War by Christmas?

You might want to read this illuv2act:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Why do you hate the EU so much?

J-B, I will agree that American interests were served, to some degree, by the curious "Self-Defence" force set-up that was permitted to the Japanese.
However, W.Germany was, of course, pretty much armed to the teeth as the "front line" for the Warsaw Pact invasion that never happened.
Any case for keeping the Japanese disarmed vanished long ago: my feeling is that they should have paid much more than they did through the years.
With the unification of China under Mao and the presence of Stalin's Russia, Japan's days of threatening East Asia were over for ever by 1950 -so they conquered the region economically while America paid for the defence.
And, given the degree of anti-Americanism in Okinawa, I shoudln't be surprised to see the US just pull out as they did in the Philippines -once thought crucial to US Pacific policy.

Originally posted by John bull 1
Why do you hate the EU so much?

I don't hate the EU.

I just don't think that the Europeans are reliable allies. During the Cold War, we had a common cause. These days, there's no common cause to bind us together. Europeans just don't seem to take the threat of terrorism as seriously as we do.

Besides that, European cultures (with the exception of Britain, Norway and Italy) have become soft and pacifist or are not allied with the US. (Anyone who says the French are our allies should look at who they trade with). The entire EU's defense budget for fiscal year 2003 is a measly $150 billion US, with a piddling $10 billion US for R&D (compared with the US's $355 billion defense budget with $30 billion for R&D, and the fact that there are more Europeans than Americans). This tells me that Europeans in general are not serious about defense. They are counting on trade to save them, while trade will really just enrich those whom we fight.

A note to our European friends. French pacifism and general wimpiness in the area of Iraq has not saved them from Islamic unrest in the street. Nor did it save that tanker that Al Quaeda hit. You cannot compromise with this enemy, but that is precisely what Europe wants to do, and it is what OBL and company want.

I don't hate the EU. I just don't want my nation to waste its time with a bunch of pansies who won't grow up, suck it up, and fight for their own defense. Maybe European wimpiness is the result of 50 years of being defended by the US. And by the way, Europe isn't very grateful for that defense, is it?

So why don't we Americans leave them to their own devices. I have no stomach for people who won't fight to defend themselves, and who accept those who want to destroy their culture.

Good idea America should pull it's armed forces from european countries.I would be quite happy for the EU to increase defence expenditure.In Britain we have two new state of the art aircraft carriers soon to begin building.An EU army would make our present expenditure more efficent and we would be able to deal in a strong way with areas of concern like the middle east(our own back yard) in an independent and less partisan way.
An elected President could talk as an equal with the US President with the sure knowledge that he would be listened too especially after Russia joins the EU which must only be a matter of time.An elected President(Probably a Frenchman) would also give us a consistent foreign policy.
There is strength in unity.
Don't wish too hard for what you're asking you may well get it.around half of EU citizens would be happy to go along the above route.These days are a critical time for the future of the EU which way will we jump or which way will be pushed.

A complex matter, J-B; but I'd throw one log on the fire: it might not be unhelpful to reflect upon the European experience of war.
Many millions of Europeans still alive know what was is like - invasion, rationing, bombing, destruction, homelessness. These were civilians: other than military personnel Americans have not known what war was like since the 1860's -American civilains experience war via Hollywood.
Europe spent the 20th Century tearing itself apart, with at least 30 million civilian deaths (9-11 was awful but it was about 10 minutes in Dresden, 30 minutes in Warsaw).
The Civil war still leaves its traces on America 137 years later -reflect upon what Europe has to live with since 1939.

I'm not glorifying war. As I've said in another thread, I was in Bosnia for a brief time during the war, and I saw walls in towns full of bulletholes and bloodstains where the Serbs lined up civilians and shot them. I saw a resort that was firebombed with lots of people inside.

I'm saying that sometimes terrible things like war are necessary to our national and (more important) cultural survival.

Yes, J-B, I would love to see a unified Europe. If nothing else, it would mean fewer of my tax dollars spent quartering Americans abroad in order to defend European interests. It might also cause Europe to grow a backbone once more, to stand up and see the forces arrayed against the West, and to take arms and oppose these forces.

Until then...

... and sometimes its not. i think that's what the whole arguement over the war on terrorism boils down to.

if you want to solve your problems with bullets and bombs, go right ahead. eventually it'll bite you in your 16 year old arse.

- qo.

My "16 year old arse" is joining the Navy, bucko! I'm not asking other people to go off and do my fighting for me.

If you don't fight back, you'll just be killed.

So if you want to fight with words and wimpiness, go right ahead.

[Edited on 11-18-2002 by ~iluv2act~]

I don't think age devalues anyones opinion.If you disagree with the point iluv2act is making then please do it in a less demeaning way.The issues he is raising are fairly important they concern the US public perception of the EU.Whereas I am trying to point out that the role he would prefer for the EU would actually not be benificial to the US in the long term.

personally, im scared. theyre gonna start attacking the UK apparently for supporting the USA, and im in one of the big cities- Leeds. i dont think people are taking this whole thing seriously here- like iluv2act said. im like the only one in my house panicking! everyone says- 'oh the army/navy will sort them out', but will they really? im 15, theres gonna be a war and im thinking oh great my lifes just started and im gonna die!

don't get swept up in the hype.
the government has to get us scared, its the only way they'll win public opinion for an attack.

so far there has been absolutely no evidence of any terrorist activity in the UK.

all we've had is three men arrested under "suspicion" of an attack that "might" have been on the underground using a substance that "could" have been cyanide that has never turned up.

like the US we're just being wound up.

don't believe the hype

"My "16 year old arse" is joining the Navy, bucko! I'm not asking other people to go off and do my fighting for me. "

great. just what the world needs, another pair of unquestioning hormonal testicles with a gun.

When I was growing up in the UK(Southampton)we were in the cold war.Lots of public health messages telling us to hide under tables and put our heads between our legs(and kiss our arses goodbye)When I was about your age,Kim,we had the Falklands war.And throughout the entire time the IRA were bombing mainland Britain.Leeds is like Southampton a big city but not really in danger of a priority attack by Al Quaeda.The time you live in now is actually safer than 20 or 30 years ago.If you spend you're time worrying too much about tomorrow you won't enjoy today.

another pair of unquestioning hormonal testicles with a gun

If soldiers question their orders, nothing gets done.

And as far as the cyanide attack goes, that's just another thing that could have gone wrong that didn't. You Brits are really good in the espionage department, but how long until some intelligence agency misses something?

kim. The U.K. has the stongest nation on its side. No need to worry.

Originally posted by ~iluv2act~:

"If soldiers question their orders, nothing gets done."

tell me you're going in as a grunt.
with that attitude you'll never get anywhere near being an officer. in the british armed forces at least.

- qo.

No, I'm going in as an officer.

I was speaking of the rank and file. An officer must sometimes question his orders because it is the job of an officer to lead his men, and he cannot lead if he does not fully understand what he is doing.

Iluv's correct -- soldiers really should follow orders and procedures without questioning. The Civil War is full of a lot of little battles where someone decided the officer/commander was doing something lame and went off and did other things (in one case, the commander let his troops have a break for a meal instead of hurrying to the other commander's aid -- and the battle went to the enemy side.)

My dad was in such a position in Italy during WWII. The lieutenant told the troops to move out, and dad insisted that the road ahead hadn't been cleared for snipers and had some good setup points for snipers (he was on reconnaisance.) The lieutenant moved them (over dad's objections... he was a lowly corporal) and they went straight into the line of fire. Because they obeyed in a crisis, dad (who was the ranking personnel AFTER snipers hit the lieutenant and the seargent) could pull the other GIs to safety. If the GIs had done an "every man for himself" after the first shots, they would have run into another setup.

Dad got the Bronze Star for that one and a field promotion to seargent. (He apparently did something similar in the Korean war... he has a second Bronze Star (and never talks about these things) and was field promoted to lieutenant.)

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by EPLURIBUSUNUM]