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.

 

Power and Weakness - The Truth about European Attitudes in the Modern World

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Thats what you get when you focus on thier worst defeat in the 20th centuary, they're a strong country with a very strong military. But then again, you yanks probably think us brits are all top hat wearing, tea drinking, umbrella weilding, pint drinking gentlemen who need big old uncle sam to lead the way....


How little you know about my opinion of you Brits and Aussies for that matter, mean fighters and aren't scared of nothing. The French have less of a reputation the last 60 odd years, the Brits however have always had it.


I like the way they dealt with terrorism in the early 1900's in the middle east, VERY effective indeed, so much so that the US General Pershing took a clue...




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
How little you know about my opinion of you Brits and Aussies for that matter, mean fighters and aren't scared of nothing. The French have less of a reputation the last 60 odd years, the Brits however have always had it.


Reputation or not France is without a doubt the second strongest if not the strongest military in europe, hell they have europes only nuclear powered carrier. They have the second largest army, they are also the third largest nuclear force in the world. No offence but they are hardly "a weak power".



I like the way they dealt with terrorism in the early 1900's in the middle east, VERY effective indeed, so much so that the US General Pershing took a clue...


I guess you also agreed with the tactics used by Kitchener during the boer war, then again it would show where a certain general got the idea for ABG.


mod edit to correct BB code in quote

[edit on 10/18/2007 by benevolent tyrant]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspReputation or not France is without a doubt the second strongest if not the strongest military in europe, hell they have europes only nuclear powered carrier. They have the second largest army, they are also the third largest nuclear force in the world. No offence but they are hardly "a weak power".


I never said they didn't have a large military, they just are to afraid to use it. The new guy though might be able to 'flex' if needed. Look at what he said in the UN general assembly. I like this guy I think.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I never said they didn't have a large military, they just are to afraid to use it.

Afraid to use it? Against who? A weaker foe? Maybe you havent read about france's military "excursions" in the last few decades....

No offence but those who are quick to use force tend to be those who are less likely to listen to reason.



The new guy though might be able to 'flex' if needed. Look at what he said in the UN general assembly. I like this guy I think.

Why should they flex though ed? If the US is willing to play policeman for the world why should we (europeans) get involved?

Come on, the US sees itself as the worlds greatest and best and frankly if they want to see themselves as that then go ahead.....we thought the same, yet look at what has happened to our empires? Britain was crippled after playing policeman in world war one, and we had to do it again in world war 2 because no one else wanted to. If the US wants to pick up this burder off the european nations then go ahead.....but mark our words...you wont come any better than we did.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspAfraid to use it? Against who? A weaker foe? Maybe you havent read about france's military "excursions" in the last few decades....


Well all I remember is what they have done since the 80's, and excursions in Chad dont count as much.



Originally posted by devilwaspCome on, the US sees itself as If the US wants to pick up this burder off the european nations then go ahead.....but mark our words...you wont come any better than we did.


They had no choice for the last 50 odd years. The US taxpayer has paid to keep Europe safe from the USSR and now that is not the issue, the issue is that the European taxpayer has not had to spend so much on defense and now that there is a new war, they will have to unless they want to become moot.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well all I remember is what they have done since the 80's, and excursions in Chad dont count as much.

Guess GW1 wasnt a really big operation then huh?
Guess Afghanistan wasnt a big operation..




They had no choice for the last 50 odd years. The US taxpayer has paid to keep Europe safe from the USSR and now that is not the issue, the issue is that the European taxpayer has not had to spend so much on defense and now that there is a new war, they will have to unless they want to become moot.

Didnt the USSR fall at the turn of the 90's? If so....why have you "policed" for the last decade?
What war? Against terror? Theres nothing new about terror, infact if its "new" to the US then frankly your a little behind in world events. Europe has been "under attack" from terrorists for the last 100 years (and more if you count your good old rebelion..) As for our defence spending. Frankly we have no need to be the worlds policeman, and we dont want to be. Between france and us we've played that role longer than your country has been in existance. And what do you mean by : "Become moot"?


If we wanted to be so we would become the policeman of the world.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspGuess GW1 wasnt a really big operation then huh?Guess Afghanistan wasnt a big operation..


Well the Gulf War 1 was the exception, the Foreign Legion did very well on the push to the airbases. That one you would have a legit argument about. Afghanistan, well yeah they are helping but the major combat is by the US and GB, not the French. If they are such an ally, how come the troop levels don't match you Brits?


Originally posted by devilwaspDidnt the USSR fall at the turn of the 90's? If so....why have you "policed" for the last decade?


Well it is a whole new world, Clinton chose the peace dividend and neglected the military, now we are paying the price. Just because the USSR is gone doesnt mean the world is safe. How come you Brits and French could not handle Bosnia when it is in your sphere of influence and in your backyard? The US had to make the move...we all know why.



Originally posted by devilwaspWhat war? Against terror? Theres nothing new about terror, infact if its "new" to the US then frankly your a little behind in world events. Europe has been "under attack" from terrorists for the last 100 years (and more if you count your good old rebelion..) As for our defence spending. Frankly we have no need to be the worlds policeman, and we dont want to be. Between france and us we've played that role longer than your country has been in existance.


Europe has not spent what they needed to on defense and you can not even argue that they have. So you played the colony game, we haven't per se, but still we have to be the one that stands up as so many will not.



Originally posted by devilwaspAnd what do you mean by : "Become moot"?


Militarily, Europe is already moot. They can not conduct operations of any size far from home. Small forces yes, but enough to say solve the Iranian issue? not a chance. BTW, you think Iran is an issue?




Originally posted by devilwaspIf we wanted to be so we would become the policeman of the world.


No you couldn't, the people don't have the stomach for it, Bosnia was a great example of what the "European" method of 'negotiate' did.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well the Gulf War 1 was the exception, the Foreign Legion did very well on the push to the airbases. That one you would have a legit argument about. Afghanistan, well yeah they are helping but the major combat is by the US and GB, not the French. If they are such an ally, how come the troop levels don't match you Brits?

I dont know, you could ask that of every member in NATO or the ISAF....
I didnt know that it was a numbers game anyway...



Well it is a whole new world, Clinton chose the peace dividend and neglected the military, now we are paying the price. Just because the USSR is gone doesnt mean the world is safe. How come you Brits and French could not handle Bosnia when it is in your sphere of influence and in your backyard? The US had to make the move...we all know why.

Funny....british troops where the first troops into bosnia or did you forget that little fact?
But moving on from that , we didnt go in for one reason: Why should we get involved? Because it was the "right" thing to do? If so then why is America not sorting out the troubles of africa or atleast south america...?




Europe has not spent what they needed to on defense and you can not even argue that they have.

Since when? Which countries sacrificed the most in both world wars tryign to keep the world safe....?
If we're a little strapped for cash then exscuse us but we havent finished paying off the bills we have from your nice time of profiteering prior to and during world war 1.


So you played the colony game, we haven't per se, but still we have to be the one that stands up as so many will not.

Stand up to who? Some dictator in the middle east? Why not let themselves sort it out or atleast make others frmo the middle east sort it out.




Militarily, Europe is already moot. They can not conduct operations of any size far from home. Small forces yes, but enough to say solve the Iranian issue? not a chance. BTW, you think Iran is an issue?

No? Independantly I would say so but then again we havent had the reason to do so for years but together we have more than enough men and machinery to conduct very large operations esspecially in the mediteranian. We may not have as many ships as you but we do have the materials to handle iran.

And yes I agree it is an issue but then again....we didnt do much to stop pakistan or india getting the bomb...



No you couldn't, the people don't have the stomach for it, Bosnia was a great example of what the "European" method of 'negotiate' did.

"Bosnia! Bosnia!" , you keep shouting that and we'll believe it some day.
Bosnia had nothing to do with us and frankly we had no reason to get involved in that country, what right do we have to interfere with another countries affairs? Because we're stronger? Because we're better? Then surely the man with the biggest gun on your street has every right to interfere with YOUR affairs...yes no?

Oh and just to mention something, if europeans are so cowardly then why have we followed america into almsot every warzone in the last 50 years?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
How come you keep trotting out that nonsense about Bosnia Ed?

You already tried that with your Robert Kagan thread.....

...... and I already posted up the truth about what lay behind the UK Gov's inaction at that the start of that period and how it took a change of UK Gov (the election of Labour & Tony Blair in 1997) to change that.

Page 3 posted on 12-10-2006



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Because in Europe's backyard this went on and no one did a thing INCLUDING the US, but when it finally got so bad, the 'west' did something and the US carried what I feel to be a disproportionate share of the burden.

Look, plain and simple, Europe in general doesn't have the balls to go to war with Iran if that is what needs to be done, the Brits maybe but most likely not.

Since the Iranians can not yet reach US soil with any missiles but can reach Europe, i would think that the priorities would be different..

Maybe things will change, I mean look at France now..

Why Bosnia? It showed that with a weak US president, Europe will not even do something about it in their own backyard...



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
If you'd read the links I gave you'd see that your original notions of a weak or divided 'socialist'/'pacifist' Europe are very wide of the truth.

It was the UK's then conservative Gov that refused and blocked all attempts to organise any kind of military response to what was going on.

Nothing to do with silly ideas about "balls" or any other such macho nonsense.

Similarly Nato as a collective could not move when the UK Gov were so determined to block any such move......nothing to do with a US Pres "weak" or otherwise.

I find it amazing that you can correctly cite the fact that at least part of if not all of Europe (like Russia, China, India & Pakistan) is within range of the latest Iranian missiles and yet not one of us agrees with the US slant on what is supposed to be going on.

We prefer evidence and credible proofs......and after Iraq no-one is enthused with going along on a US say-so, not even the UK.

We all know Iran isn't being run by the nicest regime on the planet but that in itself is not reason enough to begin another disasterous ME war.



[edit on 12-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyWe all know Iran isn't being run by the nicest regime on the planet but that in itself is not reason enough to begin another disasterous ME war.


maybe you are right, I mean it is not like they have said anything or anyway they would use it other than peaceful ones right?

With Iran -- follow the money -- support of whom?



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
maybe you are right, I mean it is not like they have said anything or anyway they would use it other than peaceful ones right?


- Well it helps if we actually have accurate translations of what is actually said, wouldn't you agree?

The whole 'wipe Israel from the map' comment is based on a fake translation.....and one can't help wondering just how convenient that was in this, eh?

Now, as I said, I don't think the Iranian regime is the nicest one on the planet but I sure as hell do not like the obvious attempt at manipulation by the current US (and Israeli and British) ones either.


According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Well I think he has been quite obvious about Israel and his intentions... You can defend him all you want, but Iran is a threat and maybe that is the whole reason we went into Iraq...think about it....they openly fund world terror......and it has to stop.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I think he has been quite obvious about Israel and his intentions... You can defend him all you want, but Iran is a threat and maybe that is the whole reason we went into Iraq...think about it....they openly fund world terror......and it has to stop.

Its ok as long as its in secret then?

If Americans are so desperate to go and solve the problem, do it....just dont blame us when you get your hand burned.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Well a little help would be nice, I mean Europe are infedels also you know..



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well a little help would be nice, I mean Europe are infedels also you know..

I didnt know that terrorism was restricted to just religious terrorists....But hey this is the country that joined yet another war late...



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I think he has been quite obvious about Israel and his intentions.


- How would you know what he has actually said?

It's quite clear that we are being fed a highly loaded and agenda-laden 'version' and not the actual truth of it at all.


Originally posted by edsinger
You can defend him all you want


- LMAO.

That was lame ed, very lame.

Trying to get at the truth in this is 'defending' no-one.

Still, if you want to put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and shout the good old la la la's as loudly as possible to shut out that truth then you go right ahead.
It's your right.


Originally posted by edsinger
but Iran is a threat


- As far as the 'nuclear weapons issue goes I'd say that has absolutely not been demonstrated or proved in any way at all.

.....and as far as the more 'regular' ME 'terrorism' goes I see them as no more of a threat than most ME countries.

If you want to get into it I'm happy to say I condemn all 'terrorism' but if Israel is going to operate an apartheid state and periodically attack her neighbours then the resultant actions of those 'on the other side' can hardly surprise anyone.


Originally posted by edsinger
and maybe that is the whole reason we went into Iraq...think about it....they openly fund world terror......and it has to stop.


- Wake up ed.

The USA went into Iraq for economic reasons with a political excuse and a deceived public back home.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (despite the heavy implications she had pre the invasion.....a media message so heavy that even to this day a substantial number of Americans believe Saddam and Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11).

Ditto Iran.
Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 but it looks more and more likely that the US public at least are being prepared for more of the same.

You ought to be careful throwing terms like 'terrorism' around cos with the USA's very long record of funding so-called 'freedom fighters' across the globe (who invariably commit - by any sane definition - 'terrorist acts') that's one hell of an ambiguous notion.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyIf you want to get into it I'm happy to say I condemn all 'terrorism' but if Israel is going to operate an apartheid state and periodically attack her neighbours then the resultant actions of those 'on the other side' can hardly surprise anyone.



Yeah and she should sit there while they lob rockets at her civilian population?


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Ditto Iran.
Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 but it looks more and more likely that the US public at least are being prepared for more of the same.


Well actually the 19 used Iran to get into and out of Afghanistan or at least some did. they are harboring some al queda you know. they are suppliying the IED's in Iraq, yup no threat at all....


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You ought to be careful throwing terms like 'terrorism' around cos with the USA's very long record of funding so-called 'freedom fighters' across the globe (who invariably commit - by any sane definition - 'terrorist acts') that's one hell of an ambiguous notion.


yeah yeah yeah.....We are known for blowing up markets and deliberately hitting civilian targets....



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah and she should sit there while they lob rockets at her civilian population?


- Ah I see, so you wish to reduce the ME conflict down to a rather childish black and white proposition?

I could point out that it is exactly that sort of absurd rational that has helped in no small measure to create the very 'climate' we are witnessing today but I doubt it would mean a thing to you.

Israel has been wronged (I have never - ever- said otherwise......but if you want to imply otherwise then go ahead and prove it) but that hardly justifies all of her behaviour - and her continuing behaviour.


Originally posted by edsinger
Well actually the 19 used Iran to get into and out of Afghanistan or at least some did.


- Oh please.

Members of that alleged group (some of whom are apparently alive and in Saudi Arabia) used several countries for transit and to reside in beforehand, even the USA.

It's one hell of a speculative leap to claim this proves the state itself was 'in' on it......and of course it's just yet another implication for which there is not the slightest shred of proof.


Originally posted by edsinger
they are harboring some al queda you know.


- .....and so is (allegedly) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and Ethiopia etc etc.

It's hardly justification for another disastrous ME war or an extension of the existing disastrous ME war.

.....and considering 'Al Quada' is such a vague concept (started up btw by the USA as the American Arabian contingent to fight the USSR in Afghanistan) what exactly is that supposed to mean anyways?

So some alleged members of Al Quada might be in Iran.....therefore go ahead & attack Iran?!


Originally posted by edsinger
they are suppliying the IED's in Iraq


- So it has been alleged.
Other (even US) senior military people have said there is no evidence of a direct state involvement from Iran.

.....and I think you'll find arms from the world over have been found there, the idea that they source everything - or the most sophisticated stuff - from Iran is laughable.
Besides it's hardly necessary......why would anyone risk such a heavily surveiled border?
Previously IR equipment was sourced from consumer electronics as were simple transmitters which came from mobile/cell phones (I have a friend out there and hear plenty of what is going on).
They are not called IEDs for nothing.
They have even been known to use some US weaponry too you know.


Originally posted by edsinger
, yup no threat at all....


- Certainly you've (as in the US Gov you support) have shown nothing to demonstrate a global or nuclear weapons threat.

Certainly nothing to justify a new disastrous ME war or an extension of the existing disastrous ME war......and even if a majority of the US people have been begulded into thinking so (which I doubt very much now) it sure as hell isn't that way here in Europe, not even in the UK.


Originally posted by edsinger
yeah yeah yeah.....We are known for blowing up markets and deliberately hitting civilian targets....


- Well 'your' proxies certainly are.

That's how almost all of those anti-Gov/communist/socialist/terrorist (whatever the then label of convenience was) types the USA has backed & funded since the end of WW2 operated in the pursuit of US interests.
From the overthrow of democratically elected Govs and the installation of straight-out fascist dictatorships to even 'false flag' horrific terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians.

No point trying to deny it ed, the various handbooks for training that kind of horror are in the public domain as well as umteen survivors and ex-combatants to tell the tale.

Central & South America in particular prove my point precisely (despite the attempts of certain apologists who to this day try to excuse and soft-soap what went on down there).


[edit on 25-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join