 |
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
Total drivel.
The Kosovo intervention caused more violence than it prevented.
And Afghanistan benefited Europe how?
As I said, NATO is a waste of time. It's an instrument of American interests, and those no longer coincide with those of Europe (well maybe the Italians, but they're mental anyway). |
You wish drivel.
The fact is you said NATO was, what was it? Oh, yes, 'an anachronism', when in fact NATO has only started shooting in the last 10 years. Come again.
If you think that Europe and NA exist in a safer world today than we did in 1970, could I interest you in a bridge?
Afghanistan benefitted all members of NATO as a demonstration that if you **** with one of us, you will be ****ed by all of us.
If you don't see how that might benefit Europe, you are delusional.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: The fact is you said NATO was, what was it? Oh, yes, 'an anachronism', when in fact NATO has only started shooting in the last 10 years. Come again. |
Neither occasion made Europe any better off. The first actually did more to cause harm than prevent it, the second had nothing to do with Europe.
quote: If you think that Europe and NA exist in a safer world today than we did in 1970, could I interest you in a bridge? |
Really? The fact that in 1970 there was a hostile superpower next door with the world's second largest army and thousands of nuclear weapons primed to attack Europe and North America would seem to make your case rather thin.
quote: Afghanistan benefitted all members of NATO as a demonstration that if you **** with one of us, you will be ****ed by all of us. |
Um. No one ****ed with Europe before Afghanistan IIRC.
quote: If you don't see how that might benefit Europe, you are delusional. |
Well, since Europe has a long record of dealing with internal terrorism, I can't see your point. Osama and his buddies primarily hate the US, on account of US policies (many of which, particularly regarding Israel, are not supported by Europeans).
Yeah, it is really beneficial for Europe to get involved in conflicts in which it has no real interest, all to please some lunatics across the Atlantic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote: I'm sorry mahn, but I've been out here watching for a long while.
There's been a a lot of hate for America for a very long time. What your seeing as an increase is normal people being swayed by currents that were already there in the wake of bad press over Chirac, the UN, and Iraq.
The tide will recede as normal people return from the grip of the crazies. |
B happens because of A regardless. This is called Process X.
C encourages process X.
Therefore, it is logical to say that C encourages Process X.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:19
|
|
Aggie, re Kosovo, maybe instead of you deciding what benefitted Europe, you would pay attention to what the Euros begged the US to do within the confines of NATO, not the UN.
If you want to have the slightest credibility, please pay attention to actual events, and not the latest party propaganda.
And yes, in 1970 there was a large threat, on the border and ready. You are right.
However, no European or North American cities were distrurbed by that stand off.
Fact is, we don;t have a stand off today. There are people who are prepared to fly planes into buildingings in New York, and I am sure there are those willing to sail a dirty bomb ladden barge up the Thames to London.
Do you think Qaddafi would have behaved as he did recently had he not witnessed the unity of response to 9/11?
No one ****ed with Europe before Afghanistan? Tell that to the Russians and the Muscovites who died in their beds. Opps, too bad, they are not in NATO.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by notyoueither
Why do you say that, when NATO is where most of our countries have the most influence over the US militarily? |
Because I have seen where this leads if countries try to actually exercise this influence.
quote: 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? |
Bad example to one who thinks that Kosovo was an illegal assault and largely backed terrorists, which were half-assed "disarmed" afterwards, that well that the region is still a quagmire with NATO soldiers standing helpless to watch anti-serbian pogroms. Besides, I am unsure, who begged whom in this case. There have been huge discussions over this matter in our government, and the coalition nearly broke over it. And the issue was just, if we should contribute forces or not. To start a war of aggression outright is illegal by constitution. So it was surely not Germany, who drove anyone to start a war. I am sure our neighbors would shudder in that prospect. Who was it then, who begged? France? UK? Or was it the US itself, who drove the Europeans into doing something to fix the unpleasant situation in their backyard?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Because I have seen where this leads if countries try to actually exercise this influence.
Bad example to one who thinks that Kosovo was an illegal assault and largely backed terrorists, which were half-assed "disarmed" afterwards, that well that the region is still a quagmire with NATO soldiers standing helpless to watch anti-serbian pogroms. Besides, I am unsure, who begged whom in this case. There have been huge discussions over this matter in our government, and the coalition nearly broke over it. And the issue was just, if we should contribute forces or not. To start a war of aggression outright is illegal by constitution. So it was surely not Germany, who drove anyone to start a war. I am sure our neighbors would shudder in that prospect. Who was it then, who begged? France? UK? Or was it the US itself, who drove the Europeans into doing something to fix the unpleasant situation in their backyard? |
Yes, but...
Your country, and mine, had a direct impact on American military power, because of NATO. Your country and mine had a direct line into the Pentagon and the White House.
btw, there were NATO troops on the ground, Canadians and French among them, who were bleeding because of ongoing conflict. The bombing of Serbia was presented as a solution to the meat grinder on the ground. Funny that the shooting largely stopped after Serbia got bombed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Funny that Qaddafi publically disarmed AFTER the US went into Iraq, **** 9/11 as a prod. If you had a clue, you wouldn't be misled by this. |
And I've already pointed out to you that he has been trying to make nice for years. If you bothered reading anything other than supermarket tabloids, you might have realized this.
quote: Agathon: I don't see them as psychotics, but they seem to buy their own religious crap. Their goals are for any modern democratic society unaccaptable, and not negotiable, and they will not become nice peace-loving liberals when Europe simply plays the dead man while they go after the US. So the basic conflict is there, with or without the US. |
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:19
|
|
In the case of the Kosovo war, the US rushed for a war as soon as it entered the issue. The Europeans were trying to find a solution through diplomacy (whose high point was supposed to be the Rambouillet Summit, with the EU countries, Milosevic, the KLA, the Kosovar democratic leader, and the US).
During the peace talks, the US decided to back immediately the KLA, and pushed for war. I don't know if the Euros then begged for the war to happen in the frame or NATO or not, but the initiative of the war was strictly American, as soon as the US considered they had to clean up the mess we Euros weren't able to.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|