06-11-2004 16:23									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 16:35									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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?

	06-11-2004 16:35									#93
	Remove this text

quote: 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?

	06-11-2004 16:41									#94
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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?

	06-11-2004 16:41									#95
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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?

	06-11-2004 16:44									#96
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 16:57									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 16:58									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You aren't familiar with Isolationism, are you?

I happen to be.

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

Isolationism.

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 17:06									#99
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 17:07									#100
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	06-11-2004 19:06									#101
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	07-11-2004 01:19									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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?

	07-11-2004 02:05									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	07-11-2004 02:06									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

	07-11-2004 02:45									#105
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-11-2004 03:33									#106
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I actually mostly agree with aggies assessment of the risk of invasion in the modern world. Even if the US was swept with a wave of pacifist isolationism such that we dismantled almost all our nukes and removed every last GI from overseas and renounced every defense treaty, I still can't see any of the wealthy countries we counted as allies being actually invaded.

Nonetheless, I'm not certain the risks, even of wars of territorial conquest, have entirely disappeared. We need to determine why Saddam thought it would be a good idea to invade Iran and kuwait in spite of obvious catastrophic economic consequences. Furthermore while I agree that visual media has done much to make war more difficult for populations to tolerate than ever before I wonder what effect, if any, this really has on the deliberations of unelected governments. Historically they have often been happy to laucnh such wars as distractions even more readily than democracies.

Maybe nobody would have the balls to invade the wealthy countries if we all let our guard down but are we sure the less prosperous and smaller countries would not break into war more frequently?

I want to see the US give up unilateral military intervention since the massive support of our allies in toppling the Taliban proves we don't really need it but I also think it would be unwise for either the US or it's allies to disarm (or to remain largely disarmed in the case of many of our allies).

	07-11-2004 03:33									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If I were Bush, I would invite Chirac to the White House to see if they could bury the hatchet over past differences. Preferrably, this would happen as soon as we have a new Sec. of State. While I am sure there are a lot of hard (an hurt) feelings for Bush in Europe and for France here in the US, such a gesture would go a long way to fixing things for most Europeans who would fundamentally agree with the notion that Europe and the United States share a common enemy in terrorism and a common goal in bringing peace, prosperity, freedom and human rights to the world.

	07-11-2004 03:40									#108
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I actually mostly agree with aggies assessment of the risk of invasion in the modern world.

Why would you even go and do that when it's objectively wrong?

	07-11-2004 03:48									#109
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why would you even go and do that when it's objectively wrong?

He's not objectively wrong. Invasions used to be more common because it paid off economically for the ruling elite. Invasions now mean massive sanctions and policing costs as a matter of course. There simply won't be as many invasions as in the old days.

I agree with you however that risk of such wars can never really completely disappear and as far as aggie insists the risk can be zero he is ojectively wrong.

	07-11-2004 19:17									#110
	Suffering from ads?

Remember the Falkland Islands war?

	07-11-2004 19:41									#111
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The US failed in Vietnam because people could see what was going on.

Unless of-course, you can control the images.

	07-11-2004 20:01									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In what way did the US fail in Vietnam?

	07-11-2004 20:07									#113
	Foreign Policy Increase Your PM Length

We support everything that we think will benefit us.
We oppose everything else.

This is unversal and has remained constant since the development of nations.

	07-11-2004 20:15									#114
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

pchang, I think the French operate the same way. They somehow believe that opposing the US benefits France.

	07-11-2004 20:17									#115
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Of course it does. France believes we are competitors on the world stage for influence and trade.

	07-11-2004 20:33									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by pchang Of course it does. France believes we are competitors on the world stage for influence and trade.

How does French opposition to US foreign policy help French trade? This is not the 17th century where governments granted trade monopolies.

	07-11-2004 20:38									#117
	Support Apolyton

France sold to Iraq. This was money they got at the expense of the US. France sells to China. Again, this is money they get at the expense of the US because China is also gainst US foreign policy. I could go on.....

	07-11-2004 20:44									#118
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by pchang France sold to Iraq. This was money they got at the expense of the US. France sells to China. Again, this is money they get at the expense of the US because China is also gainst US foreign policy. I could go on.....

Why of course. Whereever the US has a trade embargo because of one reason or another, France is there to make a buck, especially in selling weapons to kill Americans or nuclear plants to enemies of Israel for obvious purposes.

(Which brings me back to why any Jew would support Kerry given his affection for France.)

	07-11-2004 20:46									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, but my point is that it is foolish for us to expect France or any other country to act otherwise.

	07-11-2004 21:00									#120
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by pchang Yes, but my point is that it is foolish for us to expect France or any other country to act otherwise.

Absolute bull.

Allies support each other. Enemies undermine each other.

France is an enemy of the United States and Israel, plain and simple.