Europeans Leaders are redfining their foreign policies

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither

They agreed to bomb a foreign country that they had no quarrel with because of the entreaties of other NATO nations. Doesn't that tell you something?

It tells me that if the EU bloc wants to be a global player, it should get some real projection capacity real fast.

I agree that the EU should become it's own power so that you are beholden to none. I don't see the majority of Euros to be content with any arrangement until you do.

And I don't see the majority of EUropeans being content with the amounts of military expenditure and realpolitik that would be necessary to achieve that. As things stand, most EUropeans are probably more happy sitting back complaining about America while assuming that if something really threatening turns up America will have to help us.

[Agathon]

while assuming that if something really threatening turns up America will have to help us.

Again who?

I constantly hear the militarist faction in Canada (and in New Zealand) arguing that more money must be spent on National Defence.

But who the hell wants to invade either of these countries? Even if a country wished to invade Canada or New Zealand, it would be a big one such that we couldn't afford to put up much of a fight anyway, so what's the point?

Why bother with an army? New Zealand has a navy which it uses to rescue yachties and harass Korean fisherman who have exceed their quota. But who cares about the rest?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

It tells me that if the EU bloc wants to be a global player, it should get some real projection capacity real fast.

And I don't see the majority of EUropeans being content with the amounts of military expenditure and realpolitik that would be necessary to achieve that. As things stand, most EUropeans are probably more happy sitting back complaining about America while assuming that if something really threatening turns up America will have to help us.

You aren't familiar with Isolationism, are you?

What do you think the floggings they are taking will make many Americans inclined towards?

Do you really want to be on your own to deal with Putin and the Shahs?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Again who?

I constantly hear the militarist faction in Canada (and in New Zealand) arguing that more money must be spent on National Defence.

But who the hell wants to invade either of these countries? Even if a country wished to invade Canada or New Zealand, it would be a big one such that we couldn't afford to put up much of a fight anyway, so what's the point?

Why bother with an army? New Zealand has a navy which it uses to rescue yachties and harass Korean fisherman who have exceed their quota. But who cares about the rest?

You don't have the first ****ing clue, do you?

OK. You want to be a Canuck. Here's the first test.

What is a blue helmet, and how do they impact Canadian defence spending?

What is sovereignty, and what does it have to do with defence expenditures and the Arctic?

What is NATO, and why do we not spit on the idea of it?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon
They don't want to attack us to start World War III. They don't even want to force us all to convert to Islam. Al Qaeda has two main goals.

(1) Bring Islamist regimes to power in Arab countries. Islamists have been trying this since the 60s and failing miserably because the likes of Saddam Hussein and the other Arab despots responded by executing them.

(2) Stop the West from meddling in the Middle East. This is, of course, connected to (1) since the West doesn't want Islamists in charge in the world's premier oil region. Here they have quite a good case - the West has behaved extremely badly towards the Arabs for most of the 20th century and has supported all sorts of brutal thugs (like Saddam Hussein) as long as it suited them. A humiliating defeat for the West in the Middle East would leave the path open for Islamists to seize power.

Now it's a nutty project and suffers from several obvious flaws. For one, most Arabs do not want to live the puritanical life that radical Islamists would like to force on them.

But you can't appreciate the real risks of terrorism without actually looking at what Al Qaeda want. As OBL said the other week, they want the West to stop meddling in the Middle East. That raises an interesting question, why the hell are we doing so? It isn't as if the Arabs can avoid selling us oil, they need the money to buy food for a start.

I agree about their goals.

However, Europe cannot be interested in (1), for a variety of reasons. And about (2), I get pretty much the impression something qualifies as "meddling into their affairs" if they just say so. The justifications for 9-11 I read in one of the AQ papers (of course assuming they were really from AQ) came down to "even when the people in the towers did not do anything, they paid taxes for the evil US administration, so the attack was justified". If that isn't just rhetorics, and if it really says something about their mindset, they can declare pretty much everything "meddling into their affairs". In case of Europe they could easily interpret inner-European issues (related to muslim immigrants for example) in such a way.

And we talking about people here who think they were able to bring down one superpower, and that they are able to do the same with the US. Let's say they are successful - why shouldn't they try to do the same in future conflicts?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon


Again who?

ME dictators with nukes or a re-totalitarianized Russia are probably the most likely candidates. But assuming you've got a point, I'm not seeing it.

[Agathon]

What is a blue helmet, and how do they impact Canadian defence spending?

You're such a reactionary old git. I'm not talking about that, but the loons who rave on about "defending us". Again, from who?

ME dictators with nukes or a re-totalitarianized Russia are probably the most likely candidates. But assuming you've got a point, I'm not seeing it.

Um. ME dictators have nukes for one reason: Israel. What interest would they have in nuking their second best customers?

What evidence is there that Russia would wish to economically remove itself from the world market? Remember this is a country that can't even beat the Chechens.

My point is that the prospect of large scale war is about as low as it has ever been, especially in Europe. People don't really like the idea of war that much (Television managed to thump that to death) and there is bugger all to fight over. Apart from small peacekeeping forces and coast guards and the like what's the point of wasting money on weapons?

For countries like Canada, spending large sums on weapons is simply perverse.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You aren't familiar with Isolationism, are you?

I happen to be.

What do you think the floggings they are taking will make many Americans inclined towards?

Isolationism.

Do you really want to be on your own to deal with Putin and the Shahs?

Shahs? I don't remember any being around.

Anyway, those ascribing to the position I described do not think it will happen. I'm leaning towards it's inevitable. My wishes, in either case, has little to do with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


You're such a reactionary old git. I'm not talking about that, but the loons who rave on about "defending us". Again, from who?

Wow. I thought you might try at the very least. You failed, abysmally.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

Um. ME dictators have nukes for one reason: Israel. What interest would they have in nuking their second best customers?

1) I would recon nukes on Israel to be against Europe's interests.
2) WWI seriously dented my faith that people will refrain from war just because it's obvious economic suicide.

What evidence is there that Russia would wish to economically remove itself from the world market? Remember this is a country that can't even beat the Chechens.

The Chechen war and Putin's increasingly authoritarian ways.

My point is that the prospect of large scale war is about as low as it has ever been, especially in Europe. People don't really like the idea of war that much (Television managed to thump that to death) and there is bugger all to fight over. Apart from small peacekeeping forces and coast guards and the like what's the point of wasting money on weapons?

1) I come from a country whose armed forces are so small we've got trouble mobilizing small peacekeeping forces.
2) Projection capacities allow you intervene in overseas conflicts. I happen to think the invasions in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, for instance, were good ideas.
3) Having credible defensive forces helps keep the risk of foreign attacks low.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I wouldn't like a return to old style NATO, where pretty much the US had the say and all others had to follow.

Unless European countries are willing to increase funding for thier respective militaries to a lvl somehwhere past the point where they no longer have to charter air transport from other countries, that's the way it will have to be regardless of if they like it or not.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Unless European countries are willing to increase funding for thier respective militaries to a lvl somehwhere past the point where they no longer have to charter air transport from other countries, that's the way it will have to be regardless of if they like it or not.

You didn't by chance read the second paragraph of my post?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon


Now who's living in a dream world. Anti-Americanism in the rest of the world is a long standing fact. But for most of that time it was more like Canadian anti-Americanism. In other words low key moaning about McDonalds and stuff.

The current wave is much much different. It has specific causes, all related to Bush's unilateralism over Kyoto, the ICC, Israel and Iraq. Before Bush only a few people really opposed US policy, now it is mainstream thinking even among mostly apolitical people. As I've said before, when my grandfather (a committed Thatcherite) started sounding like Noam Chomsky, it woke me up to how much the US is hated.

YEP

The stuff before was minor irritations.

Now it is just outright, I wouldn't say hatred, but the negative feelings are at an outright high.

They may "recede" but not by much unless a new direction is taken.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The old wave had to do with Vietnam, Pershing Missiles, Star Wars, and...

You have nothing new here, clown. Keep entertaining the masses for as long as you can though. That is your function.

There was also this big evil thing called the Soviet Union at the time. Alot of that stuff was easier to get away with when there was the Big Evil on the block.

Not only that, people's expectations have changed for what they will let governments get away with nowadays.

[Agathon]

1) I would recon nukes on Israel to be against Europe's interests.

How? Israel has nuclear weapons too. Any Arab nation that acquires nukes will find itself in the same situation as everyone else who has them - you can't use the damn things for fear of retaliation. Nuclear weapons are basically defensive in nature.

2) WWI seriously dented my faith that people will refrain from war just because it's obvious economic suicide.

You are forgetting that until the mid 20th century most people had no idea of what war was really like. Television and film did in most people's appetite for it. The US failed in Vietnam because people could see what was going on. It would have been unthinkable for a colonial power to have faced the amount of opposition that the US faced over Vietnam before the invention of television.

The Chechen war and Putin's increasingly authoritarian ways.

They can't even beat the Chechens. But it doesn't matter. Russia has been integrated into the world economy, just as China has. Why would Putin want to invade Eastern Europe? What does Russia have to gain by such an invasion? Nothing.

1) I come from a country whose armed forces are so small we've got trouble mobilizing small peacekeeping forces.
2) Projection capacities allow you intervene in overseas conflicts. I happen to think the invasions in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, for instance, were good ideas.
3) Having credible defensive forces helps keep the risk of foreign attacks low.

The risk of foreign attacks is low because there's no point in it. Who is likely to attack you and for what reason?

Countries like Israel, India, North Korea, South Korea and Pakistan have hostile neighbours with whom they have a recent history of conflict. That's a good reason for having an army.

But countries like Denmark, New Zealand and Sweden? What's the point. It is just a waste of money.