Should Europe Go To War With America?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

[yavoon]

u have to build an army first mate.

maybe stop paying ppl to not work and u might be able to get one. though I doubt it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian


Because the imagine of the Poles was that they fought, even if it was hopeless and they got flattened. Their Cavalry charged the Tanks, ffs.

-Arrian

The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated. On the other hand, the French people continued fighting the invaders throughout the whole war. Ever hear of the French Resistence? French commies kicked ass.

[Arrian]

Because the image of the Poles was that they fought.

Image. Sorry for the typo. I wasn't saying that perception = reality. I was explaining the perception.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated.

6 weeks to Paris, given roughly approximate military technology to Hitler? I call that pretty feeble 'resistance.'

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated. On the other hand, the French people continued fighting the invaders throughout the whole war. Ever hear of the French Resistence? French commies kicked ass.

the whole war?? France was occupied in June of 1940. IIUC the commies didnt start fighting in the resistance till June of 1941. Remember what happened in June 1941??

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Arrian


Because the imagine of the Poles was that they fought, even if it was hopeless and they got flattened. Their Cavalry charged the Tanks, ffs.

-Arrian

That's pretty messed up.
But then again, such is fiction

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

it would be led by the Belgian army, whose MOD proclaims how much more efficient the Belgian army is than the American army.

[Paul Hanson]

Explain to me why that's such a ridiculous assertion.

[el freako]

Originally posted by yavoon
u have to build an army first mate.

What a wonderful example of total ignorance, the number of people in the armed forces in europe is (and always has been) significantly more than in the US.
The difference is that our forces are designed to defend europe whereas US forces are designed to be shifted around (both of which are legacies from the cold war)

Originally posted by yavoon
maybe stop paying ppl to not work and u might be able to get one. though I doubt it.

Well that's also ignorance, as those countries with the most generous welfare states (mainly scandinavian ones) actually employ a higher proportion of their working-age populations than the US does.
Whereas those that have lacklustre welfare states (Spain, Greece) are the ones that have far lower levels of employment.

Maybe you should attempt to see if your knee-jerk reactions are supported by any evidence at all before you make them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by el freako


What a wonderful example of total ignorance, the number of people in the armed forces in europe is (and always has been) significantly more than the in the US.




Well that's also ignorance, as those states with the most generous welfare states (mainly scandinavian ones) actually employ a higher proportion of their working-age populations than the US does.
Whereas those states that have lacklustre welfare states (Spain, Greece) are the ones that have far lower levels of employment.

Maybe you should attempt to see if your knee-jerk reactions are supported by any evidence at all before you make them.

the military capability and effectiveness of europe is so insanely far below that of the USA. ur being insanely disingenuous to even propose that europe's military is a match for america's. but then again, find one statistic and hammer it into a post and they make u right eh?

I'm not sure where u thot I was mentioning employment. I was pointing out if u stopped spending so much on paying ppl to not work u might have some leftover for a military.

oh and here's a stat. tho I should point it since u made me look up common knowledge I feel very slighted. and don't appreciate ur zealousness.

379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

yah, we'd rock u.

[Ned]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

We have a veto there too.

The Europeans would definitely be handicapped by their superiority.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that IIRC NATO is required in the treaty to be led by a US general

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by skywalker


I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that IIRC NATO is required in the treaty to be led by a US general

Attn Wesley Clark - disappointed at 13% in New Hampshire?? Trembling at going head to head with Kerry in Arizona?? Just disgusted generally (so to speak)??? Well at looks like theres an opportunity for YOU!!!