, but who could have expected German to try become next Rome.


And you cant really say US rebuild devastated countrys after WWII, its true they bring lot of supplys and helped, but for price of course. Also dont forget Europe was literally cut in two pieces after WWII, now its coming together after soviet union collapse, for best interest of all, not as some imperalist act.

Bosnia truly showd EU countrys weakness to act on such scenario that required fast deployment of forces, but you cant say nothing was learned by that incident, or what is today planned rabid strike force for? Not to forget EU constitution that is on its way to countrys own constitution to allow speak as one voice and make fast decicions easier, without too much byrocrat that slows decicion making as united.

Keep in mind i dont dis any US efforts in past history toward Europe, but still should keep some realism and facts on when making such statements.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Europe is powerful.

Have been since the creation of our countries and always will be.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

Birthrate, birthrate, birthrate...


Yes, the EU will be strong for a few years. The problem with it, though, is that the birthrate among Europeans is so low that it cannot naturally replace its population. Not only are the Europeans literally dying out... they've embraced a way of life that isn't even interested in creating progeny.


The population of Britain & Ireland is growing.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   


And Europe's military power is not anywhere near comparable to America's. Europe, even their combined strength, does not rival America's.


Actually we have more troops, tanks and APC's. Europe (apart fom the UK and France) has inferior lift capability though.


Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army.


You'd be surprised. The Dutch marines are excellent. In a full-scale war the Royal Marines (UK) and the Dutch Marines would probably have been used as a combined force.


I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two at least.


Hours, maybe minutes.

We have masses of military hardware and thousands of troops in Germany and mainland Europe is about 3 minutes flight time away from the UK.


you aren't seriously telling me the French navy or British or German navy can't send a supply ship or a carrier ship (yes Europe does have carriers, just smaller ones) to help with the effort.


We did send a few ships, not sure which ones though.


Not that Europeans can't fight, but in terms of naval and air power tactics, the U.S. leads the way.


Tactics? Oh, I see, that must be why the US spent all it's intelligence resources copying Russain tactics. And if we are so bad at naval tactics, how do you think Britain, an island nation, survived a millenium without a large-scale land invasion and then conquered a quarter of the world?

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Not that Europeans can't fight, but in terms of naval and air power tactics, the U.S. leads the way.

Thats why we managed to force the USS nimitz offcourse with an old frigate and say across the loud speaker "Bang your dead".
Btw i will get the names tonight when i meet my leuitenant.


And with the amount of responsibility the U.S. has around the world these days, I certainly would think it is the farthest thing from being a "child."

Self apointed resposeability , note that people.
You can actually find many similarities with a countries actions and policies with children today.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thats why we managed to force the USS nimitz offcourse with an old frigate and say across the loud speaker "Bang your dead".
Btw i will get the names tonight when i meet my leuitenant.


That old frigate-pretending-to-be-a-banana-boat story?

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
That old frigate-pretending-to-be-a-banana-boat story?
[edit on 31-1-2005 by Cjwinnit]

Nope , acording to the leuitenant , the ship sailed within the 150 mile screen undetected and forced the nimitz off course....



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I think they will have alot of influence but if France decides to start conquering again and chirac doesn't learn how to tell the truth about being in bed with sadam and supplying him weapons the world is going to have problems...

Chirac is jack ass, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Finland, Ukraine, would be cool to learn some things from, and I would like to see all of the european countries being friends and and having close economic ties for the people. I would like to see people having economic freedoms and lower taxes so they can live and make their dreams a reality much easier.

I also believe that if the EU and the US can see eye to eye they could be very influential and helpful to the rest of the world if they need it.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
I think they will have alot of influence but if France decides to start conquering again and chirac doesn't learn how to tell the truth about being in bed with sadam and supplying him weapons the world is going to have problems...

I'm afraid he's only copying the americans lead.....



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   


Eh the british have good reason I know for a fact I dont want europe to have power in its present state it more corrupt than our own gov and we dont at moment even get to elect the ppl in EU. Until its non corrupt directed for all the ppl and not individual nations trying to get there own benifits out of anothers lose.

In my opinion the EU will be truely powerful when its democraticaly elected and for all the ppl.


There was an election for the European parliament last year. Didn't you notice? Kilroy got elected as a British MEP, representing the UKIP if I'm not mistaken. I seem to remember he lost his job as a TV presenter for making racist comments about Arabs.


Firstly i find that comment racist.
Secondly there is no " xenophobic distrust of the French" , I really want to know where you got this idea from


So I am racist for pointing out a very noticable bias against the French in the mainstream English media? It seems acceptable for TV personalities and journalists to stereotype continental Europeans and insult their culture. Why is it taken in good humour when Jeremy Clarkson, for example, makes a xenophobic comment about the personal hygiene of the French people, while Kilroy loses his job for equally insulting remarks about Arabs?



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I'm afraid he's only copying the americans lead.....



And that's the kind of attitude that won't help get far... You wouldn't happen to be on the cfr would you? didn't think so.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
There was an election for the European parliament last year. Didn't you notice? Kilroy got elected as a British MEP, representing the UKIP if I'm not mistaken. I seem to remember he lost his job as a TV presenter for making racist comments about Arabs.

So a guy loses a job for remarks he made, thats not as bad as some US presidnets have done.....
It makes him human.


So I am racist for pointing out a very noticable bias against the French in the mainstream English media?

No racist for yet again calling it english, do you even understand what BRITAIN is?

sxLlkxcKT0J:www.uk-hotels-in.co.uk/images/united-kingdom.jpg' style='width: 100%;'>

Thats the UK ^ see not just england!

What biased are you talking about?
Jokes?
Does the US media not make jokes about every country in the world?



It seems acceptable for TV personalities and journalists to stereotype continental Europeans and insult their culture. Why is it taken in good humour when Jeremy Clarkson, for example, makes a xenophobic comment about the personal hygiene of the French people, while Kilroy loses his job for equally insulting remarks about Arabs?

Jeremy clarkson is a TV host not an MEP.
Also he makes them in jest do you not notice this?
Is it okey for the US to make jokes abour how france cant fight and is a coward?
Or how the US thinks the UK is just england?
I find these remarks to be racist and infact have almost lost the head at many americans doing so! I think you would figure out where scotland and ireland are SINCE WE EMIGRATED A LARGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE TO YOUR COUNTRY!



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
And that's the kind of attitude that won't help get far...

Just passing an opinion. I dont support it.


You wouldn't happen to be on the cfr would you? didn't think so.

If i knew what "cfr" is then I would tell you.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
devilwasp...

I live in Glasgow
...have a wee look at my location.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
devilwasp...

I live in Glasgow
...have a wee look at my location.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
active topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join