There go the Europeans again

[Elind]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Do Europeans have longer memories than Americans? Perhaps, but they seem amazingly selective memories.

As do you.

Maybe you have forgotten that Hitlers Germany declared war on America. Maybe you feel it would have been appropriate to ignore this but were just stepping in to help out.

So kind.

I don't think you did too well in modern history class, did you? Hitler didn't declare war on the US, according to the movies I've seen .

That the US could and should have gotten involved earlier is certainly a hindsight truth, but in terms of selective memory issues, you do prove the earlier point admirably; or perhaps it's simply ignorance?

 

[kimiko]

What I seem to remember from history - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that those nasty Germans WERE Europeans. WWII was still largely an inter-European war we had to step in to end. For the second time. Europe couldn't figure out how to live together peacefully until American GI's made them.

Of course, we didn't bother until our hand was forced. It may have started in Europe, but it truly was a world war. As Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

I disagree with the sentiment that America straightened the Euros out. It really diminishes the sacrifices of countless Allies and Soviets.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe you have forgotten that Hitlers Germany declared war on America. Maybe you feel it would have been appropriate to ignore this but were just stepping in to help out.

Germany declared war on the US well after the start of WWII, at a point in time when it had become clear that we were going to war with them whether or not they declared war on us. Had we left Europe alone completely (see: lend-lease), Germany might not have declared war on us. I have to say I'm quite glad we stepped in, it was the only morally acceptable choice and also in our strategic interests, but let's be clear about this: WWII still started as an inter-European war, not a trans-atlantic one.

 

[geni]

The US has 12 aircraft carrier groups. None of them is tied down in Iraq. Yes, we are about at the limit of what we can commit for long-term occupation of a country with ground troops. But in terms of raw firepower, we've still got a lot available, and more importantly, globally deployable. Europe has no comparable ability to project the military strength it has. Hell, they couldn't even handle a festering military problem in their own back yard (Yugoslavia). Where is France's JDAM? Where is Germany's? They don't exist.

Or to put it another way you have 12 floating target. Look at what happened in the Millenium Challenge 02 and that was against a projected second rate oponet.

There's a reason that the US military was the most significant first-responder to the Tsunami disaster, and bore most of the logistic load in providing aid to remote locations. Europe was hardly on the scene (the French aircraft carrier didn't arrive until several weeks after the disaster, compared to only a few days for a US carrier). The Canadian military wasn't on the scene at ALL, because they didn't even have the capability to transport response teams to the region, even by plane.

You can have all the transports in the world but you don't have the troops to fill them.

When European military forces can take a genuine lead in solving a major crisis, ANY major crisis (even humanitarian), I'll consider them to be grownups who don't need an adult US to make sure they don't get in trouble. Right now, most of the continent is spoiled and resentful adolescents who resent their own growing and self-imposed irrelevance.

Been there seen it done it ruled most of the world decided it was a bad idea and it is best to leave other countries alone (unless they invite you in which case go there but spend as little time as posibe otherwise you will end up with both sides shooting you).

 

[kimiko]

Has nothing to do with ...? It has everything to do with correcting some earlier screwups, unless you happen to be one of those who think democracy has no ground among Arabs and Muslims?

The state of Iraq in 2003 had little to do with Britain and everything to do with the coup Saddam took power in decades previously. Coups happen in many places and are primarily the responsibility of those who partake in them.

Arabs and Muslims don't necessarily have to be led by the hand to democracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, we didn't bother until our hand was forced. It may have started in Europe, but it truly was a world war. As Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Yes indeed. It took us longer than it should have to do the right thing, but we did, and we finished the job once and for all. I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."

I disagree with the sentiment that America straightened the Euros out. It really diminishes the sacrifices of countless Allies and Soviets.

The Soviets who died in WWII were indeed integral to stopping Hitler, but what they also died protecting, the Soviet Union, didn't help straighten out Europe. It plunged half of Europe into decades of oppression and misery. As for other allies, sure, we weren't alone in the fight, and England deserves at least as much credit for Hitler's defeat as the US. But it was still the US, not Britain, which was primarily responsible for the reconstruction of Europe after the war, and that reconstruction effort is what ensured that we didn't have to come back again in 50 years to repeat the process.

 

[Elind]

No, we do not care what they think. We care only that they agree with what we think, otherwise, they are labeled spineless/appeasers/etc. Likewise, they have objectives beyond earning the love of the US; it is far more intelligent for them to sit back and let the US handle the entire Iraq situation since we have an apparent agenda in the region, and won't wait for others to join before acting. Saves them money and lives.

Europeans do not live in ivory towers; there are still many alive who witnessed WWII. We, on the other hand, have lived blissfully protected by two oceans and peaceful neighbors, and have not had disputes with aggressive ethnicities on the same landmass within the collective memory.

Not acting was not a problem, as Saddamy didn't have the capability to do anything to them anyway. In fact, the only thing I see any cooperative European country as having gotten out of their support is dead troops and a terrorist train attack. Hardly worthwhile.

Valid points, depending on one's view of where the word is going. There's the cynic (perhaps what I meant by ivory tower) and there's the idealist (like Bush, religion and all) and there's the realist.

In my case I'll play the latter. I haven't the slightest doubt that once the apologist in Europe got Saddam off the hook, he would have restarted what he once had and was not found now. That type of subhuman nature never changes. I also have no doubt that with the resources he had, there would have been more wars in the future, and we would inevitably face those same weapons again, whether directly or via his guests, like Zarqawi. Some people believe in waiting 'till the worst happens. In Saddams case the worst had already happened many time to hundreds of thousands of people and while he was not the only despot on the planet, he had more potential resources than any other.

Again, some like to focus on their next 6 week vacation, some take a longer view.

 

[Elind]

The state of Iraq in 2003 had little to do with Britain and everything to do with the coup Saddam took power in decades previously. Coups happen in many places and are primarily the responsibility of those who partake in them.

Arabs and Muslims don't necessarily have to be led by the hand to democracy.

Leading by the hand hasn't gotten them there yet, has it?

The state of Iraq had everything to do with Britain, because anyone less pompous than colonial Britain would have created three countries, or at least states in that area, who might possibly have learned to live in peace by now.

What do you think preceded Saddam? A democracy?

 

[Elind]

Germany declared war on the US well after the start of WWII, at a point in time when it had become clear that we were going to war with them whether or not they declared war on us. Had we left Europe alone completely (see: lend-lease), Germany might not have declared war on us. I have to say I'm quite glad we stepped in, it was the only morally acceptable choice and also in our strategic interests, but let's be clear about this: WWII still started as an inter-European war, not a trans-atlantic one.

Perhaps you can clarify the dates for us. I don't recall the exact "formal" declaration dates, but it was Pear Harbor that brought the US in, essentially automatically against Germany, since they were allied with Japan.

 

[geni]

Ther's that "Reasonably stable" again. And you call that a knowledge of history? Amusing? Perhaps it is.

Say hello to the British understament

Has nothing to do with ...? It has everything to do with correcting some earlier screwups, unless you happen to be one of those who think democracy has no ground among Arabs and Muslims?

Scewups? We left Iraq as a nice stabe nation that should have drifted towards democracy.

You compare a few minor police actions within what are civil wars with the last two Gulf wars,

DRC is a civil war? would you mind telling all the other countries involved that becuase it would make things a heck of a lot more peaceful if was a civil war. In case you didn't notice the most recent civill war in the DRC was the biggest in african history. The total death total was ~2.3 million. What should I compare that to?

or Afghanistan, or even the Balkans (the latter did have the support, mostly, that was called for, but again, could not have been accomplished without the USA).? That is not flattering to your sense of proportion.

Afganistan was won by the locals. The balkans was largly a bombing campain and yes you have the best and largest force of bombers in the world

Tell us again about your knowledge of things historical, and military. I'm not sure I read it right.

No one denies the costs or the pressures it, Iraq, imposes but if you think that is all there is you are simply ignorant. Tell us instead why those listed Europeans claimed to have agreed to support the effort, but provided piddling numbers of forces (mostly not armed) and even then needed to rely on the US to transport much of them. I think it's shameful. [/B]

Nah just realpolitic. You have to admire it objectively. France which stuck solidly to it's principles said no and took a lot of flack for it. These countries said yes sent a token force so that bush could talk about coiltion building then left. They did exactly what they commited themselves to doing.

Apart form anything else only one of the coutries you listed has a significant militry force anyway.

What do they gain by staying? If they want to use thier forces for humanitarian purposes then there is no shortage of other places they can send them. If all else fails they can do what spain did and send them to afaganistan

 

[Ziggurat]

Or to put it another way you have 12 floating target. Look at what happened in the Millenium Challenge 02 at that was against a project second rate oponet.

Judging by the ACTUAL history of the last decade, not just wargames, aircraft carriers have played a central role in both military operations AND humanitarian relief worldwide. You can pooh-pooh them all you want, but we've still got them, we put them to good use, and they've proven their effectiveness. China is looking to buy a fleet of Russian bombers with the express purpose of trying to counter our aircraft carrier threat, because they know how real and powerful it is.

You can have all the transports in the world but you don't have the troops to fill them.

Sure we do. We've got a LOT more troops. There's a difference between what we can deploy on an ongoing basis and what we can deploy in a true crisis where we shift our economy to a war-time footing. But we've already got tens of thousands of troops sitting in Europe, and we can move them anywhere we want, if the need becomes large enough. Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of troops but with the possible exception of the UK, can't move large numbers anywhere even if the crisis endangers their very existence. Hell, they had to rely on Russian military transport to move the small contingents they've got in Afghanistan.

 

[kimiko]

I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."

But it was still the US, not Britain, which was primarily responsible for the reconstruction of Europe after the war, and that reconstruction effort is what ensured that we didn't have to come back again in 50 years to repeat the process.

We wouldn't exist as a nation without France, our original supporters against the British. We've hated each since then though. Maybe they've just been collecting on their investment ever since? Sorry, I just can't get behind kicking the French for their military. I grew up painting figures for my dad's wargaming- mostly Napoleonics and the Seven Years War, so I have a deep respect for the French.

I have wondered before if a "nation-building" expenditure like the Marshall Plan would pass today. I doubt it, but perhaps the ancestral and cultural affinity of many Americans to Europeans would win out and it would. Of course, the only reason we had the money to do such a thing when they didn't is because we hadn't been fighting as long. Coupled with wartime government control of a large, unbombed manufacturing base and ample resources, no European country was in the position to do the same.

Edited for garbage phrasing

 

[geni]

Yes indeed. It took us longer than it should have to do the right thing, but we did, and we finished the job once and for all. I've got another quote for you, though I can't give you the original author: "France has always been there for the U.S. when they needed us."

They were also there for you when you needed them. Your little war of independace pretty much bancrupted france.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you can clarify the dates for us. I don't recall the exact "formal" declaration dates, but it was Pear Harbor that brought the US in, essentially automatically against Germany, since they were allied with Japan.

Yes, that's basically correct. Pearl Harbor was Dec. 7, 1941. We declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, and Germany declared war on the US Dec. 11.

http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/

 

[geni]

Judging by the ACTUAL history of the last decade, not just wargames, aircraft carriers have played a central role in both military operations AND humanitarian relief worldwide. You can pooh-pooh them all you want, but we've still got them, we put them to good use, and they've proven their effectiveness. China is looking to buy a fleet of Russian bombers with the express purpose of trying to counter our aircraft carrier threat, because they know how real and powerful it is.

In the last decade you have not put your aircraft carriers up against a real oponent. Against someone like Iraq they work fine because the enermy can't hit back. After WW1 battleships were pretty much obsulete didn't stop Britian from finding uses for them from time to time.

Sure we do. We've got a LOT more troops. There's a difference between what we can deploy on an ongoing basis and what we can deploy in a true crisis where we shift our economy to a war-time footing. But we've already got tens of thousands of troops sitting in Europe, and we can move them anywhere we want, if the need becomes large enough. Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of troops but with the possible exception of the UK, can't move large numbers anywhere even if the crisis endangers their very existence. Hell, they had to rely on Russian military transport to move the small contingents they've got in Afghanistan.

So? Anything that endgers our existance is going to on our boarders and we are quite cpaerble of moving troops there.

 

[kimiko]

Leading by the hand hasn't gotten them there yet, has it?

The state of Iraq had everything to do with Britain, because anyone less pompous than colonial Britain would have created three countries, or at least states in that area, who might possibly have learned to live in peace by now.

What do you think preceded Saddam? A democracy?

And yet we are determined to do exactly that.

Britain was no different from any other country- drawing lines in ways that were suitable to themselves first. We aren't trying to give the three major groups autonomy right now are we?

We are perfectly content to leave nations in decidedly undemocratic conditions, so we have no room to criticize the relatively stable nations they left in their wake. Maybe we should get on the Kuwaitis about letting their women vote?

 

[H3LL]

I don't think you did too well in modern history class, did you? Hitler didn't declare war on the US, according to the movies I've seen.

You freely admit that your knowledge of history is from movies?

How sad.

T-Rex didn't live with humans, BTW. Even though it's in a movie.

I'll leave you to your Barney videos while I get back to my books. (They're collections of paper with words on them, just in case you didn't know. Some have pictures).

 

[Ziggurat]

They were also there for you when you needed them. Your little war of independace pretty much bancrupted france.

Again with the selective memory thing. France was an enemy of the colonies before it was ever a friend (they had this little thing we call the French and Indian war). They didn't get involved until two years after the declaration of independence, when it appeared that the rebel colonies might stand a chance. And while the Marquis de Lafayette may have been driven by noble purpose (he was not ordered to go, but decided on his own), but the king of France had no love for such independent thinking as independence and absence of monarchy (go figure). The king's motivation was revenge against England (their eternal enemy) for the French defeats in the seven years war.

 

[Ziggurat]

So? Anything that endgers our existance is going to on our boarders and we are quite cpaerble of moving troops there.

... he says, trying not to notice the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program being developed by mullahs who believe that women's hair must be covered because it emits rays that drive men wild.

Don't like Iran as an example? How about Afghanistan? Didn't take a Taliban battalion on our doorstep to cause 3000 American deaths and half a trillion dollars in economic damage. What would Paris have done if they had been the ones hit? Economic sanctions? A new Maginot line, perhaps? Force projection matters, my dear friend.

 

[geni]

... he says, trying not to notice the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program being developed by mullahs who believe that women's hair must be covered because it emits rays that drive men wild.

Do these belife make them nuke proof? In the short term do these belifes make them Israel proof or bomb proof?

Don't like Iran as an example? How about Afghanistan? Didn't take a Taliban battalion on our doorstep to cause 3000 American deaths and half a trillion dollars in economic damage. What would Paris have done if they had been the ones hit? Economic sanctions? A new Maginot line, perhaps? Force projection matters, my dear friend.

you rather destoryed your own argument there. America has loads of force porjection capabiltiy but for some reason that didn't stop it from getting hit.