 |
| |
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
What I find the most disturbing about the developments in the '90's are
- the increasing independence of Europe (although they like to say it is the US that ignores them);
- the weakness of Europe to handle affairs even in Europe;
- the unwillingness to help the US defend itself.
This last bit, the more I think about it given all we have done for Europe in the last century, make my blood boil with anger. |
hi ,
1 , nope its just that they like to stick their nose more in to things , ...
2 , pffffff , they are going to africa , and dont even have planes that can fly there in one way
2 b , they have nearly 4 times the amount of the US on defense spending , yet they can only do about 0.75 of what the US is doing , ......
3 , sure but they want the US to give intel , to give this and that , .....
3 b , they cant even defend themself's , so let them , ....
why should the US use their help , or even ask for it , .....
4 , the EU supports terror , .....
for them its an accepted way on how to show their "political" views , .... 
5 , the US does not need them , ....
the EU needs the US
6 , dont even bother , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
'Americans are “cowboys,” Europeans love to say. And there is truth in this. The United States does act as an international sheriff, self-appointed perhaps but widely welcomed nevertheless, trying to enforce some peace and justice in what Americans see as a lawless world where outlaws need to be deterred or destroyed, and often through the muzzle of a gun. Europe, by this old West analogy, is more like a saloonkeeper. Outlaws shoot sheriffs, not saloonkeepers. In fact, from the saloonkeeper’s point of view, the sheriff trying to impose order by force can sometimes be more threatening than the outlaws who, at least for the time being, may just want a drink.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
"Barkeep, Gimme a beer!"
Here's a virtual Erdinger. Bottom's up! I think we can all agree that that's some damn fine beer.
"China? I don't think so. Could be done, but with heavy losses and then it comes to what is acceptable losses."
At risk of telling somebody his business, what is your basis for this? Have you participated in any wargames that have gone through this scenario with China?
Last edited by DanS on 24-06-2002 at 21:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
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. |
Oh grow up.
Do you have any idea how many people China has, and how big the country is?
Apparantly not.
quote:
Excellent article! It's nice to see someone give the US credit for all that it has done for Europe in the past 50 years. The author negelects to take into account that in the past "multilateralism" has often meant European leaders demanding the services of American soldiers, sailors and airmen, financed by American citizens, putting themselves in harm's way, in order to satisfy the new European view of a world of laws. They want a cop, they don't want a cop. No one could follow the capricious whims of such masters and retain their self respect. |
It seems everybody is reading something different in that one article...
quote:
I would use large amounts of napalm on China (in a war). |
you don't have enough to kill 1.2 billion. Hell, you don't even have enough to kill 1% of all Chinese.
quote:
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. |
Even Serbia took longer, which is far smaller.
And two notes: China has the world's biggest airforce. And the US won't have a sufficient number of fighters to escort the bombers to the west.
quote:
Christian Evangalism is also spreading |
Yet, other Christian groups are losing believers rapidly.
quote:
What I hear from Europe is that we should either ignore or appease Saddam. This is not a plan. |
He's no threath to you. And he will never use the bomb, unless he's cornered. If you leave him alone, and contain his aggression, he's quite harmless.
Furthermore, there is nobody to succeed him. There is no "Northern Alliance" in Iraq. Opposition is fragmented, or Kurdish.
Somalia was a UN mission, not a US one. Hence the number of Pakistani troops that were stationed there.
quote:
1. US power is hopelessly overstated. You can go against 3rd rate powers. That's about it. |
That's what I said.
quote:
4. The transatlantic alliance is dead. It'll be for the next generation of politicians to bury the rotting corpse and come up with something else. |
About Goddamn time.
quote:
Heck, what if saddam took refuge in Iran? No one has brought that one up! |
Cause it's a stupid suggestion. Iran hates Sadam.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2002 20:47
.
.
|