Should Europe Go To War With America?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

[yavoon]

u have to build an army first mate.

maybe stop paying ppl to not work and u might be able to get one. though I doubt it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian


Because the imagine of the Poles was that they fought, even if it was hopeless and they got flattened. Their Cavalry charged the Tanks, ffs.

-Arrian

The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated. On the other hand, the French people continued fighting the invaders throughout the whole war. Ever hear of the French Resistence? French commies kicked ass.

[Arrian]

Because the image of the Poles was that they fought.

Image. Sorry for the typo. I wasn't saying that perception = reality. I was explaining the perception.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated.

6 weeks to Paris, given roughly approximate military technology to Hitler? I call that pretty feeble 'resistance.'

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The French fought too, it just once they were outflanked, they realized there was no point in contuing the fight, they were defeated. On the other hand, the French people continued fighting the invaders throughout the whole war. Ever hear of the French Resistence? French commies kicked ass.

the whole war?? France was occupied in June of 1940. IIUC the commies didnt start fighting in the resistance till June of 1941. Remember what happened in June 1941??

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Arrian


Because the imagine of the Poles was that they fought, even if it was hopeless and they got flattened. Their Cavalry charged the Tanks, ffs.

-Arrian

That's pretty messed up.
But then again, such is fiction

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

it would be led by the Belgian army, whose MOD proclaims how much more efficient the Belgian army is than the American army.

[Paul Hanson]

Explain to me why that's such a ridiculous assertion.

[el freako]

Originally posted by yavoon
u have to build an army first mate.

What a wonderful example of total ignorance, the number of people in the armed forces in europe is (and always has been) significantly more than in the US.
The difference is that our forces are designed to defend europe whereas US forces are designed to be shifted around (both of which are legacies from the cold war)

Originally posted by yavoon
maybe stop paying ppl to not work and u might be able to get one. though I doubt it.

Well that's also ignorance, as those countries with the most generous welfare states (mainly scandinavian ones) actually employ a higher proportion of their working-age populations than the US does.
Whereas those that have lacklustre welfare states (Spain, Greece) are the ones that have far lower levels of employment.

Maybe you should attempt to see if your knee-jerk reactions are supported by any evidence at all before you make them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by el freako


What a wonderful example of total ignorance, the number of people in the armed forces in europe is (and always has been) significantly more than the in the US.




Well that's also ignorance, as those states with the most generous welfare states (mainly scandinavian ones) actually employ a higher proportion of their working-age populations than the US does.
Whereas those states that have lacklustre welfare states (Spain, Greece) are the ones that have far lower levels of employment.

Maybe you should attempt to see if your knee-jerk reactions are supported by any evidence at all before you make them.

the military capability and effectiveness of europe is so insanely far below that of the USA. ur being insanely disingenuous to even propose that europe's military is a match for america's. but then again, find one statistic and hammer it into a post and they make u right eh?

I'm not sure where u thot I was mentioning employment. I was pointing out if u stopped spending so much on paying ppl to not work u might have some leftover for a military.

oh and here's a stat. tho I should point it since u made me look up common knowledge I feel very slighted. and don't appreciate ur zealousness.

379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

yah, we'd rock u.

[Ned]

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

We have a veto there too.

The Europeans would definitely be handicapped by their superiority.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

I am sure a NATO operation to take out the US could be arranged.

I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that IIRC NATO is required in the treaty to be led by a US general

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by skywalker


I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that IIRC NATO is required in the treaty to be led by a US general

Attn Wesley Clark - disappointed at 13% in New Hampshire?? Trembling at going head to head with Kerry in Arizona?? Just disgusted generally (so to speak)??? Well at looks like theres an opportunity for YOU!!!

[Kuciwalker]

[el freako]

Originally posted by yavoon

the military capability and effectiveness of europe is so insanely far below that of the USA.

No it's not, our offensive capability is way below yours but our defensive capability is more than enough to stop the US long enough for spending to rocket to WW1 or WW2 proportions (30% to 40% of GDP compared to 2% to 3% now) - and at those levels our greater supply of people of military age and our larger economy (GDP of the EU25 is 102% of the US) would make the contest pretty even.

Originally posted by yavoon
ur being insanely disingenuous to even propose that europe's military is a match for america's.

It is you who are being disingenuous to assume that just because europe cannot deploy massive force anywhere in the world that we cannot adequately defend ourselves.

Originally posted by yavoon
I'm not sure where u thot I was mentioning employment. I was pointing out if u stopped spending so much on paying ppl to not work u might have some leftover for a military.

How much more does the US spend on it's criminal justice system?
Could that be related to the fact that it's harder to get by when you're poor in the US than in the EU?
The US also spends the same share of it's GDP (around 6%) on Medicare and Medicaid as europe does on it's universal healthcare systems (with the upshot that private citizens spend 5% less of GDP on private healthcare)

Originally posted by yavoon
oh and here's a stat..

well to quote you back:

Originally posted by yavoon
but then again, find one statistic and hammer it into a post and they make u right eh?

But anyway, so you're saying that because you are spending more that makes you better defended?
Have you ever heard of value for money?
We get far better value for money on defence here in europe (but we do get worse value for attack )

Europe could not engage in an aggressive war with the US unless it changed it's military - but why do we need to?, if there was ever any problem that needed the 'world community' to deal with it then the US would do so in it's own self-interest - why shouldn't we freeload on the US now just as the US freeloaded on the UK in the 19th century?
But we could easily hold off the current US military (which is having trouble engaging in the occupation of 1.5 countries) untill we built a military to match yours - remember it only took the US 6 years to do just that.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by el freako


No it's not, our offensive capability is way below yours but our defensive capability is more than enough to stop the US long enough for spending to rocket to WW1 or WW2 proportions (30% to 40% of GDP compared to 2% to 3% now) - and at those levels our greater supply of people of military age and our larger economy (GDP of the EU25 is 102% of the US) would make the contest pretty even.

read thread title more. self own less.

[Kuciwalker]

European technology - especially in aviation - is far inferior to US technology. I even remember reading that Europe may be as much as ten years behind (or more). AFAIK Europe doesn't have Stealth or precision-guided munitions (at least not in significant quantities).

(btw, I'm not sure whether or not all of that applies to Britain)

[el freako]

You read the thread title.

If we decided to attack the US we would wait untill we had built a military capable of doing so. (which would take 20 years if we were leisurely about it, 10 if we were in a hurry and 5 if we were desperate).

You show the same understanding as one of my british countrymen in the 1880's who could say "Germany can never threaten us, they don't have a navy worth speaking of".

[Paul Hanson]

We don't need them. We'd swat your planes out of the sky with harsh language.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako
You read the thread title.

If we decided to attack the US we would wait untill we had built a military capable of doing so. (which would take 20 years if we were leisurely about it, 10 if we were in a hurry and 5 if we were desperate).

You show the same understanding as one of my british countrymen in the 1880's who could say "Germany can never threaten us, they don't have a navy worth speaking of".

Don't you think the US might notice this and also increase spending? I don't see any reason why we couldn't expand (or in the worst case maintain) the technology gap.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
We don't need them. We'd swat your planes out of the sky with harsh language.

Also remember that it was the british defence research agency that worked out how to track the US's stealth aircraft.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
We don't need them. We'd swat your planes out of the sky with harsh language.

Come back again and I shall taunt you some more.

[el freako]

Originally posted by skywalker


Don't you think the US might notice this and also increase spending? I don't see any reason why we couldn't expand (or in the worst case maintain) the technology gap.

Simple reason - money and resources.

Europe has as much of them as the US does, so if we decided to match your military we could - we could both spend each other into massive debt.

You've got to remember that if you make an enemy of europe then it won't be like facing the Soviet Union which had (at best) just under half your economic resources - you would be facing your equal in spending power and your superior in terms of manpower.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by el freako
You read the thread title.

If we decided to attack the US we would wait untill we had built a military capable of doing so. (which would take 20 years if we were leisurely about it, 10 if we were in a hurry and 5 if we were desperate).

You show the same understanding as one of my british countrymen in the 1880's who could say "Germany can never threaten us, they don't have a navy worth speaking of".

no. but hey if u wanna look at realistically.

first the EU 25 is united on NOTHING. much less willing to die side by side against america.

second that bullshit u were refering to about how u can copy america in WWII. we were in a massive depression, had high unemployment, empty factories. and half the country(women) were doing nothing! europe has none of those.

third there is no political sentiment for attacking nething possibly including small rodents in europe. the entire continent has no balls(britain is not on the continent).

and hell while we're adding #'s. the US economy props the world up. u think other ppl are going to let u take what drives their export driven economies and throw missiles at it so we can't afford their products nemore? wtf is that.

u are totally and completely incapable in all but the most fantasy of lands where # of ppl=possible military strength. of even matching the US's military prowess. and u r most certainly all but inept at ever hoping to launch an invasion against america.

[Paul Hanson]

You're taking this far too seriously.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
You're taking this far too seriously.

RAR

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
You're taking this far too seriously.

Congrats to Dashi for an effective troll, got the panties of the zealots on both sides into a bundle.

[alva]

Originally posted by yavoon


379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

yah, we'd rock u.

If that aint a clear sign of the world getting civilised, I don't know what is.

How many mars missions and/or other fine things such as elimination of various diseases, hunger, dirty water, global pollution, etc would these combined numbers buy?