Tweet
Hershell: You're missing the point as badly as GePap. Even if Europe wanted to, it couldn't sustain the effort. France and the UK are about the only ones who seem like they could sustain the effort politically, if they chose.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
No Dan, you're missing the point. There is a question of what we can do. That is limited, but every country could scratch together something IF THE POLITICAL WILL WAS THERE.
There is a gazillion reasons why that will is not there regarding Iraq, but you conclude that it is something about Europe in general. That's like saying someone is gay because he doesn't **** the ugliest ***** from under the bridge.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
DanS:
Do you really want Europe to start beefing up its army? I mean, would a Europe with a lower standard of living and better military capabilities really be that much of a benefit to the U.S.A.? Consumer spending on American products in Europe would likely drop, and the newly empowered European armies would be less likely to toe the American line.
I don't disagree that most Europeans (and Canadians) value standard of living over military capabilities, but I'm a little hazy on the assumption that a military-centric Europe would be a great benefit to America."I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" -Frank Zappa
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."- Thomas Paine
"I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours." -Bob DylanComment
-
There is a gazillion reasons why that will is not there regarding Iraq, but you conclude that it is something about Europe in general.
Yes, I do. As corroborating evidence, I offer the priority that military spending has in most European countries.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
They might have been able to take care of the Balkans without dragging us in.Originally posted by cinch
but I'm a little hazy on the assumption that a military-centric Europe would be a great benefit to America.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Why should Europe particpate in Iraq? It's our mess.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
The article says '12,000 foreign troops, mostly British'. I presume those are the peacekeepers, not the fighters. But you're right, 20,000 is an honest little number, that's why it was chosen, just enough not to look pathetic. There is absolutely no credible military reason for the presence of any non-American forces, the main function of whom is to provide a veil of legitimacy and multilateralism. America didn't need any help invading, and it doesn't need any help occupying.I don't think Britain's numbers are paltry. 20,000 troops is an honest number--a little more than half as many as the US has there on a per capita basis. Neither are the troops that the Netherlands is sending paltry. Or Denmark, for that matter, considering its size.Comment
-
We stand at 2 % of GDP on average. The US was at 3 % before the Bushies cranked it up for their new adventures, now it's 4 %.Originally posted by DanS
Yes, I do. As corroborating evidence, I offer the priority that military spending has in most European countries.
Now if we were spending 4 % of GDP on the military, wtf would we do with that military?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Do you really want Europe to start beefing up its army? I mean, would a Europe with a lower standard of living and better military capabilities really be that much of a benefit to the U.S.A.?
It would be. The US has been asking Europe to spend about 2.5% of its economy on their militaries while the US spends about 4%.
From the set of facts that the article lays out, it's clear that American policy makers are fantasizing if they think that Europe will outlay 2.5% of its economy on the military.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
You could try taking care of things like bosnia and Kosovo on your own or maybe sending peace keepers to Chechnya or the several war torn regions in Africa or Kashmire or any of a half dozen other places the bleeding heart types are constently moaning about.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
To take care of Bosnia and Kosovo, we can do nicely woth 2 % of GDP, thanx. Chechenya and kashmir are incredibly stupid examples, and you should know it. But your government could stop its support for the supporters of islamist terror in Kashmir, maybe?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
That's not unrealistic, depending on what comes around.Originally posted by DanS
From the set of facts that the article lays out, it's clear that American policy makers are fantasizing if they think that Europe will outlay 2.5% of its economy on the military.
What they should stop fantisizing about is that we'll increase military spending to support some nutjob ideas from the Pentagon. Even Tony Poodle won't.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
To take care of Bosnia and Kosovo, we can do nicely woth 2 % of GDP, thanx.
But you can't. Who took care of the business end of both? The US and UK.
From Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, it was thought that the division of labor would be the US provides the muscle while Europe peacekeeps/occupies. But that model doesn't seem durable to me.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
EU Armies: Build to defend Europe (against former 'Soviet Agression'
US Army: Mobile (to be sent to Europe )
Ahh Trolling is so easy once you get the Hang on it.Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!Comment
-
Europe tried to stop Bosnia for three years and failed miserably largely because it didn't have the number & force composition to do the job. Kosovo we 95% a US and UK operation during the fighting because the rest of Europe didn't have suffient missiles, bombs, and combat aircraft to sustain action beyond four weeks.
Is that your idea of handling things fine?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
Comment