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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
And Europe's military power is not anywhere near comparable to America's. Europe, even their combined strength, does not rival America's.
Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army.
I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two at least.
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.
Not that Europeans can't fight, but in terms of naval and air power tactics, the U.S. leads the way.
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.
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."
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.
Originally posted by Cjwinnit
That old frigate-pretending-to-be-a-banana-boat story?
[edit on 31-1-2005 by Cjwinnit]
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...
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.
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
Originally posted by devilwasp
I'm afraid he's only copying the americans lead.....
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 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?
Originally posted by TrueLies
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.