Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 4 10 11 12 13 14 template Next
  • #196
    Originally posted by Sikander

    Were such a rivalry to develop, I would simply give ground until Europe was up to its a$$ in the swamp of Africa, the Middle East and Western Asia. Welcome to our world....

    Interesting point, though I have a couple of quibbles regarding the 19th century....
    Ad 1: France is targetted by the GIA for supporting the algerian regime, the PLO was connected with groups like the RAF, France and Belgium got muddled up in african conflicts.... really, nothing new. I just doubt there is much impetus for europe to inherit your problems (unlike the US did from europe after 1945). Rivalry can take many forms, and the chequebook is as powerful a weapon as the sword.

    Ad 2: It was clear after 1783 that no power could control the US landmass against its population. The brits could not do it in 1812/14, and the Mexicans of course could not do it in 1846, and the French even less after 1865. And the war with Spain? Spain was not really positioned to invade the US, or? That the US got into conflicts through its early expansionism does not change my point - I did not claim a perfect record.
    “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

    • #197
      Originally posted by HershOstropoler

      Ad 1: France is targetted by the GIA for supporting the algerian regime, the PLO was connected with groups like the RAF, France and Belgium got muddled up in african conflicts.... really, nothing new. I just doubt there is much impetus for europe to inherit your problems (unlike the US did from europe after 1945). Rivalry can take many forms, and the chequebook is as powerful a weapon as the sword.
      Tell that to a man with a sword! Seriously, if the U.S. could force you to build up your military (through the potential threat rather than direct action) you may find yourselves sucked into more conflicts than seems likely at this time. Already we see Europeans intervening in their old colonies in Africa, could a large and mobile EU army resist the political pressure to stay out of Congo, Zimbabwe, Rwanda etc? I'm not sure it could.

      Originally posted by HershOstropoler
      Ad 2: It was clear after 1783 that no power could control the US landmass against its population. The brits could not do it in 1812/14, and the Mexicans of course could not do it in 1846, and the French even less after 1865. And the war with Spain? Spain was not really positioned to invade the US, or? That the US got into conflicts through its early expansionism does not change my point - I did not claim a perfect record.
      OK, but when put this way there are a large number of European countries that would also fit this description. Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action. But in general, I agree, the U.S. had fewer defense concerns than Europe did, and generally a much less refined sense of the pressures that more war torn countries faced, or in many ways the reverse of the current situation.
      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment

      • #198
        "Tell that to a man with a sword!"

        We're talking proxy conflicts here. Just help your proxy buy a sword....

        "I'm not sure it could."

        A common EU force would require a political mandate for action, which can realistically only come from the European Council (in combination with the European Parliament). This creates a gridlock that would make it diffcult for one country to get its agenda served. Which also makes it difficult to get to such a common force, of course...

        "Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action."

        Germany vs France in 1871 proves the opposite. Others weren't tested, but only the British Mainland was secure in that way - and there its empire was under several threats.
        “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

        • #199
          Originally posted by HershOstropoler

          "Certainly Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. would all have been unconquerable if their populations were stirred to action."

          Germany vs France in 1871 proves the opposite. Others weren't tested, but only the British Mainland was secure in that way - and there its empire was under several threats.
          No it doesn't prove the opposite, as we are comparing apples and oranges here. Britain had a much larger political goal vs the U.S. (complete conquest and surrender of sovereignty) than Germany did against France in 1871. Many states were capable of standing up to a similar British assault on their sovereignty at the time, which tends to bring about a maximum effort to resist on the part of the population. Compare the relative weakness of the U.S. against Britain in 1812-1814, where the British were fighting Napolean at the same time, yet still managed to fight the Americans to a standstill because they had much more modest political goals in this conflict.
          He's got the Midas touch.
          But he touched it too much!
          Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

          Comment

          • #200
            France might have bee ndifficult to hold on to, but it definately was not unconquerable in 1871.
            “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

            Previous 1 4 10 11 12 13 14 template Next
            Working...
            X