The differences between America and Europe

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I thought Tomahawks had a considerable range. My buddie who worked on them in the Air Farce said they launched one across the Atlantic for a test. Wound up on someone's private beach cuz they failed to take the tide into account.

You thought wrong.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
And what is that comment about France supposed to mean?!

Are you stupid? The remark can't get much more plain. Not that I agree with the sentiment. But anybody with a cortex can understand the assertion of appeasement.

[Kropotkin]

No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

yeah, like continually breaking economic sanctions against iraq. if you look at the streak of their foreign policy they plainly say to mulsums, "please don't hurt us, we are your allies." coincidentally, have you heard of any terroist activities against France lately?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
Che:

Enough of the revolutionsry bullcrap.

Dude, take some kava.

[q]the US is not behind every plot.[q/]

Who said it was.

Why did Saudi Arabia go along, becuase they fear us, because they think the US will invade or topple the Sauds if they don't do our unholy bidding? NO! Its bacause without our HELP they would not be able to keep their damn heads! they do not fear our actions against them, but our inaction for them.

And that is not not fear? That doesn't make them our b***h state? Sure, they can buck us on small things, like excuting terrorists we wanted to question, but you don't spank your child for every minor infraction either.

If we are both so nefarious and so powerful, then why is Castro still in power when he is only 90 miles away?

Because when the US tried to take out Cuba, the Soviets stuck missiles on the island, and up until the last decade, invading Cuba would have meant war with the Soviets. Furthermore, Cuba serves as a useful bad example to other Latin American states. If you cross the US, you get cut off and messed with.

Besides, you are mistaking supremely powerful with all powerful. There is a difference. The US is not all powerful, and I'm not saying that it is. It is, however, more powerful relatively than Britain was when it ruled 1/4 of the globe. Furthermore, just because the US chose to deal with some problems in a les than praetorian way doesn't mean that it isn't still excersizing power.

[Kropotkin]

So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

Shall we think of some other France have done in the past 50 years?

* Colonial wars in a number of countries like Vietnam and Algeria.
* Throwing out NATO troops from French soil.
* Building up a nuclear arsenal and lately testing them in the pacific.
* Considering UK as USA:s Troyan horse in Europe.
* Creating a leading position in the EU.
* Super-power ambitions, constantly going against the will of the US.

That's the one I can come up with in a minute. I plainly think you don't know ****.

[chequita guevara]

The UK is a client state. Remember, the Roman Empire wasn't all directly ruled by Rome. Quite a large part of it was client Kingdoms.

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

Shall we think of some other France have done in the past 50 years?

* Colonial wars in a number of countries like Vietnam and Algeria.
* Throwing out NATO troops from French soil.
* Building up a nuclear arsenal and lately testing them in the pacific.
* Considering UK as USA:s Troyan horse in Europe.
* Creating a leading position in the EU.
* Super-power ambitions, constantly going against the will of the US.

That's the one I can come up with in a minute. I plainly think you don't know ****.

first of all france pulled out of veitnam and algeria after their dismal performance and inability to stay in those "conflicts" or control the local populations. the US took up the "torch" after france quit after a brief stint. right or wrong, but this shows the US's will to impose itself on others and frances lack of what you said was "stubornness." this stubornness is closer to cowardess than anything else.

the other bullets you have only go to show that france is acting like a little *****. it has no real power so it cuts across the actions of the US in an effort to appease their little wee-wee. the point is, a real super power does things whether others like it or not for its own benifit first and in the case of the US for the benifite of the greater part of the world second. on the other hand france's first priority is doing things to spite a super power whether they be for their own benifite or not as a secondary consern. see the difference?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No are you?

As you might have noticed over 50 years has passed since the appeasement and France have had the time to do quite a few things since then besides insulting tourists.

No duh. That's why I said although I understood the statement that I disagreed with it.

[Kropotkin]

GP; sorry about that. The second part was (mostly) aimed at Morb.

Morb; I myself finds the french tendency of pretending to be bigger than they are annoying. I'm not however buying your pseudo-analysis that "it's part of [french] culture". Futhersome I'm not going to spend weeks looking up french foregin policy and its reasons for the last 50 years but it's hardly a country that has turned with the wind to avoid conflicts or give in to muslims (whatever Saddam Hussein actually has do with muslims in general).

As for america in Vietnam I wouldn't agree that was to impose itself for others as it was in the line of the cold war strategy to do so and their performance was also dismal.

[Ned]

What is Chirac's solution for preventing Iraq and Iran from acquiring nucluear weapons?

[morb]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
So their breaking the american lead sanctions and that is a way of avoiding conflicts? Also, I think your conclution is far off. UK has supported the US war, has they been attacked?

I'd like to respond to the first point because I don't think I made a strong enough connection between my own points.

Contrary to the article, I think France sees more of a threat from Iraq and militant muslum states (sorry for not making that distinction before) than it see from the US. France knows that bickering with the US will not land them on america's bad side for too long. However, they feel that they must deal with militant or by US terms "rouge" states through financial means to indeed avoid true conflict. In case we have a different idea of conflict, its not nessesarily an all out war. By conflict I mean any kind of threat to its national security. Whether this is direct military action or indirect action through terrorist activity does not make a difference. In plain words, France is looking after its own hide.

this would be fine. except in many cases france seems to chose to sleep with the enimy rather than to confront it. which brings me back to my original point that france will "sway in the wind" or appease what it perceives to be its greatest threat rather than to confront it. the US isn't going to launch an invasion of france nore is it going to send terrorists to bomb the aweful tower. but france does have something to fear from those it cannot deter through military means who may will it harm.

just to be sure, i never stated this to be "fact." it is my interpretation of france's actions. your interpretation is obviously different, but I can point out that you haven't given any solid facts to back up your perspective either. whether you agree with me or not is unimportant. its enough of a reward for me to be able to consolidate my ideas through posting them in written form.

[Kropotkin]

OK, with that your original statements starts to make some sence. And yes it's our interpetations. However, I'm not sure anything that happens in the ME is really that important for their security nowadays. Algeria is in their interest but Iran and Iraq isn't and is hardly a security risk as countries. Militant muslims is another issue but they are usually not directly controlled by any state. For France Islam is a internal problem.

[Sirotnikov]

And as for you Siro: first, your anti-Islamic rant is worthless. It is the relegion of 1/6th of humanity and it will keep spreading.

Sure, as long as it grows up of it's militaristic "we must convert all you heretics" phase.

If Christianity would still be in that phase, I'd fear it as well.

Would Jewry even be alive today if itahd not been able to take refuge in islamic lands (ahem, the sephardim) during all those long bouts of christian anti-semitism?

To your surprise there are still more Ashkenazi Jews than Sepharadim.

And many Sepharadim jews were also harassed and killed in the Islamic world. Even when they weren't touched, they had to pay huge 'protection' taxes.

And Sephardic Jews eperienced alot of 1930s Germany phenomenas in Arab countries starting from 1948. They were persecuted and harassed.

And even today - how do you suppose the Jews in Tunis are feeling, now that Al-Qaida has blown up a fuel truck next to their synagogue?

Would there have been any Jews in Jerusalem if the crusaders had kept them?

The crusaders were then in the stage that Islam is in now. A 'spread and destroy' phase.

Islmaic fundamenalism is a modern political phenomenon bred by reperesive regimes and thier alies, the US, and heck, even Israel, though I am sure that israels lenient treatment of Hamas and before that the Islamists in the eighties and thei allowing them, by not cracking down on them as done against factions of the PLO, to grow to power was just a temporary mistake.

You're confusing the major issue with the minor, in my opinion.

Extreme fundamentalism exists in Islam everywhere. In pakistan, afghanistan, iran, palestine, egypt.

The local government usually are either themselves Islamic, or they 'catch a ride' on the Islamic militancy to achieve their militaristic goals.

As for Sadam, I doubt he is trying to harness Islamic fundamentalism for his aims simply because it would sweep his secular butt out of power just as much as the Sauds, Assad or Mubarak.

Sweep his secular butt?

You really have no idea about his power, do you?

He has western weapons and bio-chemical weapons, and unlike western countries, he can beat terror because he has no problems gassing hundreds of thousands of people.

Assad has great ties with Hezbullah and Hamas. But when a village tried to rebell, the whole village, 20,000 people were slaughtered. The fundies got the message.

Islam is there. It's not a threat to tyranies, since tyranies have no problems slaughtering everyone who they suspect. And as long as the government is better equipped, it'll keep on ruling.

But the tyranies use it to their advantage. The promote religion and anger against 'the west', 'the jews' and all sorts of things, and use the fundamentalists, to gain influence in the world, beyond their economical or military strength.

But perhaps I am wrong and he is just as smart as Reagan and Shamir. Still, he is a murderous man and while I will shed no teras when he dies, we certainly are going about it the wrong way.

And how are we to go about him?

Give him what he wants?

Worked great with Hitler

[DanS]

GePap: We have about 100 bombers, each of which can carry about 10-15x precision-guided 2,000 pound bombs. With sufficient air cover and without a restraining force, these could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks, probably even without too many overflight rights from allies.

But of course it would never happen due to China's nuclear arsenal. The US conventional power is restrained all around the world because of this. More than 1/2 of the world's population is untouchable from American conventional forces.

[chequita guevara]

I have been led to believe that China's nuclear capability vis a vis the US is very poor. A nuclear first strike could remove that threat to the US, though I imagine that our local allies such as Korea, Taiwan, and Japan would pay the price.

[DanS]

"Korea, Taiwan, and Japan would pay the price"

Yes, that is a sufficient deterrent to US aggressions with conventional forces, IMO. They might also take out some cities on the West Coast.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by DanS
[T[hese [bombers] could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks.

Ehh, I can't really tell about such things but considering the time it took to take care of Iraq before the ground war and that I would think China has more forces and is a hell of a lot bigger that seems like a gross overstatement.

[Sandman]

GePap: We have about 100 bombers, each of which can carry about 10-15x precision-guided 2,000 pound bombs. With sufficient air cover and without a restraining force, these could destroy most of China's public infrastructure within a couple of weeks, probably even without too many overflight rights from allies.

How many precision-guided 2000lb bombs does America have?

You would need between 14000 and 21000 of those things for your scenario, assuming one bombing run per day.

I doubt that even the U.S. has that number of bombs.

[DanS]

The only thing precision-guided that we had in Iraq was the Tomahawks, IIRC, which carry 500 lb. (?) payloads. They also cost about $500k per, whereas the new JDAMs cost something like $20k apiece.

[GePap]

Siro:

Like so many people, you are totally confusing a major relegion, Islam, with a modern political movement, Islamic fundamentalism.

First of all, on Islamic treatment of Jews: Yes, Jews, like ALL minority groups before the idea of equal rights spread were mistreated. Please tell me of one minority group, especially one that did not share the relegion of the majority, who was not mistreated? To expect equal treatment in a time when none was given is ludicrous. The point is that Islamic treatment of Jews was far better than Christian reatment of Jews. (If there are more ashkenazis than Sephardim is because the population explosin hit Europe before the middle east. Poland had more people than Egypt back in 1900, check the numbers. MOre people in Europe, more European Jews. since the sephardim left before the demographic explosion in the middle east, why they are fewer is no surprise) The blood libel, while startting to get used in the middle east today was not invented by Muslims. When the crusaders were outside of Jerusalem, with which side did the local Jews side, the Christians or Muslims? The long record of expulsions (Spain, England), pogroms (Russia, Poland, Germany) Ghettoes (all of Europe), forced covesions, and so forth and so on has no equal in the MUslim world. Maimoides wrote under Muslim rulers, tell me one great Medeival Jewish thinker that wrote under Christian rule before the renaissance? Is there growing anti-semitism in Muslim states today? Yes, which is fostered by politicians, not because it is natural of islam, especialy when the Q'uran calls the Jews peoples of the books and expects them to be respected if not treated the same.

As for where islam is today: I chalenge you Siro to go to a local library an look up some older books, say, from the 60"s, and find in them how much Israeli writers, or american, or european, worried about radical Islam. My bet, you will find very little. Think of all the original Arab regimes, or those in Indonesia or Pakisan, how many of them were run by Mullahs or were deeply relegious? Short of the Saudis, they were all authotitarian, and almost always secualr, Nasser, Jinnah, Sukarno, Suharto, Assad, the Shah: Until Iran, no one worried about Islamists taking over but Communism (which, as you know, is inherently aetheistic).
The pattern is clear around the world, from the arab states to Indonesia to Nigeria: The first authoritarian regimes failed to improve the lives of their peoples and because of this left-wing regimes begun to take over. Now, two things joined forces, that many of these lef wing regimes begun to fail, and that anti-communist groups (US, Israel sometimes) begun to try to stir forces that would counter communism, and last time I looked, relegious nuts are anti-communist. It was in the late 70's and early eigthties tht funamentalits became an issue. Look at all the fundamenlist regimes or quasi groups out there, the only one that predates this time is the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the granddaddy of these groups, and a group the Egyptians have been trying to crush for decades. Also, notice how most Aab states as are have controlled or kept Islamist groups down internally if they did not suit their purposes: Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria all have either kept these groups down and out for ever or successfully cracked down.

Sowhats the point of this lesson?Tha all this anti-Islam propaganda is mindless crap that takes absolutely no account of the history as its written for all non-bigoted people to see! Radical islam is a POLITICAL movement that is absolutely MODERN and has as much to do with the fundmentals of the religion of Islam as Kahane Chai or Kach have to do with the fundamental of Judaism. The difference is that in many Muslim states the political forces that be have used radical islam to further their agendas while in Israel these radical Jewish group (or radical christian group in the US) have been ought because they udermine the politics of the state. If we must blame something for the rise of this fundamenalism is the authoriarian, corrupt regimes that rule accross the Muslim world, not Islam.

Now to Sadam:

First, Tyrannies do have to fear Radical islam: The Shah of Ian had the most feared secret police in the Middle East, where is he now? If Syria and Egypt and Iraq have not fallen is that they have done more than just cracked the whip. Do you think Syrian women want to be shrouded, or the average person have to do the crap the Mullah would ask? No. Besides craking the whip these regimes have also built secular middle classes that don't mind the whip being used. No tyranny is too strong to overcome the pressures of the population (remembe that it is this population that become the soldiers of the army needed to crack the whip).

Second, yes Saddam is a murderer, but he is not an idiot (you can't stay alive as long as him and be an idiot). What does he gain from using weapons of mass destruction against anyone who would care? He used them intenally (which doesn't matter since most states will overlook crimes within borders [the West bank and Gaza are not within borders!]if an Israeli government were to do something terrible to their own people (Jews), no one, not even the Arab regimes, would give a damn!) and against Iranians (those loathsome fundies!). Not until the gulf war did anyone ever bring this up, and that because by then he was our enemy.
So the idea that he would hand WMD to any group that might use them in a traceable way is idiotic. No matter the number of suicide bombers, Israel would never be able to use that as a justification of an attack agaisnt Iraq, but if Israel (or the US) could trace Iraqi involvement in a WMD attack aginst either state, then goodbye Saddam and no one would stand up to portect him. So what does he have to gain? Nothing.

Is Saddam Hitler? No, anymore than Iddi Amin, Suharto, pol Pot (who killed far more people than Saddam), Mobutu, or any of countless other regional crackpots. Saddam is not ou to conquer the Middle east even if he wants to be the main player ion the game. Not invading is not appeasing (thought i could write a very long post on why the legend of appeasment is utter idiocy), especially when the idiots back in pennsylvania avenue probably have no clue about the political program in Iraq after sadam. If they come out with a reasonable and intelligent plan for the aftermath, then perhaps I culd support military action, but until they do, all they would cuase is chaos and shooting themselves in the foot. Heck, what if saddam took refuge in Iran? No one has brought that one up!

[Az]

It can , however , produce them. (and I wouldn't be surprised if it had them , too ).

GePap: I hope you're right. But events all around the world are telling me otherwise , Many of which you've never heard of, like in the former SU. TIme will show. I really don't like your tone that "it's 1/6 of the world's population and it will continue to grow, and there's nothing you can do about it" . are you happy? do you want it to happen? even with most of the current world being capitalist , which is against my way of thinking , I'd rather have it , including all of it's ups and downs rather than an ideology so alien to my thinking that it disturbs me very much . I've read muslim texts, I've read things that are posted on websites. We'll see

Good discussion people. I'll just keep on lurking.

[chequita guevara]

The whole point, there is a deterent to doing everything. There was a deterent factor to taking on the Taleban to get bin Laden. Eventually, however, the cost of not getting bin Laden outweighed the cost of attacking and occupying Afganistan. We could take out China, but the cost to do so outweighs any potential benefits, at this time. If China attacked Taiwan, for example, the cost of not attacking China would increase greatly, perhaps to the point that attackin China becomes a viable option.

The existence of deterent costs doesn't mean that the US isn't a hegemon.

[DanS]

Sandman: According to the following article, the US has taken delivery of about 18,000 JDAMs of various sizes and have dropped about 6,000 in Afghanistan (where there was no infrastructure).

http://www.polkonline.com/stories/04...ta_price.shtml

236,000 kits ordered through 2009. 95% expected to hit within a 30-feet radius of intended targets.

[chequita guevara]

Good post, GePap.

[Az]

Che , common. I condemn Judaism , Christianity and Islam alike . why can't you do the same ?

This alliance between muslim organizations and leftwingers drives me nuts.

[Kropotkin]

Hey, we have a right to a contra-conspiracy Zoggie

[Az]

This is a serious thread , have you noticed?

besides, two wrongs don't make a right.

[chequita guevara]

It has to do with the fact that Lefties support the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinians on the one hand, and the defeat of imperialism on the other. Lefties tend to see imperialism as the greater evil. Whether or not that's true is another argument.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Sandman
I doubt that even the U.S. has that number of bombs.

I think this comment is rather funny