Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Originally posted by st3ve_o
the locals over there say it is the worst thing they've ever done switching from the former currency 'guilder' to the 'euro' (and the majority of holland think that also)!!

- Once upon a time you would have been able to show Britons feeling exactly the same way about changing to the decimal currency system in 1972.
Seriously.
But who seriously wants to go back to the old 'base 12' sterling currency now, huh?
It's so crazy a notion that most by now don't even remember how it used to be.

But a kind of resistance to change and a nostalgia seems to go with the territory, for a while.
As does some businesses initially taking 'advantage' of the change; but for all that it does not negate the long-term value of the change itself.

yes the euro is probably destroying the american ($)

- I doubt that very much.

It is providing a sound alternative to the US $ but it is not going to "destroy" it.
We are all far to interlinked for any such nonsense and we would all suffer if it were ever allowed to happen (which it would never be).
The same kind of sense and to be blunt total self-interest prevented the Euro being allowed to fail during it's early hesitant beginnings.

but the £ is still going strong.

- For now that is true; but whilst playing both sides against the middle can be profitable 'we' are also exposed to the possibility of being crushed between 2 currency blocks so much stronger than the £.

It has not happened and hopefully it will never happen but the risk is there.
Again, the £ would never be 'allowed' to completely fail but life in such a squeeze could be mightily uncomfortable for us just the same.

if your talking about britain adapting more to europe, i don't think so!

- Why not?
Every year that goes by we interlink with the continental economy more and more.
'We' buy their businesses and they buy ours and they all work to a common set of standards and practices growing ever closer.

'We' British have been members since 1973 and for the preceding almost 20yrs as 'we' tried to join 'we' have been gearing our economy to engage with the continental economies.
That's over 50yrs of moving towards ever greater compatability, that is not only unique but it is 'a very big and hugely significant thing' as far as the British economy is concerned - especially as much of it was done from 'fresh' following the complete rebuilding of Britain's economy after the vast devastation resulting from WW2.

most brits don't even class themselfs as 'european', i class britain as a continent on its own!

- I'd be very reluctant to embrace that vague "most" if I were you.

People can joke about it all they like but when asked the serious questions they know the score.
We are better off in the EU than out of it.

apart from the channel tunnel (worst thing ever built) we are in no way connected to europe.

- That's simply absurdly wide of the mark.
British history is all about Europe.
'We' are from there.
'We' have had familial, scientific, cultural, economic and security links to every continental European country (and beyond) for centuries, if not millennia.

Maybe you're just kidding, maybe you're just doing your Alf Garnet schtick, again, huh?



[edit on 31-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Mdv2
If Britain doesnt adopt the Euro very soon they'll go down with the sinking American ship as well,

This is not true. It is the euro that is the currency that is harmful for the economy, not the pound. Great Britain hasn't adopted the euro, and it is Great Britain who is prospering, not the Eurozone.

Originally posted by Mdv2
when the US economy goes down, the British will go down as well

But this is not going to happen. Currently, the American economy is the best economy in the world. Not only it has the highest GDP in the world, but this GDP is also growing at the pace of 3.5% every year.

Forgive my tardiness Zibi- it took a little time for me to decide that you are probably serious.

First, you can discount the others all you like, but I read their posts and you have said nothing to refute their arguments. So much for "Zero, Null, None".
Your so-called proof has been non-sequitur. Proof is only proof if it proves something. GDP figures from the CIA world factbook are not proof of the superiority of weapons.

Kill ratio is no indicator at all of a weapon's potential, because as I have said, kill ratios reflect the target as much as the weapon being evaluated. Unless kill ratios can be relied upon to prove that the red baron could shoot down three F-15s using a Fokker Dr1 Triplane (since he had an 80:1 kill ratio and F-15 only has a 26:1 ratio), then kill ratios are not useful as a sole indicator.

You tell me that it cannot be debated, but keep in mind that I am the reigning ATS debate champion. If you're so confident in your proof, consider yourself challenged, we'll U2U Nygdan, and I'll bet you a WATS vote that you won't convince one judge.


Before the debate though, get your facts straight. T-72 is not an 80s tank. It went into production in 71 and started to be fielded in 72, hence T-72.

Iraqs models were a combination of T-72M and Asad Babil (an inferior domestic version). T-72M doesn't have thermal viewers, ATGM capacity, composite armor, or ERA. It does have the failure-prone horizontal-feed autoloader, twin-tiller steering with a manual transmission which requires the driver to use all 3 hands full time, and almost no visibility when buttoned up.
The Asad Babil model also lacked a laser range finder, except in those cases where Republican Guard units salvaged them from scrapped T-72Ms.

Of course T-72 wasn't the most common tank in the Iraqi arsenal anyway. Type 69 was. Type 69 is an upgraded Chinese clone of the T-55. It comes standard with a 100mm rifled peashooter. It has the distinction of being one of the few tanks in the world whose own main gun would be unlikely to penetrate its own armor, which made for some extremely humorous tank battles between Afghan factions prior to the US invasion, which were documented by Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Last but not least, even the T-72s in Iraq were firing spitwads. The BM-17 was the soviet export APFSDS round. It's 1970s vintage. It penetrates 220mm RHA at 2km. Abram's frontal armor is equivalent to 960mm RHA against sabot, so the T-72s never had a chance- it was no test at all. Modern Russian APFSDS (BM-42) get some 650mm.
Tank rounds by penetration
Armor vs Ammo

By that standard of battle testing I could establish myself as a street fighter by going ballistic at a retirement home. How many senior citizens do I have to clock before you'll consider me a ninja?

And yes, Abrams has been attacked by (and at times disabled by) IEDs. LAWs are a joke, although I'd be curious to see you document that Iraqi insurgents have them. You realize that the M-72 penetrates roughly 300mm RHA, has long since been replaced by the AT-4, and that even with the AT-4, Volley firing against the flanks and rear are prescribed for success against modern targets, right?
Laying down the LAW

Your argument comes down to "Since the Abrams can win against 1970s Soviet technology, clearly it can win against 1990s French and German technology". That doesn't follow at all. There is no merit to your argument.

A fact is a fact, but a fact is useless unless it is relevant. Yes, the US has a higher GDP than the EU. How does that cause the EU not to be militarily powerful? If the wealthier nation always won, Vietnam should have been a cake walk. The Iraq insurgency should be even easier, since the enemy isn't even a nation this time, but rather terrorist cells and doesn't have a GDP to speak of. And yet here we are, in 2006, still trying to finish a smackdown that should have been over in 2003 if GDP had spit to do with warfare.

Also, for the record, yes, the Polish military is a joke. The punchline of the joke is that the polish airforce's name sounds ever so slightly like "silly putty".

Roughly 90% of Poland's armor is based on T-72M, 2/3 of that is an up-armored version of what Iraq had, the other third is mildly respectable (PT-91, but if it went up against Leo-2A6, Poland would never know what hit them).
The other 10% of your tanks, surprise suprise, Leo-2! (good choice!)

Most of your IFVs are BMP-1 (I know you guys turn the M upside down- small matter).

1300 artillery peices, mostly soviet.

The brunt of your air defense is man-portable SA-7 and "zeus" AAA.

You're flying MiG-29s and Su-22s, but you begin to take delivery of 48 F-16s this year.

Your navy is the funniest part. Your only destroyer is being used as a museum. Grom class ORP Błyskawica, launched in 1936.

You've finally picked up some of our Oliver Hazard Perry frigates, i'll give you that much, but then the laughs continue at your submarines- all 5, including the Kilo (boy, a Russian sub. Hope you've got plenty of oxygen candles on that thing.)

Poland is very very lucky that it doesn't neighbor Iran, because they wouldn't survive. Iran has them outgunned with comparable equipment on land.

As it is, my advice is not to anger the Germans. They are of comparable size and didn't get their weapons at Crazy Ivan's going out of business sale.


Think it through for a while, do a little research, and if you really think that what you have is "proof" and that I'm just being ignorant, just accept my challenge to debate in this thread, we'll U2U Nygdan, and an annonymous pannel of neutral judges will weigh our arguments for us. Like I said- there'll be a WATS vote in it for you if a single one of them comes away thinking that your arguments held water against mine.

Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
First, you can discount the others all you like, but I read their posts and you have said nothing to refute their arguments. I have proven them wrong about economy with links, and proven them wrong about warfare by mentioning the M1 tank's kill ratio.

I refuted all of their arguments, both the arguments about economy and the arguments about warfare.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Your so-called proof has been non-sequitur. Proof is only proof if it proves something. GDP figures from the CIA world factbook are not proof of the superiority of weapons.

I didn't use them to prove superiority of American weapons, I used them to prove the superiority of American economy.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Kill ratio is no indicator at all of a weapon's performance

It is the only honest measure of a weapon's performance. It tells you how it performs in real combat.

You refute my argument by saying "but the M1 tank hasn't fought against the Leclerc tank". At least the M1 tank has proven itself to be better than the T-72 tank. The Leclerc tank hasn't achieved even that.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Before the debate though, get your facts straight. T-72 is not an 80s tank. It went into production in 71 and started to be fielded in 72, hence T-72.

No, it was not. It entered production in 1979. Reference: the Polish "New Military Technology" magazine, issue 1/2002.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
And yes, Abrams has been attacked by (and at times disabled by) IEDs.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said that despite of being attacked with IEDs, it still has performed better than any other tank in the world.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A fact is a fact, but a fact is useless unless it is relevant. Yes, the US has a higher GDP than the EU. How does that cause the EU not to be militarily powerful?

Now you have shown that you know nothing about what you're talking about. What is the GDP's relevance to military power? The higher the GDP of the US is, the more it can spend on the military. During Reagan's presidency, the US spend 2 trillion dollars on defence each year. Out of all European countries, all countries except for Germany have a lower GDP than 2 trillion dollars.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If the wealthier nation always won, Vietnam should have been a cake walk.

The US has won the Vietnam war.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Also, for the record, yes, the Polish military is a joke.

No, it is not. We have won almost every war we have fought.

The Germans?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Germans have fought against us once, and they have lost.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
if you really think that what you have is "proof" and that I'm just being ignorant, just accept my challenge to debate in this thread, we'll U2U Nygdan, and an annonymous pannel of neutral judges will weigh our arguments for us. Like I said- there'll be a WATS vote in it for you if a single one of them comes away thinking that your arguments held water against mine.

I refuse to accept this challenge. You are not someone that could debate with me. You don't even know what is the connection between a country's GDP and that country's military power. I'm not going to bother with people like you, who don't even know that.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Zibi]

What is the only honest measure of a tank's performance? It is not stats. It is the tank's performance in real combat. And I'm not talking just about the kill ratio it has achieved, I'm talking about the entire history of this tank.

The M1 tank has proven itself in real combat to be the best tank in the world. Comparing any tank that hasn't been proved in battle to the M1 tank is cretinous.

You want to know what makes a country powerful? One thing, a robust, resilient and growing economy. America has one and Europe doesn’t

US household total net worth is $52.5 trillion. Disposable income after taxes etc is running at over $9 trillion a year. Americans are very rich and they are not getting poorer. The economy is perfectly sound, all the way down.

Can America still suffer shocks from high oil prices, war deficits, a low savings rate, a weak dollar, rising rates, and yes falling house prices? Certainly. Any of those can cause a recession, or not. Recessions are normal and trivial affairs that last a year or so. And then the economy goes right back to growing 3% a year, real.

It has done so through cold war, inflation, world wars, depression, fiat money, gold standards, central banking, wildcat banking, technocrat managers, robber barons, civil war, invasion, and revolution. It isn't going to stop doing so the day after tomorrow. The American economy is one of the soundest bedrock facts of world history, and those who bet against it *always* lose.


[edit on 2-6-2006 by El Tiante]

i'm not going to reply to all your post el tiante, but i will make a few points!!

take britain for example, we were top of the food chain before WW2 (and had been for 450 years).

america has been at the top for 70 years, but already cracks are appearing rapidly.

. the dollar$ is on its knees
. american national debt is mind blowing
. you still invest $500 billion a year on your military
. your nation is involved in 2 wars at the moment (possibly 3 iran) - therfore debt keeps rising by $millions every day.

and while all this is going off china is just growing and growing, china has the fastest growing economy in the world, and the rate it is growing it will surpass america within the next 20 years.

george bush has ruined your country, america is very much going the same way the USSR destroyed itself!!

you talk about the people, but i don't feel your better off than me!!

i'm guaranteed of my health at no financial cost to me (nhs) my children (if one day i have them) can go to college after they leave school at no financial cost to them or me.

if i get made redundant tomorrow, its good for me to know that i can receive good benefits to support myself until i find employment again.

we have a 42inch plasma tv, sky tv with every channel, car, house paid for, dvd, broadband internet access - (i don't come from a rich background we are average joes, with average jobs).

so no i don't feel americans are better off than other 'established' european countrys.

america is very much the richest country in the world at present, but your government does very little for the people!!

please see this thread of mine:-

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

ive really learnt quite a lot from it (+ from researching around the net) on how your system works!!

i'm actually quite surprised, because me myself used to feel americans (as a whole) were a lot better off than other nations,

but i'm not so convinced you are anymore.

















[edit on 2-6-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
america has been at the top for 70 years, but already cracks are appearing rapidly.

. the dollar$ is on its knees
. american national debt is mind blowing
. you still invest $500 billion a year on your military
. your nation is involved in 2 wars at the moment (possibly 3 iran) - therfore debt keeps rising by $millions every day.


[edit on 2-6-2006 by st3ve_o]

There’s so much wrong here, it’s hard to know where to start. Of course you just blather opinions with a single fact, but I’ll try to make sense of some of what you wrote.

Fact: The EU Zone has A HIGER debt burden (Debt/GDP) than America. Several times I’ve posted a graph using OECD and CIA Word Fact book numbers showing this.
Fact: America’s present debt burden is rather low by historical standards. It presently stands at about 65% of GDP. After WWII America’s debt burden was 120% of GDP. Would anyone consider the post WWII period bad times for America?
Fact: America’s deficit is shrinking and tax receipts are rising. The deficit will be cut in half by 2008
Fact: America's GDP is growing faster than her debt. America's per capita debt is about $29K while her per capita GDP is $43K
Fact: America spends about 4% of GDP on defense; this is a paltry amount. The reason it’s so large in raw dollars is because America GDP is nearly 13 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Fact: Despite America enduring stock market crashes, terrorist attracts, two wars, oil shocks, devastation hurricanes and several corporate scandals in the last six years, AMERICA HAS THE BEST PERFORMING INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY ON EARTH.
Fact: More than 75% of America’s debt is held by America or Americans. By contrast China holds less than 10%See Here
Fact: China has be INCREASING is holding in US debt in the last 6 months to the tune of 15 BILLION. See Here

Or to put it more succinctly, you have no idea what you are talking about.




[edit on 2-6-2006 by El Tiante]

ive not read all your post yet, i've been up since 5am so talk of STATISTICS/STATISTICS/STATISTICS is just too much for my brain to handle at the moment!!

but after reading your first point,

again you judge europe as a whole (ie:- THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE) like you do with most threads you post in!!

we are NOT 1 nation, i have nothing in common with the germans/the french/the spanish/the italians (and POORER eastern european countrys).

i'm british - compare american life to british life, because i don't really care about other european nations, its like me linking north and south america together and making you explain debt/statistics for countrys like (argentina, brazil etc).

anyway i'll respond later, would like to see your views on the other points i made before i respond












[edit on 2-6-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Zibi
I didn't use them to prove superiority of American weapons, I used them to prove the superiority of American economy.

Then you are off topic. You also contradict yourself later, as we shall see.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It is the only honest measure of a weapon's performance. It tells you how it performs in real combat.

You failed to address my arguments, you simply are saying "no, I'm right, because I am".

You refute my argument by saying "but the M1 tank hasn't fought against the Leclerc tank". At least the M1 tank has proven itself to be better than the T-72 tank. The Leclerc tank hasn't achieved even that.

Use a little common sense. What you're essentially saying is that since a corvette never drag raced against a ten speed bicycle, that we don't know who would win. Of course the stats tell us that a corvette can easily outrace a bicycle. Leclerc would have its way with T-72 just as easily.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, it was not. It entered production in 1979. Reference: the Polish "New Military Technology" magazine, issue 1/2002.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
And yes, Abrams has been attacked by (and at times disabled by) IEDs.

"It lost, but it still fought, so I still say it's battle proven". Brilliant.

Now you have shown that you know nothing about what you're talking about. What is the GDP's relevance to military power? The higher the GDP of the US is, the more it can spend on the military.

Cost does not necessarily reflect quality. Any idiot knows that. Furthermore efficiency and prioritization of military spending can compensate for GDP disparities. Look at North Korea, which although it is no threat to America, is powerful disproportionate to its GDP. Also look at Israel's incredible abilities relative to GDP because of its strategic positioning and emphasis on quality. On the flip side look at China, which has a huge military, a huge GDP, and yet tons of pathetic, outdated equipment and no way to deploy it abroad.

The US has won the Vietnam war.

Which is why we pulled out and let South Vietnam fall?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Also, for the record, yes, the Polish military is a joke.

No, it is not. We have won almost every war we have fought.

Then refute the arguments I have made against Poland. The last time Poland really went to war it was conquered and had to be liberated by others. It hasn't fought a successful war on its own since 1921. If you won almost all of your wars, why didn't your country even exist between 1795-1918?

I refuse to accept this challenge. You are not someone that could debate with me.

No, I insist, bring it. Kick my butt. One of us has got his head so far up his butt that he can see daylight again and I think we should find out which one. So bring it. You say you go the stuff, so let's get down unless you really know that you're in over your head.
Don't you want to prove us morons wrong?

Come get it son. I'd take pleasure in humiliating you.

I gave up on Zibi a while back but still read this for it's entertainment value!

Vagabond, you must be one sick puppy to actually want to try and debate Zibi... I would rather bash my head against a pointy wall.....

I just want to drag him out to the wood shed and humiliate him. His arguments are illogical and without merit; no intelligent person would give him any credit whatsoever and if he doesn't know it he's mentally deficient. Either he'll tacitly admit that he knows it by continuing to refuse my challenge, or else he'll get beat down in the debate and find himself wondering what happened.

Heck, for all I care I'll debate him on whether or not the Polish military is a joke. I just like to put guys like Zibi in their place.

The M1 tank has proven itself in real combat to be the best tank in the world. Comparing any tank that hasn't been proved in battle to the M1 tank is cretinous.

so , by your " logic " we cannot compate the Leopard 2A5 with the PzKv VIB ????

as you claim the only metric worthy of consideration is kills in live combat

that sir is cretinous

Yes, but The Vagabond, you're doing a very dangerous thing called "feeding the troll". I almost gave into it before, as he seems to really enjoy debating opinions he has neither the knowledge or skill to defend, then resorts to juvenille name-calling as a last resort.

Just let 'em be... he'll either be banned or give up and leave soon enough, as all trolls do. I've read enough of your posts to know you're a better man than one to stoop to his level.

I appreciate the words of caution and the high appraisal of me offered with them. I think you may be over-estimating me just a tad though. I've got a combative nature. The difference between a SWAT Sniper and a Freeway shooter is a few months of training and a sense of purpose. The difference between a troll and a debater is probably slimmer- at least when it comes to my style of debate (need I remind you what the last sentence of my closing statement in the debate final was? I still can't believe they let me get away with that by the way.)

If he responds without taking the challenge though, my point is made and I'm done with him.

Well Russia might but the rest are screwed militarily.

Why be proud of having a vast army which soaks up billions in taxpayers money and doesn't give them anything in return?

Ahhh so true. Why would European nations NEED a bigger military? With their currently combined powers, no one would dare threaten them... why waste billions of dollars just to show us yanks that you guys are more powerful?

its strange how people could think europe is so powerful, yet most of us fear the USA for reasons unknown to me. come on... eruope is begger and more powerful than the US could ever be. But, europe has loads of idiots running the countries, not to mention that most countries are on a run with the wind policy. once germany *a tiny little country* reigned terror over the world. yeah, hitler was defeated, but it took people how long?
so i think that europe could be really powerful, but as it stands, all the idiots running these countries wouldnt merge to create a super continent. so we shall forever be fearin the USA or probably the UAE by the looks of it lately.

Originally posted by crimsonpetal
But, europe has loads of idiots running the countries,

jesus man, noones more idiotic than bush!!

most of the world will agree with that, even 49% of america would agree with that statement, the other 51% voted him back in

Originally posted by crimsonpetal
its strange how people could think europe is so powerful, yet most of us fear the USA for reasons unknown to me. come on... eruope is begger and more powerful than the US could ever be. But, europe has loads of idiots running the countries, not to mention that most countries are on a run with the wind policy. once germany *a tiny little country* reigned terror over the world. yeah, hitler was defeated, but it took people how long?
so i think that europe could be really powerful, but as it stands, all the idiots running these countries wouldnt merge to create a super continent. so we shall forever be fearin the USA or probably the UAE by the looks of it lately.

Fearing the UAE? On what planet have you been the last fourty years? Don't get me wrong but there's really nothing to fear from the UAE. It's a stable economic centre in the middle east, controled and governed by westernized Arabs. Nothing more nothing less.

Before making statements such as you do: ''Europe has loads of idiots running the countries'' you'd rather inform yourself a little better about the European Union.
And if you make such statements, then please elaborate it.

As for Zibi , I am not going to waste anymore time on you. You are quite a unique person.