Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Yes it did. Unprecedented amounts of ordnance where used to destroy all Government buildings, civil infrastructure (power,water,telecoms), military targets (the Iraqi army was massacred wholesale, 10,000+ casualties) and there where/are still many examples of "collateral damage".

Unprecedented? How about WW2?

We bombed military structures like every army does. It just happens that Saddam placed it all right in the middle of his cities. His soldiers hid inside Mosques, schools, and hospitals. That explains most collateral damage.

And America did not bomb Iraq extensively. The way the Iraq War was actually fought was the first modern war not to rely on heavy bombing before the campaign began. Most bombing was done in support of the ground forces while invading.

Yes they did. The Communists for starters. And also, the dominat powers in Europe at the time, which Hitler felt had wronged Germany in 1918

Hitler had no respect for Russia. The rest of the European powers had let their militaries decay to the point of ridiculousness. Most were stilling using horses, or tanks from WW1.

Europe was developing new technology to compete with the Germans, but none of them were really ready by the time WW2 started. They were all years away from having modern technology in large enough numbers.

So, we knocked out a human rights violator? Then why the hypocrisy (sp?) in dealing with Mugabe (good Food producer)?
Or Sudan (they have Oil)?
Or Saudi Arabia (they have oil too!)
Or North korea (they have WMD)?
Or Indonesia (oil)?
Or Bangladesh(not alot really)?
Or Burma (Jungle....can never have too much?)?
Or all the others?

You take it one at a time. America has been putting more pressure on those nations than anyone else.

And this excuse was plenty good enough for America and NATO when they attacked Kosovo, now wasn't it? Going to the UN wasn't even needed then.

Er, excuse me? They gave him an ultimatum to give up his WMD, which he didn't have! How can you use the lack of UN action as justification, seeing as the lack of action was justified itself??

The UN found Saddam in violation of something like 16 of their sanctions.

Your contradictions astound me. Regardless of wether Saddam was "evil" or not, you cannot use that as an excuse, as highlighted above. Nor can you use the pretext of preemption, as there was no WMD. Regardless, it was still against the UN charter. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, and was invaded by superior military forces for no good reason whatsoever.

Stopping the slaughter of Iraqis wasn't worth it? Saddam had what, 1 million put into mass graves in the desert? That's more then what was seen in Kosovo. I think the problem was that France was making money off the mass murder, like with Rwanda, unlike in Kosovo which didn't benefit anyone.

And every intelligence agency out there agreed that there were WMD's. Your statement that there weren't WMD's being said long after the war means nothing. Hindsight is useless.

No they wouldn't. The British Empire was already under going change, and had actually granted independance to several colonies long before WW1. Canada and Australia come to mind. After WW2, Europe had grown weary of fighting, and we grew up, and look how far we have come since.

Yea, you guys did this because you didn't have the military capability. That's why you just didn't give up your colonies all at once. It wasn't some change of heart, really.

Apparently the French must have taken longer to "grow up," as they tried to keep their colonies until the 50's, and had to be violently forced out.

No they didn't, they acted illegally. And no it turns out, even those reasons where all false. The UN warned Saddam to give up WMD, which he had done in 1991. The UN inspectors (freely) checked out Iraq, and when it came about that the inspectors would find nothing, Bush/Blair quickly launched their invasion and the UN had to pull those inspectors out.

And Kosovo wasn't illegal...?

Whilst it may not have overtly invaded countries in all cases, it most certainly played dirty and made many lives a misery by supporting regimes that where friendly to the US, but not very nice to their populations, just because it served US interest.

There were never any better alternatives. It wasn't like there was really a group willing to take over who was going to treat their people better.

Unprecedented? How about WW2?

We bombed military structures like every army does. It just happens that Saddam placed it all right in the middle of his cities. His soldiers hid inside Mosques, schools, and hospitals. That explains most collateral damage.

And America did not bomb Iraq extensively. The way the Iraq War was actually fought was the first modern war not to rely on heavy bombing before the campaign began. Most bombing was done in support of the ground forces while invading.

Or WW1 for that matter. I used the word incorrectly, I apologise.

Not too sure about your claims that his military was hiding in the cities. The Republican Guard where outside Baghdad, and where bombed into dust.

Most of the collateral damage comes from your guys being to darn trigger happy. What was it? Estimated civilain deaths in excess of 100,000 since the invasion? Hmmm.....

Hitler had no respect for Russia

Thats why I mentioned the Commies. Broadsword said they had no enemies, but Hitler clearly stated he hated commies.

The rest of the European powers had let their militaries decay to the point of ridiculousness. Most were stilling using horses, or tanks from WW1.

You will find that most of the Wehrmacht was using horses as well. For every Panzer (Armoured) Division, there would be at least 10 Infantry Divisions lurking about.

You take it one at a time. America has been putting more pressure on those nations than anyone else.

Nothing is happening though is it? The US claims genocide is taking place in Sudan, but has done bog all to stop it.

The UN found Saddam in violation of something like 16 of their sanctions.

Elaborate.

Besides, there are plenty of nations around the world which flount UN sanctions.

Stopping the slaughter of Iraqis wasn't worth it? Saddam had what, 1 million put into mass graves in the desert? That's more then what was seen in Kosovo. I think the problem was that France was making money off the mass murder, like with Rwanda, unlike in Kosovo which didn't benefit anyone.

Your making numbers up now. Yesterday, in Parliament, Jack Straw stated that 100,000 had died in 30 years (And i doubt this figure as well, as he needs to do some PR). Thats 3333 people/year. There are far worse regimes around the world than Saddam.

And every intelligence agency out there agreed that there were WMD's. Your statement that there weren't WMD's being said long after the war means nothing. Hindsight is useless.

No, not every intelligence agency did. What the Governments did was take selective intelligence, and use it to their advantage. Most of that intelligence was provided by Chalabi, remember him, the US poster guy for the new Iraq? He is now discredited and branded a criminal in Iraq and severely out of favour with the US.

Yea, you guys did this because you didn't have the military capability. That's why you just didn't give up your colonies all at once. It wasn't some change of heart, really.

We let Canada and Oz go of their own accord. No arguments whatsoever. The African colonies we kept, but gave up after WW2 beacause of a lack of will to fight the nationalist movements.

After WW2, we had a huge mobilized army (nearly 2 million if memeory serves me), so saying we lacked the capability to fight is wrong, we lacked the will.

Apparently the French must have taken longer to "grow up," as they tried to keep their colonies until the 50's, and had to be violently forced out.

Thats the French for you!

And Kosovo wasn't illegal...?

Not entirely sure why you keep bringing up Kosovo. But they had a UN mandate, Resolution 1160. So no, Kosovo wasn't illegal.

There were never any better alternatives. It wasn't like there was really a group willing to take over who was going to treat their people better.

So, what? You thought you would screw with their countries for a bit of a laugh?

Most of the collateral damage comes from your guys being to darn trigger happy. What was it? Estimated civilain deaths in excess of 100,000 since the invasion? Hmmm.....

Our soldiers are trigger happy, huh? Guess that's why they never fired back on anyone shooting at them from places like Mosques, schools, and hospitals...

I highly doubt any European military would go through that trouble.

Thats why I mentioned the Commies. Broadsword said they had no enemies, but Hitler clearly stated he hated commies.

But he never feared Russia military strength.

You will find that most of the Wehrmacht was using horses as well. For every Panzer (Armoured) Division, there would be at least 10 Infantry Divisions lurking about.

It's like that in almost every army. Most militaries have way more infantry then cavalry/tanks.

Elaborate.

Besides, there are plenty of nations around the world which flount UN sanctions.

We haven't been bombing those other nations every day for years. We also haven't been to war with them.

As for ellaboration, I don't care much. You can go run a google search in five seconds if you're really interested.

Your making numbers up now. Yesterday, in Parliament, Jack Straw stated that 100,000 had died in 30 years (And i doubt this figure as well, as he needs to do some PR). Thats 3333 people/year. There are far worse regimes around the world than Saddam.

Sorry, but we've found over hundreds of thousands in mass graves already. Some estimates put the body count up to one million:

www.usatoday.com...

No, not every intelligence agency did. What the Governments did was take selective intelligence, and use it to their advantage. Most of that intelligence was provided by Chalabi, remember him, the US poster guy for the new Iraq? He is now discredited and branded a criminal in Iraq and severely out of favour with the US.

Maybe not every. EVERY nation probably didn't look at Iraq. Just the ones that matter, like Russia and France. Guess they used selective intelligence, too, right?

Sorry to tell you, but Saddam probably did have WMD's, and shipped them out of the country in the months leading up to the invasion.

We let Canada and Oz go of their own accord. No arguments whatsoever. The African colonies we kept, but gave up after WW2 beacause of a lack of will to fight the nationalist movements.

More like you couldn't. You could never ship enough soldiers to those places to fight wars.

After WW2, we had a huge mobilized army (nearly 2 million if memeory serves me), so saying we lacked the capability to fight is wrong, we lacked the will.

You just lacked the funds, and capability to deploy them...

Not entirely sure why you keep bringing up Kosovo. But they had a UN mandate, Resolution 1160. So no, Kosovo wasn't illegal.

I've never heard of any resolution being passed. What I did hear was the same argument used for Iraq today being used for the French. The Serbs had violated UN sanctions, so force could be used.

The NATO forces never even asked the UN if they could go in. The matter was never brought up before the Security Council. Had it been, there's no way in hell Russia and China would have approved.

So, what? You thought you would screw with their countries for a bit of a laugh?

No. It's that they were already screwed, so they mine as well be screwed with an American friendly government.

Our soldiers are trigger happy, huh? Guess that's why they never fired back on anyone shooting at them from places like Mosques, schools, and hospitals...

Yes they have.

But he never feared Russia military strength.

Never said he did, I was merely pointing out that Hitler had enemies.

It's like that in almost every army. Most militaries have way more infantry then cavalry/tanks.

Your the one who said the European armies where unadvanced and using horses. i am illustrating the point that the Wehrmacht also did.

We haven't been bombing those other nations every day for years. We also haven't been to war with them.

As for ellaboration, I don't care much. You can go run a google search in five seconds if you're really interested.

Then whats the point in debating if your not going to back up your arguments when challenged?

Sorry, but we've found over hundreds of thousands in mass graves already. Some estimates put the body count up to one million:

No you haven't. That article of yours says that the grave contains a few hundred.

his year, U.S. and Iraqi authorities discovered a vast killing field where hundreds of bodies were found in trenches near Hatra in northern Iraq.

The rest of the number is an estimate. And from a prooganda source no less. Show me the BBC claiming this and I will believe you.

Maybe not every. EVERY nation probably didn't look at Iraq. Just the ones that matter, like Russia and France. Guess they used selective intelligence, too, right?

Er, wrong again, They never claimed that Iraq had any to begin with, but where willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt:

Statement after the resolution was passed from Frances Foreign Minister:

"The inspectors will naturally have to be able to count on the complete cooperation of the Iraqi authorities to verify that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction"

Frances Statement

Sorry to tell you, but Saddam probably did have WMD's, and shipped them out of the country in the months leading up to the invasion.

If that is so, then why are you not worried about where they are? Surely OBL or someone could have them by now right?

Don't make me laugh, there where none to begin with.

More like you couldn't. You could never ship enough soldiers to those places to fight wars

Never had a problem before. And that was with Steam and Sail ships too.

Listen buddy, I am British, so i know why the Empire dissolved, we get taught it in School for starters, I am not here telling you about the US Civil war etc am I?.

After WW2, we had no will to fight any more wars, end of story.

You just lacked the funds, and capability to deploy them...

Nope. We could have done it if we had the will. We still had an enormous fleet come the end of WW2, and could have sent enough men, but after the horror of the war, we didn't want another, or lots of others, we had suffered enough. Until you understand just how badly the Wars affected the UK, you cannot pass judgement. We paid a terrible price fighting Germany, and suffered immensely.

I've never heard of any resolution being passed. What I did hear was the same argument used for Iraq today being used for the French. The Serbs had violated UN sanctions, so force could be used.

The NATO forces never even asked the UN if they could go in. The matter was never brought up before the Security Council. Had it been, there's no way in hell Russia and China would have approved.

Then look it up. Resolution 1160. After that, when the Serbs failed to adhere to the resolution, NATO acted.

I couldn't care less if you never heard of it, it happened. Its on the UN website for gods sake. Russia agreed, as the Resolution also condemmed the KLA for terrorist acts against serbs, and China really couldn't give a monkeys, so didn't object/veto.

EDIT: In fact, there where two resolutions:

Resolutions for Kosovo


Sorry to have to burst your bubble.







[edit on 2/2/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's like that in almost every army. Most militaries have way more infantry then cavalry/tanks.

- Well, just to pick up on this point about horses.

The innovative use of tanks had led to a myth about a 'fully mechanised' German army.
This is simply not true, they weren't - far from it in fact -

Public opinion to the contrary, so great was the dependence of the Nazi Blitzkrieg upon the horse that the numerical strength of German Army horses maintained during the entire war period averaged around 1,100,000.

Of the 322 German Army and SS divisions extant in November 1943, only 52 were armored or motorized. Of the November 1944 total of 264 combat divisions, only 42 were armored or motorized.

The great bulk of the German combat strength—the old-type infantry divisions—marched into battle on foot, with their weapons and supply trains propelled almost entirely by four-legged horsepower.
The light and mountain divisions had an even greater proportion of animals, and the cavalry divisions were naturally mainly dependent on the horse.

www.lonesentry.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.lonesentry.com...

The reason the British Empire disbanded was because of expenses of administrating such a large empire. We realised, after the American Independance war, that we could still carrying on trading with the out-posts, even if they were not under our direct control. By granting colonies independance, we no longer had to defend such a large empire, and we still got to keep all the perks of being an empire afterwards. It was the best solution for everyone involved.

You'll also find that the primary reason we kept ahold of certain colonies was because they either couldn't defend themselves, were too reliant on the empire or would collapse in to caos otherwise. It was the US that demanded we release some of the colonies under our protection.

The British used very little force to build it's empire. America on the other hand is still acting like a conquering nation, it just uses different tactics to those used hundreds of years ago.

Also, just because the military statistics point in the US's favour at the moment, it doesn't mean you can't be beaten. History has shown that it is possible for a statistically weak military to beat a statistically strong military. You'll also find that the British military is still capable of projecting power ie Falklands. It has been able to do this for hundreds of years, before America even claimed independance. It was also capable of projecting power across the globe after WWII - I recall an incident with Hong Kong and China, but I'll need to do more research in to that.

A European military using whats available today from every nation within the EU will be formidable to say the least. It is certainly capable of projecting power. If every EU nation was fully intergrated in to the EU as one, it would then allow us to easily build up a military force similar to America's. We have the money, we have the capability, it just seems our governments are more interested in looking after the citizens, although admittedly, our system does need a few tweaks. The EU is setting the stage for the future of mankind, presuming the US and other upcoming superpowers don't decide to destroy the planet before hand.

Europe could be, if it wanted to be. But I don't think it
wants to be. Appeasement is too much a part of the
European persona. They don't want to spend their
tax money on defense, they want it spent on other
things.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Not another d** weegie!
You sure sound american.

And you sound like the typical angry european...

stereotyping is so easy isn't it...

*slap*

Originally posted by TrueLies
And you sound like the typical angry european...

stereotyping is so easy isn't it...

*slap*

Twas a joke, and that slap hurt.....
I think we europeans are really done fighting, we have had too much of it, let the younger nations blow the crap outa each other.

Originally posted by stumason

The French aren't that bad...quite harmless really. They tried for centuries, poor bastards, and they still couldn't cross 20 miles of water to invade the UK.

The French did, it was in 1066 and they suceeded on a complete take over of England.

Also I'd like to point out that the USA didnt "save britains ass" in world war 2, although USA helped considerably, it was the RUSSIANS who "saved our asses" really.

Originally posted by The_Squid
The French did, it was in 1066 and they suceeded on a complete take over of England.

Not true, that wasn't the French. William the Conquerer wasn't French, the land that he controlled is now French but wasn't in 1066.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by The_Squid
The French did, it was in 1066 and they suceeded on a complete take over of England.

Not true, that wasn't the French. William the Conquerer wasn't French, the land that he controlled is now French but wasn't in 1066.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by UK Wizard]

William the Conqueror was NORMAN, who came from NORMANDY - A part of france

Originally posted by The_Squid
William the Conqueror was NORMAN, who came from NORMANDY - A part of france

Yeah, but it was a diffrent country then.....sorry to point out and i can see your point....

The European are concentrating on soft powers like economic , The UN veto, trade relation with other countries.

Actually it makes sense as holding a large weapon inventory is stressfull. A large part of the US budget goes in supporting the armed forces. Europe has the capacity to make weapon when needed so its only when its has a emergency it will start to make on a large scale.

The soft powers on the other hand don't require much maintainance and are more effective in this current world senario.

way to go europe

Stumason, I don't think you see my point quite on my ideas, as I do not see them as imperialism the way you do; not saying you are wrong in your opinions (based on how you are interpreting what I write), just I don't think, through reading pure words, that you can get the drift of what I am trying to say (nor can I express it that way). We'd need to be talking in person.

I disagree on this "trigger-happy" business. Believe me, if the U.S. soldiers over in Iraq were trigger-happy, it would be all over the news. That one soldier shot that "unarmed" man, and what happens? No one bothers to question if the man was really unarmed (he could've been hiding a pistol or something), instead, the embedded reported transmits the scene and it is on the news worldwide just like that. Yes, a few other civilians have been shot here and there, but all in all, American troops have resisted from firing. If the U.S. troops were trigger-happy, the liberals all over would be screaming that our troops need to leave for that reason. Many do scream it for that reason, but the majority of said people really don't know what they are talking about.

If you read the book, "The March Up: Taking Baghdad With the 1st Marine Division," written by two former Marines (one a general) who traveled with the Division on its march to Baghdad, they even say about how some civilians were shot and killed, mainly due to them panicking in their cars and accidentally driving straight at troops, who became frightened and thus opened fire.

You also read about how some troops opened fire on a minivan and injured the father of the family inside, only this minivan was fired on from quite a distance. The officer, realizing that the van had been too far away to pose a threat, said to the troops not to fire at all on any such vehicle unless it posed a clear threat. Things get a little tricky though when the attackers trying to kill you drive vehicles often identical to the vehicles driven by civilians.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

EU has the potential to generate an armed forces 2/3 the size of the USA in terms of budgets.

It might be more now since I did examine this a couple of years ago. I made an assumption that based on the defence expenditure rate of the cold war transfered to todays GDP, what size /kind of forces could they have? Then and transposed similar numbers buys per decades for fighters, helos, tanks, APC ,SPHowitzers , CVs, amphibs and escorts [etc] into euro products.

It was difficult , because while the USA spends hugh amounts on research and nukes [1/4 budget] and considerable infrastructure payments, the break down into branches of the military is quite different. The USA spent only 1/4 of its conventional budget on army, while the rest was split almost 50-50 between USN and USAF. EU armed forces would have to spend alot more on army than airforce or Navies, so they ended up with an army twice the size of the USA and navy /airforce about 1/2 the size.

The exact break down of weapons was difficult unless one selected only one 'winner' canditate for each weapons category...which as we all know would be like pulling teeth for the Euros to achieve. So instead I postulated a prior situation where the Euros were forced to come together for their own survival to make such economies of scale. I theorised that the late 1960s/early 1970s ' VIetnam era',crisis situation forcing the USA to withdraw substantial and costly conventional forces from Europe but remain the ability to redeploy in a time of crisis....with a similar withdrawl wangled out of the Soviets [All Tank Armies withdrawn to the Soviet boarder with Poland/Czech etc] .

Pure fantasy no doubt but interesting scenario. After much reworking I had NATO buying euro weapons only so 600 x Viggens [LD/SD allweather] were bought from the sweds instead of the F-16 , while nundreds of Jaguar M[Anglo/french with radar]/Mirage-F1 [French] /Tornado [german/UK/Italian]would sold through into the 1980s, when 600 x Mirage 2000 [French] would be bought.Starting in the early 1990s the first of 1200 x Rafale [French] /Grippen [Sweds] would be purchased with MICA AAM, after which 600 x German Stealth "Firefly" jet would be purchased [upto 2005]. PGMs were European through and through with french Magic HSAAM and skyflash AAMs [anglo swedish] and AS-30/Exocetts [ french] would fill ground/navy PGM roles during this transition.Eventually the Stormshadow ASM [UK/french?] and ASRAAM [NATO] would be added to the list of PGMs .

The Euro Navies would purchase 6 large CV based on an improved CVA01[UK] design to supplement /replace the two Foch [French] carriers armed with 16 x Buccaneers [UK] 24 x F-4D , 12 x Seaking and 4 x Gannet AEW. In the 1980s and 1990s they would have no choice but to fund 24 x F18 per carrier while Exocete[French] armed Super Etendard [French] filled the strike role and Hawkeye replaced Gannet while Merlin [Angl/Italian]replaced Seaking.By the new century Rafale D [French] would repace the Super Etendards [french] . The Helicopter carriers Bulwark/Hermies would lead the amphib , while in the 1980s upto 6 Ocean/Invincible CVS class[UK] would be purchased. THe landing role would start with 2 x Fearless [UK]and expand with french LPDs in the 1980s until a dozen Rotterdam [Dutch]class of scalable LPD take over in the 1990s-2005 period.

The 8 x Bristol CG [UK] would be built through the 1960s to escort the carriers until the end of the century, while 15-32 Type 42 DDGs [UK] would replace the litteny of post war older DDs through out the 1970s and 1980s.The 'Kortenear' [Dutch]would become the standardized multipurpose frigate with upto 35 built under licence through out Europe.

The Anti Shipping missile would be the Italian Ottomate SSM [I II & III], with Seawolf [UK] becomeing the standard PD SAM and the Seadart [UK] the standard area SAM .The anglo/ french Lynx would fill the many ASW Helo roles, but starting in the 1990s the Merlin [UK/Italian] and super Lynx [?] would suppliment and eventually replace them.

At the end of the century all these would be due for phased replacements so CVF/PA-01/02 would compete for the 6 x CV replacements while Ocean/Rotterdam would continue on and Meko DDG [German] replaces the Bristol and some Type 42 while Type 45 [UK] replaces the rest of the type 42 DDGs with Aster SAM [french] and SCALP [french?].

If the Airfores are predominatly french and the Navy predominantly UK , the land forces are predominatly German.

Through this period 9 elite airborn/marine brigades would form the spear head of any Euro RDF. These would start with a slew of 1960s trucks jeeps and french armored cars supported by 105mm howitzers with a few dozen Super Felon /CH-53 large helos.The main ship to shore Helo transport would be the Ship born Seakings. The infantry would be armed with Franco/German Milan ATGM and supported by french 81mm & 120mm mortars and jeep mounted 20mm autocannons.

Starting in the 1980s the Airborn brigades would add ~ 100 x German BO-105 helos [HOT ATGM or 20mm guns] plus hundreds of Wiesel light AFVs [Germans to replace the jeep mounted 20mm autocannons] .The Marine brigades would add thousands of Iltis [German] trucks/jeeps and
replaced the 105mm howitzers with FH-155 howitzers, while they would be supplimented by several hundred AMX-30 medium tanks and hundreds of VAB wheeled APC. The infantry would be motorized on Iltis.

By the 1990s the Marine brigades would be equipped with thousands of VABNG motorized APC [french HMG & applique armor ] , while hundreds of Swiz LAV-II recon AFVs would be added. The AMX-30 tanks would be upgraded to the B2 level [with APFSDS & ERA] .Thus all the battalions would be mechanized.

The Airborn brigades would get ~ 100 x French Lynx ECR-90 [armored cars] while Wiesel 2 would would suppliment the wiesels or enough to mechanize 1 battalion per brigade. By this time Milan 2 and HOT-2 would be the main AT weapons.

By the new century Leopard 1A6 [120L44 gun with MEXAS applique and DFC/TI sights] would replace the AMX-30 while LAV-III [25mm Autocannons] would replace VAB in the mechanized marine battalions and Milan 3t and HOT 3t would become the main ATGMs. Airmechanized would be armed as in the 1990s , but with improved ATGMs and enough Wiesel-2 so all infantry mounted in them. The Bo-105 would be replaced by the Tiger AH/PAH helicopter.

The main combat power of the Euros would reside in their land armies which would be patterend on the german model with mostly german equipment.

There would end up with 12 mechanized corps in central europe each with 6500 vehicles [~ 25,000 for the entire korps].

1 x Engineering Rgt with bridging battalions

1 x SAM Rgt [21 x Imp Hawk]

1 x Airmobile Brigade with
12 x TOW armed LYNX helos [Anglo /French]and 12 x german scout BO-105 [20mm autocannon]
58 french Dauphin UH plus an elite infantry battalion.

2 x Armored cavalry brigades [recon/screen] each with ..
1 x Helocopter battalion with 12 x Lynx AH [TOW] and 12 x Bo-105 OH [20mm auto] and 4 x Dauphin [Cmd]

1 x SP Howitzer Battalion with 12 x GCT-155 [french ]

3 x Recon battalions; each with 33 x AMX-10p [French with 20mm auto] and 11 x Leopard 1A5 [German] . Each battalion would be supported by 6 x SP 120mm mortars [German] and 4 x AMX-10 [French] with HOT-2 ATGM.

The helicopter battalion would work with the recon battalions to screen NATO delopement and seekout Soviet maneuvers while each Korps would have RGt of 36 x FIROS 25/30 [Italian] Multiple Rocket Launchers for heavy artillery support.

The main combat forces in each Korps would be three mechanized divisions each supported with 6000 vehicles & 10,000 troops
1 x Bridging Battalion
1 x SAM Battalion [12 x franco /german ROLAND-II SAM]
1 x Recon Battalion [as above]
2 x SP Howitzer battalions [each with 12 x GCT-155]

Armored Brigade with
1 x SP Howitzer battalion [with 12 x GCT-155]
2 x Tank Battalions [each with 6 x SP 120mm Mortars and 35 x LEO-II]
1 x Mechanized battalion with
6 x SP 120mm Mortars
4 x AMX-10P/ HOT-2
39 x Marder 1A3 ICV [German] with 20mm autocannon carring 36 x Milan-2 ATGM.

2 x Mechanized Brigades each with
1 x SP Howitzer battalion [with 12 x GCT-155]
1 x Tank Battalion [ with 6 x SP 120mm Mortars and either 35 x LEOPARD-IA5 (german) or AMX-30B2 (French) or "Stillbrew"Chieftain(UK)]
2 x Mechanized battalion with
6 x SP 120mm Mortars
4 x AMX-10P/ HOT-2
39 x Marder 1A3 ICV with 20mm autocannon carring 36 x Milan-2 ATGM.

Through the 1990s and into the new century the Armored Brigade tanks would be LEOPARD-IIA5/6 [German] while the REcon/Mechanized battalion tanks would be upgraded to the LEOPARD-IIA4 level and ~ 6000 older LEOPARD-1 and others tanks , would go to the eastern Europeans upgraded to the LEOPARD-1A6 level [120L44 gun DFCS/TI sights and MEXAS applique].

THe GCT-155 would be supplimented by AS-90 [UK] at the Corps and Divisional and then brigade level ,while the displaced french howitzers would go to E Europe. Mean while the Italian FIROS MRL would be upgraded to the 60km range version the FIROS-60.

The Marder-1A3 would get a 25mm autocannon until the Puma arrives in the new century, after which time they go to E Europe. Meanwhile the Milan 3T and HOT-3T would become the main ATGM, while AH129 [Italian] replaces BO-105 in the recon role and Tiger replaces Lynx in the AH role.Those displaced Helos go to E Europe.

Anyway enough fantasy for now

Originally posted by The_Squid
William the Conqueror was NORMAN, who came from NORMANDY - A part of france

At that part in history Normandy was not part of France.

Originally posted by benedict arnold
i dont think they ever will. THeir days are over. The british ditched india 60 years ago. The french are busy eating crepes and snails and the germans cant get over sauerkraut.

Yeah? Then try taking over France, Deutschland, GB, Italy, Russia etc. If you Americans really tried it, we would see who is so powerful. Europe won't attack first (usually), but we can defend ourselves. So watch carefully what you say, you arrogant, too-self-sufficient American.

Your the one who said the European armies where unadvanced and using horses. i am illustrating the point that the Wehrmacht also did.

They were unadvanced. Germany mostly used their horses for troop and supply transportation. The rest of Europe were using them on the frontlines. Neither the British or the French had the number of tanks and other modern equipment that the Germans had.

Then whats the point in debating if your not going to back up your arguments when challenged?

I wouldn't call it debating when the other person is ignorant of the facts on both sides of an issue...

Although Iraq was given until November 15 to accept the resolution, they agreed on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned later that month, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents, of which some were found in Fallujah during the occupation of Iraq in November 2004.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively. However the report of February 14 was more encouraging for Iraq, saying that there had been significant progress and cooperation; however the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles were not resolved. France, Germany and other countries called for more time and resources for the inspections. The March 7 report was again seen as broadly positive, but Blix noted that disarmament and the verification of it would take months, rather than weeks or days.

en.wikipedia.org...

No you haven't. That article of yours says that the grave contains a few hundred.

That was talking about one case in Hatra, not all the mass graves. It said 1.3 million were estimated to have gone missing under Saddam. I guess I'll just have to go find more proof, though:

Here's another article:

Babies found in Iraqi mass graves

A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.

...

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The rest of the number is an estimate. And from a prooganda source no less. Show me the BBC claiming this and I will believe you

USA Today is a "propaganda" source?

Er, wrong again, They never claimed that Iraq had any to begin with, but where willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt:

Statement after the resolution was passed from Frances Foreign Minister:

He never mentioned anything about French intelligence agencies, now did he?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Take a look at that. Putin warns America that Iraq has plans to attack just after 9/11...

If that is so, then why are you not worried about where they are? Surely OBL or someone could have them by now right?

We have an idea of where they are. We have pictures of large shipments heading across the borders into Syria, and Iran.

I suppose you would like it if we went and invaded those nations, right? America can't, or at least won't act because it knows its position. WMD's won't be used to justify any further action because the claim doesn't have much credibility left after the media has been jumping on the same, "No WMD" stories since the invasion began.

Never had a problem before. And that was with Steam and Sail ships too.

Listen buddy, I am British, so i know why the Empire dissolved, we get taught it in School for starters, I am not here telling you about the US Civil war etc am I?.

After WW2, we had no will to fight any more wars, end of story.

You were losing territory long before WW2. The British were no longer the world's strongest military. You no longer had dominance over the seas. Your economy was in shambles. You could no longer afford to fight lengthy wars overseas.

Nope. We could have done it if we had the will. We still had an enormous fleet come the end of WW2, and could have sent enough men, but after the horror of the war, we didn't want another, or lots of others, we had suffered enough. Until you understand just how badly the Wars affected the UK, you cannot pass judgement. We paid a terrible price fighting Germany, and suffered immensely.

You don't get it. It's not a matter of manpower, but money. You could not afford to keep men overseas fighting.

I couldn't care less if you never heard of it, it happened. Its on the UN website for gods sake. Russia agreed, as the Resolution also condemmed the KLA for terrorist acts against serbs, and China really couldn't give a monkeys, so didn't object/veto.

Nothing in there talks about force. It merely states failure to abide by the resolution will lead to, "Consideration of additional measures."

That's opposed to Iraq

This resolution had nothing to do with the war. It had nothing to do with a call to arms. Russia disagreed with the attacks. They condemned them. China was believed to be helping the Serbs, the reason their embassy was bombed.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They were unadvanced. Germany mostly used their horses for troop and supply transportation.

Mabye during WW1 , come one they where the best army in the world!

The rest of Europe were using them on the frontlines.

Because horses are reliable.

Neither the British or the French had the number of tanks and other modern equipment that the Germans had.

Germany has always had a bigger army and they had access to a bigger ammount of materials.
Besides we made up for numbers with training.
Ever heard of the incident with the BEF and the german army?

I wouldn't call it debating when the other person is ignorant of the facts on both sides of an issue...

Insulting people?...Gee that realy mature....

That was talking about one case in Hatra, not all the mass graves. It said 1.3 million were estimated to have gone missing under Saddam. I guess I'll just have to go find more proof, though:

Funny how estiimated comes up a lot in american reports doesnt it...."estimated large numbers of WMD in iraq".....

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

300,000 is diffrent from 1.3 million.

USA Today is a "propaganda" source?

The name sort of gives its biased away....

He never mentioned anything about French intelligence agencies, now did he?

And intelgence serivces are reliable at best?

Take a look at that. Putin warns America that Iraq has plans to attack just after 9/11...

Funny, never did happen did it.....

We have an idea of where they are. We have pictures of large shipments heading across the borders into Syria, and Iran.

So you have pictures of ICBM's or chemical factories clearly seen in plane sight....?
I would like to see these....

I suppose you would like it if we went and invaded those nations, right?

I dont believe he would , yet you thought this idea up....do you want america to go in?

You were losing territory long before WW2. The British were no longer the world's strongest military. You no longer had dominance over the seas. Your economy was in shambles. You could no longer afford to fight lengthy wars overseas.

No one could afford another war after WW2, we could after a few years.
And the fact is our navy was still the strongest.

You don't get it. It's not a matter of manpower, but money. You could not afford to keep men overseas fighting.

Nethier could anyone else, infact i believe we could have managed it quite well.

Nothing in there talks about force. It merely states failure to abide by the resolution will lead to, "Consideration of additional measures."

"Addistional measures" can mean force , if you didnt know.

This resolution had nothing to do with the war. It had nothing to do with a call to arms. Russia disagreed with the attacks. They condemned them. China was believed to be helping the Serbs, the reason their embassy was bombed.

So america no longer believes in diplomacy?
Wow sure sounds like the "World leader in democracy" doesnt it....