The differences between America and Europe

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Have you ever noticed how Senator Joe Lieberman looks like Palpatine?

I thought you were going to say that Richard Cheney was Palpatine.

[chequita guevara]

Nah, he reminds me more of evil Micky Rooney.

[Saint Marcus]

we could pound any single country (and probably more than that) into the medieval period. Do NOT underestimate the power of the US.

Short of using nukes, how'd you take out China?

Do NOT underestimate the power of the US.

America's power is hugely overestimated. If a bunch of thugs could blow up two huge skyscrapers, imagine what a stronger foe could accomplish. Also note that in some 60 odd years (since WW2), the USA has never taken on a power of respectable size. Only relatively weak and small nations. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia. It's like saying that Germany has has a great soccer team after they beat Paraguay and the USA in the world cup. Let's face it, there's a simple reason why the US is now going after Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Pakistan and China. It's because the US is afraid to take those bigger nations on alone. If the US is really a "hyperpower", why hasn't it tried to take on China? It's a dictatorship, has a horrible human rights record, is a threath to the US and it's allies (Taiwan), has WoMDs, is openly hostile towards the US and it's allies, and is known to aid enemies of the USA (like North Korea). But no, they aren't in the axis of evil. Only pathetic small nations are.

America's power isn't as strong as they let everyone on. And the policymakers in DC know this too. Sadly, so does Bin Laden. He managed to knock down two huge skycrapers in downtown NY, damage the Pentagon in DC, and managed to escape American retaliation with the bulk of his forces (Al Qaida, not Taliban).

[Saint Marcus]

of course, the US is the most powerful nation on this planet. No question about that. And Europe, even combined, can't match this.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
It's like saying that Germany has has a great soccer team after they beat Paraguay and the USA in the world cup.

But we have a great team!

[chequita guevara]

China could be bombed into the stone age using conventional power alone. The reason we don't go after China is that there's no good reason to do so. They are our business partner, and they provide a tighly control and cheap labor market.

We smack around the little powers more readily because we can do so without major repercutions to our markets or our military. Sure, we'd take losses fighting China or Europe, but we'd still beat your ass. And we'd keep bombing and keep bombing until we were sure that we'd have an easy land victory.

And please remember, I'm not a nationalist. This is not something that fills me with pride, but rather with horror.

[BeBMan]

Please, guys, do me a favour and don´t turn this into another stupid "What would happen if the US and Europe are at war with eachother"-thread...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
But we have a great team!

Bah, we were robbed by a lousy call!

[Sirotnikov]

Wow, I find myself agreeing with Saint Marcus Stop that


Krop -about saddam - Saddam is a threat not because he himself is an islamic terrorist, but because he tries to harness such powers in his favour.

Iraq and Iran and Syria are all very involved financially and miletarily in the Palestinian 'uprising' (read: war) against Israel.

China isn't a target now, because it hasn't actually used as brutal means.

If China was the one behind 9/11 then US would figure what to do about it, no matter how fearfull they are of 1/5th of humanity.
(saying it is so fun )


The big problem is the difference of views.

Europe sees it's post-modern methods as the ones it should use, and doesn't want to act using violence.

America sees it's modern weapons as the methods to use.

Based on my understanding of history and of terror in general, I would say that currently, America is right.

While Europe would be right in most cases, the problem is that you need two to tango.

Europe is offering a branch of olive and hopes the enemy is serious enough to take it.

But the 'enemy' (radical fanatic terrorists) are not at all logical. They do not live in a post-modern world, but rather see Europe's politics as weakness that can be exploited.

I feel, that the same politics was seen as weakness by Hitler, and that is why WWII started. If harsh politics would have been used against him early on, WWII would have been much less likely to brake out, at least not the way we know it.


As for islam- I see it as a certain problem.

I see a certain pattern in Islam spreading around the world.

Muslims immigrate to other countries. Locals then slowly convert to Islam. And then when there is an Islamic majority, civil war breaks out, employing terrorism and all, until the country becomes an Islamic religious state.

This is what seems to me is hapenning in areas of africa and asia, and the balcans.

[GePap]

Still overestimating.

Wow, how hard and hardwired the notion of US power is.

Firts Che, no the Us can't bomb china into the stoneage. Hell, without bases in central asia or overflight rights over russia, we can't get to western China, and the Us doesn't have the power to get those bases or that right alone. In shor, yes, the US is powerful, but it can't act alone, it needs the help of others to do things in the world. How much more powerful is the US than Uzbekistan, and yet we have to go and cozy up to their local dictator because we need him. Could we, the 'hyperpower' US have taken those bases by force if we wanted, without getting the aid or support of any, repeat, any other state? the answer is NO. How hyper and unstopable can we be if we NEED the help of others?

And as for you Siro: first, your anti-Islamic rant is worthless. It is the relegion of 1/6th of humanity and it will keep spreading. Would Jewry even be alive today if itahd not been able to take refuge in islamic lands (ahem, the sephardim) during all those long bouts of christian anti-semitism? Would there have been any Jews in Jerusalem if the crusaders had kept them?
Islmaic fundamenalism is a modern political phenomenon bred by reperesive regimes and thier alies, the US, and heck, even Israel, though I am sure that israels lenient treatment of Hamas and before that the Islamists in the eighties and thei allowing them, by not cracking down on them as done against factions of the PLO, to grow to power was just a temporary mistake.

As for Sadam, I doubt he is trying to harness Islamic fundamentalism for his aims simply because it would sweep his secular butt out of power just as much as the Sauds, Assad or Mubarak. But perhaps I am wrong and he is just as smart as Reagan and Shamir. Still, he is a murderous man and while I will shed no teras when he dies, we certainly are going about it the wrong way.

[chequita guevara]

GePap, you seem to forget that being hegemon means having b***h states like Uzbekistan do what we want. Sure we bribed him, cuz we can. The Taleban government was the creature of both the Saudis and the Pakistanis, and neither dared to buck us. We don't need to take on the entire world at once, because no state wants to be the first one to get smacked down (or the ones that do considerably overestimate their ability to rally allies to their cause).

And we certainly do have the ability to bomb Western China. Cruise missiles and B-52s have very long ranges.

[TCO]

Not cruise missiles, Che. Bombers sure. Cruise missiles can't move that many squares irl.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GP
Not cruise missiles, Che. Bombers sure. Cruise missiles can't move that many squares irl.

hi ,



yes , but cruise missiles can be put under or in B-52's , or they could be launched true sub's , ....

have a nice day

[chequita guevara]

I thought Tomahawks had a considerable range. My buddie who worked on them in the Air Farce said they launched one across the Atlantic for a test. Wound up on someone's private beach cuz they failed to take the tide into account.

[Panag]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I thought Tomahawks had a considerable range. My buddie who worked on them in the Air Farce said they launched one across the Atlantic for a test. Wound up on someone's private beach cuz they failed to take the tide into account.

hi ,

it depends what type , .....

as for now the airforce is testing some missile's bought in Israel , .....

there is also talk to take the "overstock" of weaponplatforms that are used for the delivery of nukes , and to put conventionel warheads on them , ....

that shall rock , .....

have a nice day