Will the europeans ever be powerful?

I've never cared for the term hyperpower.

Why should we argue about words/terms? Are the words important or is at present another topic the #1 issue?

About Europe's economic weakness:

"Europe," whose share of world trade and relative rate of economic growth are already in decline, will enter the next century stumbling under the weight of its own costs (...) Hitherto, changes in the values of their national currencies have been one of the essential ways in which the relative strengths and weaknesses of those countries were both expressed and adjusted. With that mechanism gone, other forms of expression will operate, such as the collapse of industries or the mass migration of labor.

Link: politics.abovetopsecret.com...

If the US economy is doing so badly and the inflation is so high, then why are 80% of the world's financial transactions and close on 60% of the world's commercial transactions are denominated in US Dollars according to interviews in the French magazine Capital, January and December 1998? The answer is that because although the dollar is a weaker currency than the euro, it is a stable currency. Its value is always ca. 0.5 GBP.

The relevance of the whole post to the topic speaks for itself. I do not believe it is wise to write the Europeans off as "not powerful" because they don't conform to some neat little formula for what constitues a "super power" or "hyper power"

As I have said, any day, any situation, with the right skills and the right amount of luck, ANY nation is powerful to one degree or another, and quite possibly to a much higher or lower degree than anticipated.

You'd be hard pressed to get any less "hyperpowered" than Somalia, but the warlords are still there and we aren't. The USSR wasn't even a super power by any stretch of the imagination in WWII (hyper-whipping-boy would be closer), but their involvement was absolutely vital.

You can rant all day about what constitutes a hyperpower GDP and what doesn't, and if you want to get a little deeper into it you can talk about militarily relevant manufacturing power, logistical infrastructure, forward deployment, disparities in military organization, doctrine, and hardware, etc etc.

But at the end of the day I'm still going to tell you that power is a relative concept and that it is most unwise to be too cavalier about who you have to respect and who you can ignore just because the tale of the tape looks good to you.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
The reason for why European countries didn't take part in war in Iraq is NOT because they didn't want to, but because they can't. Iraq was a danger to Europe, and therefore normally Europe would have attacked Iraq, however Europe didn't do so, because it does not have the ability to do that, but it was too proud to admit it.

Iraq was a Danger to Europe? How so? Iraq's army could barely handle Iran's, no wonder it didn't last a minute against the US/UK forces. Maybe the danger came from those wmds never found?

Russia is not Europe.

No, it isn't because you say so, right

I did not cite America's numerical advantage as the sole cause of America's supremacy. I see that now that you are being proven wrong, your only resort is to FALSIFY the contents of my posts.

Falsify? So because I interpret your data differently, I'm falsifying? Hardly so, you seemed to cite it as "because america has more guns, everybody bows to them" oh except those "idiots" as you call them, the french and germans of course

America was policing the world since WWII. This is why the USSR collapsed. And America is not "invading countries and ilegally arresting, holding without trial and torturing people because of ethnicity, or because "maybe" they are terrorists, or whatever reasons". America is freeing the world from terrorists because the free nations of the world ask America to do so. Recently, the Iraqi PM has said that Iraq is the front line of the war on terrorism. HOW DO YOU ARROGANT WESTERN EUROPEANS DARE TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN IRAQIS THEMSELVES WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM?

The USSR was doomed to fall since instead of following a logical spending economy they threw their money to endless and dumb spending, even though they squeezed every penny, they spent to much. Their leaders was what brought them down, no your American saviors, as you like to think.
OH yeah, throw the liberators of the world card, please! WoT is false, is war over Oil. How many nations of the "free world" asked for the US to meddle in their business and gave the US the right to choose who's good and who's bad??
Did the Iraqi PM said that? You mean the US puppet PM right? The ones the Iraqi people "chose"?
Yes, I think that gives him credibility, doesn't it?
And it's not us "arrogant western europeans" that say so, Iraqis got a change of government, from one that secretly killed them, to one that allows them to be openly bombed, or attacked, because those evil terrorists "hide" among them. SURE

The EU wouldn't defend my country. There is no common defence policy.

No, there is still much progress to be done, but it makes sense to one day have it, you know, just in case the US decides that Europe needs some "liberating" as well.

You have again proven that you know nothing about warfare. The fact that Poland was overrun in 35 days does not mean that Polish soldiers stopped fighting.

The fact that Poland's forces were utterly crushed in 35 days proves their military history has nothing to do with their capabilites. Of course you must as well know that it was the soviets who took half of poland, a deal made with germany before the war, and it was the soviets who sent LOADS of jews to the german side to be "dealt with". The minimal Polish infantry who did participate in war made no effect in war. With or without them, Soviets were advancing to Berlin, and France would have been invaded anyways by the allies, regardless if there were polish soldiers or not among them, what you say proves nothing. If you could only stop chestbeating maybe you'd understand...

Originally posted by The Vagabond

But at the end of the day I'm still going to tell you that power is a relative concept and that it is most unwise to be too cavalier about who you have to respect and who you can ignore just because the tale of the tape looks good to you.

Kudos vagabond, glad to see someone else makes sense here, since some people regardless of what you say just reply "I'm right because I say so"...

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The relevance of the whole post to the topic speaks for itself. I do not believe it is wise to write the Europeans off as "not powerful" because they don't conform to some neat little formula for what constitues a "super power" or "hyper power"

But I am not doing so. I am writing Europe off because it doesn't match ANY definition of a hyperpower. It's a weakling - economically, militarily, technologically, etc. It could theoretically become powerful - but that would require taking action needed to do this, e.g. reducing governmental bureaucracy. If the recent growth of that bureaucracy in Poland is any indication, the European politicians don't approve that idea.

As I have said, any day, any situation, with the right skills and the right amount of luck, ANY nation is powerful to one degree or another, and quite possibly to a much higher or lower degree than anticipated.

Luck has no relevance, but the other factors you mentioned do. The truth is that the US can take advantage of these factors and Europe cannot.

20 years time america won't be the only superpower anyway, infact china will be numerio uno with many nations waiting behind the bushes....america has only been on top for the last 60 years which is just a dot in human history compared to other empires (if you will) before it, 60 years is not even a persons expected life-span

its all about potential!!

(america)

. americas monstrous national debt
. the dying dollar
. america currently fighting 2 wars (possibliy 3 soon with iran) - all costing millions everyday
. still spending cold war money $500 billion (per year) on its military.

all = 'a dying superpower', yes america will still be a superpower for the next 40 years due to its military but all the signs are there that america is going to do a USSR and destroy itself!!

(an american citizen)

. the american govenment does very little to support its citizens and give them a good chance in life, something from the top of my head, the US govenment even charged american citizens for transporting them out of lebanon (how shocking is that?)
. poor welfare benefits, if you lose your job in america your screwed...you get no help to support yourself or your family while you are unemployed the only thing you are entitled to are 'food stamps'.
. poor educational opportunitys (for everyone), education costs money in the united states, what happens if a person with a poor family back-ground wants to better themself and get further education after school?...they don't really have much option except join the military (which offer an education) infact thats the US's greatest motto to make people join the military is 'education', yet if you join the military you can be sent to war and lose your life (what good is an education then)?
. no NHS (national health system)...for me its good to know if i take ill i can be in hospital straight away and i'll always have my health AT NO COST TO ME (infact ive got an operation coming up in 2 months), yet if i want it done next week, i still have the option in going private.

in america, if you break your arm/nose/need surgery (anything) even see your local doctor it costs money!!

yet again what happens if you are from a poor background and can't afford health insurence or can't afford surgical costs?, you are just expected to suffer in the richest country in the world.

(summary) america is called the 'land of opportunity' yet this is a myth in 21st century america, very few people will get this opportunity...if your from a poor background in america you have little chance to rise above all that and make your fortune.

(europe) - or britain

Education - even many of american celebrities even send their children over here to be educated in england, college is FREE, if you want further education after college then you go to university which you are entitled to a top-fee...yet if you don't earn a certain amount of money (when working) you won't have to pay this fee back.

NHS - We have our health at no cost to us (free)

Welfare Benefits - we have good welfare schemes to help support ourselfs and our family if we are out of work, we also have good schemes to help people find work...in america 1 option again military (source) - Fahrenheit 9/11

(summary AGAIN) - america may well be the richest country in the world as of 2006, yet american citizens don't feel the benefits of living in the richest country.


why?

3 things to give someone a chance in suceeding in life!!

education/health/employment (see above) and why america is behind in those departments.








[edit on 30-7-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Iraq was a Danger to Europe? How so? Iraq's army could barely handle Iran's, no wonder it didn't last a minute against the US/UK forces. Maybe the danger came from those wmds never found?

Iraq had these WMDs, and the ability to use them against Europe - its missiles could reach Europe.

I did not cite America's numerical advantage as the sole cause of America's supremacy. I see that now that you are being proven wrong, your only resort is to FALSIFY the contents of my posts.

Falsify? So because I interpret your data differently, I'm falsifying? Hardly so, you seemed to cite it as "because america has more guns, everybody bows to them" oh except those "idiots" as you call them, the french and germans of course

No, I'm posting post long messages containing detailed explanations of why France, Germany etc. are weaklings. You are the kind of person that has no debate skills, and because you cannot disprove me, you have to FALSIFY my posts so that it looks like as if I said "America's numerical advantage alone makes the US more powerful than Europe" (which I didn't). My posts cannot be "interpreted", either they say "A" or they say "B".

Their leaders was what brought them down, no your American saviors, as you like to think.

Incorrect. As I said, had it not been for America, the world would have been conquered by the USSR. The Soviet Union stationed a lot of soldiers in Europe, and would have conquered the continent had it not been for the US military presence. Then, they would have conquered other continents. Luckily, America protected Europe and the USSR collapsed.

WoT is false, is war over Oil.

If only those 4000 dead people killed on 9/11 could answer that lie.

How many nations of the "free world" asked for the US to meddle in their business and gave the US the right to choose who's good and who's bad??

Iraq did.

Did the Iraqi PM said that?

You mean the US puppet PM right? The ones the Iraqi people "chose"?

Yes, they have elected him. Elections is the privilege that the Iraqis enjoy and the Europeans do not. The EC, the COREPER, the EU Foreign Minister, etc. are not elected, they are appointed. Moreover, in only 4 states there have been referendums about the EU constitution, in the other 12 (Finland hasn't ratified it yet but has decided that it will do so via parliamentary vote) professional politicians voted or will vote to abolish their nation states without bothering to ask the voters for their opinion. And in France and the Netherlands, where the EUC has been rejected in referendum, the governments said that the EUC will be ratified via parliamentary vote against the will of the voters. In 2005, the EU was telling Iraq how to draft a constitution, though the EU's own constitution hasn't been yet ratified. I say to you arrogant Western Europeans:
IRAQ DOESN'T NEED ADVICE FROM YOU! SHUT UP!

And it's not us "arrogant western europeans" that say so, Iraqis got a change of government, from one that secretly killed them, to one that allows them to be openly bombed, or attacked, because those evil terrorists "hide" among them.

The terrorists are not Iraqis, they are foreigners. Zarqawi was Jordanian. The Iraqis themselves are joining the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military and fighting these terrorists.

No, there is still much progress to be done, but it makes sense to one day have it, you know, just in case the US decides that Europe needs some "liberating" as well.

The only problem is that if the US invaded Europe, it would overrun it.

The fact that Poland's forces were utterly crushed in 35 days proves their military history has nothing to do with their capabilites.

Poland's armed forces were not "utterly crashed", had they been, they wouldn't participate in all those operations they participated in.

The minimal Polish infantry who did participate in war made no effect in war.

Now you have not only shown that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about history, but also insulted Polish WWII veterans. "The minimal Polish infatry" is the stupidest claim I have heard today, and is knowlingly false. In GB, two AF squadrons were stationed. In the siege of Berlin an entire division of Polish soldiers participated. During the invasion of France in 1944, among the Allied Forces was a big Polish force. In 1945, the Polish armed forces were the fourth-biggest among the allies (600,000), after the Soviets, the Americans and the Brits.

With or without them, Soviets were advancing to Berlin,

Polish soldiers participated in the fiercest fighting in the city of Berlin. Without them, Germany's capital would have never been overrun.

and France would have been invaded anyways by the allies, regardless if there were polish soldiers or not among them

Invaded, yes. Liberated, no. After the Allies landed, the Germans tried to conduct a counteroffensive, but were stopped at Falaise by Polish soldiers.

Originally posted by Zibi uhh... JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
The lies on the inflation rate, which is actually 2% higher than the Fed. Says (instead of 4.32 it is 6.32% - 2006, while the EU inflation is only 2.5%)

Ah, so whenever you are proven wrong by someone, you claim that the people who disproved you are liars. That's a bad way of participating in a debate. It should go without saying that the American Fed surely knows better than you what is the real inflation rate in the US.

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, what's up with you, accusing me of being a liar? I'll defend my statement, and provide you two sources I used. For the rest of your poor, ludicrous and unfounded fairy tale I'll reserve the right not to comment or argue with you on any other nonsense.

Why the US inflation rate is actually two percent higher than the official rate

The historically low levels of real interest rates (even using the understated CPI data)
suggest a supportive outlook for gold prices. At this stage we see little likelihood of a
significant rise in real US interest rates given the precarious state of consumer
indebtedness.
Within this positive scenario for gold prices we examine the risks that the US economy
could enter a period of either rapidly rising inflation or, alternatively, move into
recession and possibly a deflationary slump, both of which would be likely to put even
more upward pressure on the gold price.


The changes in CPI methodology since the Clinton Administration are estimated by
Williams to have led to the CPI figures systematically understating the true level of US inflation by 2.7% on an ongoing basis.

Source: Cheuveux Gold Report - PDF Format

The Wall Street Journal

...

But even as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates amid a recent uptick in inflation, many critics complain the hedonic method is distorting the picture of what's going on in the economy. They say hedonics is too subjective and fear it helps keep inflation figures artificially low -- meaning the Fed may already be lagging in its inflation-fighting mission.

Full article:
Wall Street Journal: Tricks to lower the actual inflation rate

I sincirely hope you are capable of understanding the tricks used by the government to falsely keep the inflation rate lower than it actually is.Furthermore, whether you care or not, saying you don't care about European Bank reports just because they are European is pretty ignorant.

WASHINGTON - Consumer inflation slowed in June, helped by a temporary drop in energy prices. But the improvement was expected to be short-lived with a new crisis in the Middle East pushing crude oil to record highs.

The Labor Department reported that its closely watched Consumer Price Index rose by just 0.2 percent in June, the smallest increase in four months and just half of the 0.4 percent May rise.

The overall increase was in line with expectations although core inflation, which excludes energy and food, rose by 0.3 percent in June, higher than the 0.2 percent Wall Street had been expecting. That increase left core inflation rising for the past three months at an annual rate of 3.6 percent, far above the Federal Reserve comfort zone of 2 percent or less.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Actual rate based on the Cheuvreux Gold Report: 6.3 %






[edit on 30-7-2006 by Mdv2]

Hey, thanks for quoting the whole "Europe couldn't invade Iraq" part. I might have missed that.

With all due respect to the winners of the 1992 "Paper Tiger Award", I could have invaded Iraq. Not me as a US Marine. I mean ME, the Vagabond. Pathetic air defenses, an emasculated, uncoordinated military (standard issue for despotic nations), large, oppressed, dissenting populations located in economically vital extremities of the country... give me a break.

If the US government had given me a few hundred million bucks and an address book for the right people, I could have toppled Saddam and been home by Christmas- though in all fairness I'd leave one hell of a mess behind and it wouldn't improve things much.

Forgive my hyperbole but my point is this: to say that the Europeans couldn't have dealt with a pushover like that is to completely disown any credibility on military matters. Not only did Europe have the money and the munitions to do what the US has done (and in fact for even less they could have done what the US should have done in my humble opinion), but in all probability they would have had something we didn't- Turkish cooperation.

Europe didn't do anything about Saddam for the following reasons:
#1. Like most of the world, America by no means excluded, they were in bed with him.
#2. If/When the time came to get out of bed with Saddam, why waste the money or the political capital when you can not only get America to do it, but at the same time curse America for doing it and reap the benefits of that in elections.
#3. Europe leans a little more to the left than America- they can scratch industry's back in the light of day rather than using rebuilding contracts to do it under the counter.
#4. Small friggin potatoes. You can't keep the oil. It doesn't work that way. When you get right down to it as far as national interests are concerned (contracts aside) having Iraq is only worth the trouble if you want to threaten Iran, if you have some interest in being positioned to help Israel, and if you need a ventriloquist dummy to say what you want it to say about your Mid-East policy (and that one didn't work out so well even, just ask Mr. Al-Maliki)

As for a threat to Europe... come again? Saddam didn't have a single missile, not one, that could get beyond Turkey. If they had developed their Scuds to the level that North Korea and Iran have, they might have threatened as far Greece, but that's it.

If the standard by which Europe needed to attack Iraq were to be used, then it would be a matter of great urgency that the United States go to war with Cuba. I mean hey, they are somewhat disagreeable, and although they aren't a threat, they might want to be, and in a few decades, who knows, maybe they will be.

Geez

Originally posted by st3ve_o
(america)

americas monstrous national debt

This is not a relevant measure. What IS relevant is a country's national debt AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. While it is true that America's debt is highest in the world, it's GDP is also THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. America's GDP is growing quickly, and as a consequence, it's debt burden is shrinking quickly.

the dying dollar

Keep wishing. As I said, while the USD is weaker than the euro, at least it's - unlike its European counterpart - a stable currency.

america currently fighting 2 wars (possibliy 3 soon with iran) - all costing millions everyday

America is currently fighting wars at two MINOR threatres. About 5% of US military's members are deployed to both of these theatres combined. And Iran can be handled by Israel.

still spending cold war money $500 billion (per year) on its military.

It is true that the US spends as much on defence as the next 20 countries combined. However, the US also has the highest GDP in the world. The hyperpowerful American economy allows America to maintain it's hyperpowerful military and strengthen it at a low cost. That's what's great about America.

all = a dying superpower, yes america will still be a hyperpower for the next 40 years due to its military

Keep wishing. The US is economically outperforming the rest of the world, has more nukes than the rest of the world combined, and is liberating the world from totalitarian regimes.

If they had developed their Scuds to the level that North Korea and Iran have, they might have threatened as far Greece, but that's it.

The problem is that he did intend to do this. How do you think, what option from one of the two below would a terrorist-supporting dictator choose?
1) Threaten a foreign country like a terrorist
2) Not threaten a foreign country

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

In reply to those who say that EU member countries that have not adopted the Euro should do so:

Do you think we are stupid? The Euro has caused an economic disaster in those countries that have adopted it, and besides that, they have been excluded from IMF meetings – they are now “represented” by the ECB, headed by the Germans. Their gold reserves are now under the command of the EU, not these countries.

In 2005, the economies of all 10 new EU member countries but Slovenia have grown by at least 5%. Meanwhile, France’s economy has grown by 1.4% and Germany’s economy has shrank.

Businesses are now fleeing to the new member countries besides Slovenia.

The new member countries adopting the Euro would be like someone buying a ticket for the Titanic. But nevertheless, those of you Continental Western Europeans that are from countries that have adopted the euro and whose economies suffer, claim that we Central Europeans should adopt the EU’s standard currency. No way! Our economies are booming. If you want to keep the euro despite of the fact that it is clear that it’s one of the causes of your economic disaster, it isn’t our problem.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Iraq had these WMDs, and the ability to use them against Europe - its missiles could reach Europe.

Maybe you'd like to specify this missiles, and why in the world would saddam attack Europe of all places???

No, I'm posting post long messages containing detailed explanations of why France, Germany etc. are weaklings. You are the kind of person that has no debate skills, and because you cannot disprove me, you have to FALSIFY my posts so that it looks like as if I said "America's numerical advantage alone makes the US more powerful than Europe" (which I didn't). My posts cannot be "interpreted", either they say "A" or they say "B".

Lol, so now I have no debating skills...I see, I believe everyone in this forum who has responded to YOUR posts has disproven you, unless of course you only see MY posts

Incorrect. As I said, had it not been for America, the world would have been conquered by the USSR. The Soviet Union stationed a lot of soldiers in Europe, and would have conquered the continent had it not been for the US military presence. Then, they would have conquered other continents. Luckily, America protected Europe and the USSR collapsed.

Mmm...no, they only did not attack because of Nukes, French, British, and American Nukes. America had no hopes to stop them, and that why they even had tactical nukes deployed in Europe,in normal combat they would have been overrun, and without this tactical nukes, Soviets would have no detterent not to attack.

If only those 4000 dead people killed on 9/11 could answer that lie.

If only those almost 45,000 iraqi civilians could open your eyes.
Iraqi Body Count Site

Iraq did.

Mmm...no it didn't, Bush decided there were wmds and launched an attack, I don't recall ANY iraqis asking to be slaughtered by bombs, EXCUSE ME

Yes, they have elected him. Elections is the privilege that the Iraqis enjoy and the Europeans do not. The EC, the COREPER, the EU Foreign Minister, etc. are not elected, they are appointed. Moreover, in only 4 states there have been referendums about the EU constitution, in the other 12 (Finland hasn't ratified it yet but has decided that it will do so via parliamentary vote) professional politicians voted or will vote to abolish their nation states without bothering to ask the voters for their opinion. And in France and the Netherlands, where the EUC has been rejected in referendum, the governments said that the EUC will be ratified via parliamentary vote against the will of the voters. In 2005, the EU was telling Iraq how to draft a constitution, though the EU's own constitution hasn't been yet ratified. I say to you arrogant Western Europeans:
IRAQ DOESN'T NEED ADVICE FROM YOU! SHUT UP!

Were you unfrozen from an Iceberg or something? Do you realize what are you saying? Europe is where democracy was born for christ sakes! Until the EU is accepted by all participating countries elections won't happen, but every single country in Europe elects it's government...I can't believe you said what you did...

The terrorists are not Iraqis, they are foreigners. Zarqawi was Jordanian. The Iraqis themselves are joining the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military and fighting these terrorists.

Are you talking about the same Iraqi's that get slaughtered? Oh no, most of them are certainly not terrorists, but that doesn't keep them alive either...so whatever

The only problem is that if the US invaded Europe, it would overrun it.

If cows flew, it would be all sweet, wouldn't it? Sorry, but what you just said is just nuts, read slowly please...THE US IS NOT INVADING EUROPE

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Poland's armed forces were not "utterly crashed", had they been, they wouldn't participate in all those operations they participated in.

Mmm...well if for you the conquest, ravage, and almost enslavement of your country is victory, hey, cheers, there was almost no opposition from the polish side, days before the war a pair destroyers escaped to GB, to avoid utter DESTRUCTION.

Now you have not only shown that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about history, but also insulted Polish WWII veterans. "The minimal Polish infatry" is the stupidest claim I have heard today, and is knowlingly false. In GB, two AF squadrons were stationed. In the siege of Berlin an entire division of Polish soldiers participated. During the invasion of France in 1944, among the Allied Forces was a big Polish force. In 1945, the Polish armed forces were the fourth-biggest among the allies (600,000), after the Soviets, the Americans and the Brits.

Mmm...no, see now your interpreting what I say however it suits you, WRONG. Two WHOLE AF SQUADRONS?? OMG that's quite a lot isn't it?? Mexico and Brazil sent AF squadrons as well to war, so? NO effect in war, merely symbolical. A division of polish soldiers is nothing compared to the Bulk of the Soviet Red Army, it's not an insult, it's mere reality. Polish solidiers where used to fill the gaps between American and UK/Commonwealth forces, read a book! So don't you come like I'm disrespecting when I'm not, you're twisting reality

Polish soldiers participated in the fiercest fighting in the city of Berlin. Without them, Germany's capital would have never been overrun.

The soviets had no need for polish forces, sorry!! The sheer size of the combined armies of Zhukov and Konev where quite a lot more than 1 division, be sure of that.

Invaded, yes. Liberated, no. After the Allies landed, the Germans tried to conduct a counteroffensive, but were stopped at Falaise by Polish soldiers.

I'm sorry but such counteroffensive doesn't exist, it was an ally attack to further weaken the germans, not otherwise...just one mention of Poles, main action taken by American, French, British and Canadian forces, not just exclusively polish forces...mmm anything to add? PROOF:

Falaise Pocket

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
How do you think, what option from one of the two below would a terrorist-supporting dictator choose?
1) Threaten a foreign country like a terrorist
2) Not threaten a foreign country

For what purpose? Nobody does anything of any great consequence without a motive. You don't put your shoes on in the morning without a motive.

How exactly would that scenario work?

He's just going to get on the phone and tell Britain, France, Germany, etc that they have to do whatever he says or he'll launch a massive chemical attack, thereby slightly lowering the quality of life in the former Yugoslavia and forcing tourists to change their plans from Greece to Italy? Frankly I'd double-dog dare him to launch.

And it's not as if just about anybody on this planet could have in that case penetrated Iraq's so-called air defenses and just bombed the threat out of existence then, if they didn't want him to hurt Greece, is it?

No, obviously Europe had no choice but to invade Iraq on the ground back in the late 90s, and the fact that they didn't do it shows that Europe, with the sole exception of Poland, is completely and totally militarily impotent.

Get off it. Saddam knew full well that he couldn't do the first thing to the Europeans and the Europeans knew that too. Iraq was YEARS and YEARS away from being a big enough fly for Europe to waste the time swatting as far as defensive motives are concerned.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
For what purpose? Nobody does anything of any great consequence without a motive. You don't put your shoes on in the morning without a motive.

How exactly would that scenario work?

I'll tell you for what purpose: for the purpose of showing the North Atlantic Alliance's weakness. If Hussein gassed or nuked Greece (which is a NATO member), the European NATO countries would not be able to react (i.e. invade Iraq), and that would prove their weakness. If Greece was attacked, the only country that could defend it would be the US.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Maybe you'd like to specify this missiles, and why in the world would saddam attack Europe of all places???

Scuds. They were able to reach only Greece, but I've already explained that issue.

I believe everyone in this forum who has responded to YOUR posts has disproven you, unless of course you only see MY posts

And you are wrong. No one has yet disproven me. No one has yet proven my claims (backed up by proof). Simply those people saying "we are right and the US economy is collapsing", simply these people saying simple sentences not backed up by any evidence, is not disproving me, it is just proving the ignorance of those people.

Mmm...no, they only did not attack because of Nukes, French, British, and American Nukes.

France became "a nuclear power" in 1960, 15 years after the beginning of the Cold War. GB became a nuclear power in 1952, 7 years after the Cold War began. During the entire Cold War the nuclear arsenals of both of these countries were small, and still are today.

America had no hopes to stop them, and that why they even had tactical nukes deployed in Europe,in normal combat they would have been overrun, and without this tactical nukes, Soviets would have no detterent not to attack.

Another lie not backed up by any proof. That's what I was talking about. You, an ignorant America-hater, just write claims "America was, is and will be weak, France is powerful and I am right because I am because I am the unmistakenable one". FYI - throughout all of the Cold War America had the best conventional weapons of all kinds in the world. Read about them at the GlobalSecurity website. Besides, in Europe, American eurostrategic missiles were not installed until the 1980s, yet the USSR did not attack. The reason: American military presence.

If only those almost 45,000 iraqi civilians could open your eyes.

The reason for why people are dying in Iraq is terrorism. Iraq, prior to liberation, was a country that supported Al-Qaeda, and the terrorists don't want to lose a supporter.

Iraq did.

Mmm...no it didn't, Bush decided there were wmds and launched an attack, I don't recall ANY iraqis asking to be slaughtered by bombs, EXCUSE ME

I recall the Iraqis standing in long lines waiting to vote in popular elections (at which turnout is higher than in all European countries) and the Iraqi PM saying that Iraqi is a frontline of the war on terrorism.

Were you unfrozen from an Iceberg? Do you realize what are you saying? Europe is where democracy was born for christ sakes! Until the EU is accepted by all participating countries elections won't happen, but every single country in Europe elects it's government...I can't believe you said what you did...

Now you have proven that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER about history. Europe is not where democracy was born, it was born in Great Britain, a country lying on an island off European coast. It is the first country where a parliament was founded, and where all people (including women - Great Britain was one of the first countries that gave its women the right to vote) could vote. And nowadays, European national governments have no authority over their countries, Europe is being run by the EU.

Mmm...well if for you the conquest, ravage, and almost enslavement of your country is victory, hey, cheers, there was almost no opposition from the polish side, days before the war a pair destroyers escaped to GB, to avoid utter DESTRUCTION.

Totally wrong. Poland was the FIRST country to say no to Hitler's arrogant demands, while the cowardish Western Europeans were appeasing Hitler. In 1938, Hitler demanded that we awarded Germany an exterritorial corridor from Brandenburg to Prussia so that the Jerries could build a motorway and a railway line. Poland refused to fulfill that demand.

Mmm...no, see now your interpreting what I say however it suits you, WRONG. Two WHOLE AF SQUADRONS?? OMG that's quite a lot isn't it?? Mexico and Brazil sent AF squadrons as well to war, so? NO effect in war, merely symbolical.

I'm not talking about the entire war, I'm talking just about the battle of Britain. The Polish AF deployed two fighter squadrons, the 302nd and the 303rd, each of the same size as today's USAF fighter wing, to GB, and they played a crucial role in the battle of Britain. Without them, the Brits would not have defended themselves, their AF was too small at that time.

read a book!

You read a book. I have read many. As I have said, in 1945, the Poles were, in terms of the size of armed forces, the 4th most important Allied nation, after the USA, the USSR and the Brits. In 1945, Polish armed forces on all fronts combined numbered 600,000 soldiers.

And BTW: you posting statistics that DON'T back up your point (just like you did with the number of Iraqis who died since 2003) doesn't prove anything, either.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

So... Saddam was going to get his country nuked just to prove your little point for you? Wow. I know you've told us before how mighty Poland is, but I didn't know that just any one of you guys could get on the phone and make Saddam do whatever just to make a point for you. Are you still in touch with him? I'd really like to know if he's taking this trial as hard as it seems.

This has been quite amusing Zibi and I'm glad you're back, but I just can't continue this conversation. I'm afraid that I'll grow attatched to you and then, if you got banned again, I just don't know if I could take it.

So... Saddam was going to get his country nuked just to prove your little point for you?

No, to prove NATO's weakness. He could have escaped to another country while the entire world would take advantage of Europe's weakness since the entire world would know how weak Europe is.

Wow. I know you've told us before how mighty Poland is

I'm not saying that Poland is mighty, I'm only saying that it is the only country in Continental Europe with a decent military.

This has been quite amusing Zibi

Zibi? What are you talking about? I'm not Zibi and honestly I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And honestly, I don't care. If I was banned on an Internet forum I wouldn't be able to come back, would I?

However, I have noticed, that you have ignored what I said about Saddam Hussein's regime's cruelty and his links to Al-Qaeda. Don't you think that this justifies the invasion of Iraq?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

NEWS: In the second quarter of 2006, the US economy grew by 2.5%. That's a slower growth than during the first quarter of this year, but faster than in Europe.

In America, like in Europe, inflation is being caused by energy prices. However, America has decided to end its dependence on foreign oil and use nuclear, solar and wind energy instead, while Europe has decided to continue importing oil from unstable countries and countries run by totalitarian regimes. If the muzzies don't simply overrun Europe, they will get control of it anyway - via economic blackmail.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]