Should Europe Go To War With America?

DaShi · January 30, 2004, 07:45

It is quite obvious that America has become the biggest threat to world peace since WWII. This is clearly the result of an ineffective government. While we can all blame President Bush for this, we must not ignore the very government that put him into power in the first place.

Why should Europe specifically go to war? Europe is clearly the nation most threatened by American hegemony. The anti-Europe (and especially anti-France) attitude of America has been made clear in nearly all of its recent actions in foreign affairs. Europe is constantly in a position where it is getting bullied and pressured by the US to comply with its demands. Also, we must ask ourselves, is Europe truly safe from American aggression? There have been hints from Washington that such an action is not only feasable but possibly proper in the American mindset.

But this war, won't simply be to remove a potential threat to world stability, but also to assist the people of America, who are clearly suffering under this regime. The current leadership of America has driven the country into massive debt so that the prviledged class can maintain its status quo, while the lower classes suffer from massive unemployment and abuses to their freedom. With the removal of the President Bush and the abolition of the current Constitution that allowed such a tyrant to rise to power, the American people, under the guiding hand of Europe, can rebuild and live in a country that is governed properly and fairly for everyone.

While this war would be both an act of humanitarian aid as well as self-preservation, Europe can only rightfully be expected to take certain advantages from it. America is bloated with all sort of natural and manufactured resources. To leave them in the hands of the crippled American people would be as wasteful as if they were still being consumed by the soon to be former American government. As liberators, Europe's duty will be to see that such resources are put to good use. Europe will governs the overseas sales of them; and while at a lower price than they formerly would have been for Europe and her allies, the profits will go toward rebuilding America.

Who knows, fifity or sixty years in the future, America may once again be able play a role in international affairs? While the road may be harsh, in time, both America and Europe will benefit from this and be grateful toward eachother for it.

MikeH · January 30, 2004, 07:48

Nah. Can't be bothered.

Drogue · January 30, 2004, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
Nah. Can't be bothered.

Plus the fact that we'd lose.

Skanky Burns · January 30, 2004, 08:02

I say why not?

Solly · January 30, 2004, 08:02

"It is quite obvious that America has become the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."

"Europe is clearly the nation most threatened by American hegemony. The anti-Europe (and especially anti-France) attitude of America"

I've been to France and America in the last 30 months and France is more anti-America than vice versa.

A fair troll.

4/10

Berzerker · January 30, 2004, 08:12

Quote:

Should Europe Go To War With America?

Would that be Old Europe? Watch your backs, the Poles and Slavs will kick y'all in the butt when you turn our way.

Solly · January 30, 2004, 08:16

So would the UK.

France and Germany = ancient, crippled regimes, hindered by a ridiculously nannying state.

Paul Hanson · January 30, 2004, 08:22

I echo the sentiments of those who can't be arsed. I've got better things to do.

Whaleboy · January 30, 2004, 08:24

I'm split. I can't be arsed, however, I love a good fireworks display. Since that would occur on home turf, I have to say that I'm ambivalent...

America: Vastly superior firepower so they'd paste Britain if we warred with them.

Europe: Within shelling distance of Dover. France would destroy us.

Methinks UK should stay out of this one...

Whaleboy · January 30, 2004, 08:25

Quote:

France and Germany = ancient, crippled regimes, hindered by a ridiculously nannying state.

Sound familiar?

duke o' york · January 30, 2004, 08:33

It would certainly liven up the OT.

Whaleboy · January 30, 2004, 08:34

PLATO · January 30, 2004, 08:38

Well...The Germans might put up a good fight, but other than that it wouldn't be much of a war for us. Wonder if France would help co-ordinate the massive European surrenders...they certainly have the experience and expertise.

Whaleboy · January 30, 2004, 08:39

I don't know why we keep thinking France are surrenderers... the Napoleonic wars and the battle of Verdun might have something to say about that...

Theben · January 30, 2004, 08:41

Who're you trolling today, DaShi?

Combat Ingrid · January 30, 2004, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
Nah. Can't be bothered.

duke o' york · January 30, 2004, 08:47

Could we not have a more localised skirmish?

Something like Millwall FC vs the Raiders? Pretty fearsome sets of supporters in anyone's book, and the victorious side would have bragging rights (but none of those stupid Ryder Cup blazers) until the next one.

alva · January 30, 2004, 08:56

Let's at least wait unitl after the elections, give them a chance to sort it out themselves sort of speak.

Elok · January 30, 2004, 09:07

Er, "self-preservation"? What, are we evil Yanks all out to rape the french women with our barbarous and bloodthirsty ways? I must admit, this is a pretty spectacular troll, at least for its reach.

Monk · January 30, 2004, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Theben
Who're you trolling today, DaShi?

I was thinking the same thing

BeBro · January 30, 2004, 09:25

We don't need wars, we could decide it a good old fashioned duel between the leaders....

MikeH · January 30, 2004, 09:28

I think that the new President "Stone Cold" Steve Austin might be in with a chance.

Elok · January 30, 2004, 09:29

Well that ain't fair; you guys have like thirty leaders to our one. Granted, half of them are from former Yugoslavia and would take the opportunity to throttle each other while the big boys were fighting dubya, but it's still unfair.

BeBro · January 30, 2004, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Well that ain't fair; you guys have like thirty leaders to our one. Granted, half of them are from former Yugoslavia and would take the opportunity to throttle each other while the big boys were fighting dubya, but it's still unfair.

Ok, you got me there

Bereta_Eder · January 30, 2004, 09:31

With this system California would remain inpregnable me thinks.

Arrian · January 30, 2004, 09:32

And now, on Celebrity Death Match LIVE,

In the blue corner, hailing from the Lonestar State, it's President Geeeeeoooooorge DoubleYou BUUUUUSH!

[lots of booing, hissing, and cheering]

In the red corner, hailing from the land of wine, cheese, and surrendering monkeys, it's President Jacques Chiiiiiiraaaaaaq!

[more booing, hissing, and cheering]

LET'S GET IT ON!

-Arrian

Drogue · January 30, 2004, 09:34

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
With this system California would remain inpregnable me thinks.

Chemical Ollie · January 30, 2004, 13:02

I see a contradiction in the American attitude:

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Would that be Old Europe? Watch your backs, the Poles and Slavs will kick y'all in the butt when you turn our way.

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO
Wonder if France would help co-ordinate the massive European surrenders...they certainly have the experience and expertise.

If your view of the French is based on WW2 performance, why on earth would you embrace POLAND?

Sava · January 30, 2004, 13:08

sure, let's launch our nukes and kill everyone!

Arrian · January 30, 2004, 13:12

Quote:

If your view of the French is based on WW2 performance, why on earth would you embrace POLAND?

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