The differences between America and Europe

[TCO]

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.

You thought wrong.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
And what is that comment about France supposed to mean?!

Are you stupid? The remark can't get much more plain. Not that I agree with the sentiment. But anybody with a cortex can understand the assertion of appeasement.

[Kropotkin]

No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

yeah, like continually breaking economic sanctions against iraq. if you look at the streak of their foreign policy they plainly say to mulsums, "please don't hurt us, we are your allies." coincidentally, have you heard of any terroist activities against France lately?

[chequita guevara]

Re: enough revolutionar crap!

Originally posted by GePap
Che:

Enough of the revolutionsry bullcrap.

Dude, take some kava.

[q]the US is not behind every plot.[q/]

Who said it was.

Why did Saudi Arabia go along, becuase they fear us, because they think the US will invade or topple the Sauds if they don't do our unholy bidding? NO! Its bacause without our HELP they would not be able to keep their damn heads! they do not fear our actions against them, but our inaction for them.

And that is not not fear? That doesn't make them our b***h state? Sure, they can buck us on small things, like excuting terrorists we wanted to question, but you don't spank your child for every minor infraction either.

If we are both so nefarious and so powerful, then why is Castro still in power when he is only 90 miles away?

Because when the US tried to take out Cuba, the Soviets stuck missiles on the island, and up until the last decade, invading Cuba would have meant war with the Soviets. Furthermore, Cuba serves as a useful bad example to other Latin American states. If you cross the US, you get cut off and messed with.

Besides, you are mistaking supremely powerful with all powerful. There is a difference. The US is not all powerful, and I'm not saying that it is. It is, however, more powerful relatively than Britain was when it ruled 1/4 of the globe. Furthermore, just because the US chose to deal with some problems in a les than praetorian way doesn't mean that it isn't still excersizing power.

[Kropotkin]

So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

Shall we think of some other France have done in the past 50 years?

* Colonial wars in a number of countries like Vietnam and Algeria.
* Throwing out NATO troops from French soil.
* Building up a nuclear arsenal and lately testing them in the pacific.
* Considering UK as USA:s Troyan horse in Europe.
* Creating a leading position in the EU.
* Super-power ambitions, constantly going against the will of the US.

That's the one I can come up with in a minute. I plainly think you don't know ****.

[chequita guevara]

The UK is a client state. Remember, the Roman Empire wasn't all directly ruled by Rome. Quite a large part of it was client Kingdoms.

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

Shall we think of some other France have done in the past 50 years?

* Colonial wars in a number of countries like Vietnam and Algeria.
* Throwing out NATO troops from French soil.
* Building up a nuclear arsenal and lately testing them in the pacific.
* Considering UK as USA:s Troyan horse in Europe.
* Creating a leading position in the EU.
* Super-power ambitions, constantly going against the will of the US.

That's the one I can come up with in a minute. I plainly think you don't know ****.

first of all france pulled out of veitnam and algeria after their dismal performance and inability to stay in those "conflicts" or control the local populations. the US took up the "torch" after france quit after a brief stint. right or wrong, but this shows the US's will to impose itself on others and frances lack of what you said was "stubornness." this stubornness is closer to cowardess than anything else.

the other bullets you have only go to show that france is acting like a little *****. it has no real power so it cuts across the actions of the US in an effort to appease their little wee-wee. the point is, a real super power does things whether others like it or not for its own benifit first and in the case of the US for the benifite of the greater part of the world second. on the other hand france's first priority is doing things to spite a super power whether they be for their own benifite or not as a secondary consern. see the difference?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

No duh. That's why I said although I understood the statement that I disagreed with it.

[Kropotkin]

GP; sorry about that. The second part was (mostly) aimed at Morb.

Morb; I myself finds the french tendency of pretending to be bigger than they are annoying. I'm not however buying your pseudo-analysis that "it's part of [french] culture". Futhersome I'm not going to spend weeks looking up french foregin policy and its reasons for the last 50 years but it's hardly a country that has turned with the wind to avoid conflicts or give in to muslims (whatever Saddam Hussein actually has do with muslims in general).

As for america in Vietnam I wouldn't agree that was to impose itself for others as it was in the line of the cold war strategy to do so and their performance was also dismal.

[Ned]

What is Chirac's solution for preventing Iraq and Iran from acquiring nucluear weapons?

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

I'd like to respond to the first point because I don't think I made a strong enough connection between my own points.

Contrary to the article, I think France sees more of a threat from Iraq and militant muslum states (sorry for not making that distinction before) than it see from the US. France knows that bickering with the US will not land them on america's bad side for too long. However, they feel that they must deal with militant or by US terms "rouge" states through financial means to indeed avoid true conflict. In case we have a different idea of conflict, its not nessesarily an all out war. By conflict I mean any kind of threat to its national security. Whether this is direct military action or indirect action through terrorist activity does not make a difference. In plain words, France is looking after its own hide.

this would be fine. except in many cases france seems to chose to sleep with the enimy rather than to confront it. which brings me back to my original point that france will "sway in the wind" or appease what it perceives to be its greatest threat rather than to confront it. the US isn't going to launch an invasion of france nore is it going to send terrorists to bomb the aweful tower. but france does have something to fear from those it cannot deter through military means who may will it harm.

just to be sure, i never stated this to be "fact." it is my interpretation of france's actions. your interpretation is obviously different, but I can point out that you haven't given any solid facts to back up your perspective either. whether you agree with me or not is unimportant. its enough of a reward for me to be able to consolidate my ideas through posting them in written form.

[Kropotkin]

OK, with that your original statements starts to make some sence. And yes it's our interpetations. However, I'm not sure anything that happens in the ME is really that important for their security nowadays. Algeria is in their interest but Iran and Iraq isn't and is hardly a security risk as countries. Militant muslims is another issue but they are usually not directly controlled by any state. For France Islam is a internal problem.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

Sure, as long as it grows up of it's militaristic "we must convert all you heretics" phase.

If Christianity would still be in that phase, I'd fear it as well.

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?

To your surprise there are still more Ashkenazi Jews than Sepharadim.

And many Sepharadim jews were also harassed and killed in the Islamic world. Even when they weren't touched, they had to pay huge 'protection' taxes.

And Sephardic Jews eperienced alot of 1930s Germany phenomenas in Arab countries starting from 1948. They were persecuted and harassed.

And even today - how do you suppose the Jews in Tunis are feeling, now that Al-Qaida has blown up a fuel truck next to their synagogue?

Would there have been any Jews in Jerusalem if the crusaders had kept them?

The crusaders were then in the stage that Islam is in now. A 'spread and destroy' phase.

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.

You're confusing the major issue with the minor, in my opinion.

Extreme fundamentalism exists in Islam everywhere. In pakistan, afghanistan, iran, palestine, egypt.

The local government usually are either themselves Islamic, or they 'catch a ride' on the Islamic militancy to achieve their militaristic goals.

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.

Sweep his secular butt?

You really have no idea about his power, do you?

He has western weapons and bio-chemical weapons, and unlike western countries, he can beat terror because he has no problems gassing hundreds of thousands of people.

Assad has great ties with Hezbullah and Hamas. But when a village tried to rebell, the whole village, 20,000 people were slaughtered. The fundies got the message.

Islam is there. It's not a threat to tyranies, since tyranies have no problems slaughtering everyone who they suspect. And as long as the government is better equipped, it'll keep on ruling.

But the tyranies use it to their advantage. The promote religion and anger against 'the west', 'the jews' and all sorts of things, and use the fundamentalists, to gain influence in the world, beyond their economical or military strength.

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.

And how are we to go about him?

Give him what he wants?

Worked great with Hitler

[DanS]

GePap: We have about 100 bombers, each of which can carry about 10-15x precision-guided 2,000 pound bombs. With sufficient air cover and without a restraining force, these could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks, probably even without too many overflight rights from allies.

But of course it would never happen due to China's nuclear arsenal. The US conventional power is restrained all around the world because of this. More than 1/2 of the world's population is untouchable from American conventional forces.