The differences between America and Europe

[morb]

Originally posted by Pekka
Just some thoughts from someone who actually has gone through training in AA-things.

ps. Many countries have decent weaponry in this field, and China is one. Don't believe everything you saw in top gun.

no formal training, but i can assure you soviet AA rocketry has definitely gotten much better since the U2 was shot down in the 1950's. China is the #1 customer of russian military weaponry, you can be sure they have aquired sufficient AA units as well as the latest in cruise missiles.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
yes, but Islam is the only massive state sponsored religion. Islam is the religion that expands . In Islamic countries , unlike in christian countries , people are far more believing and religious, and therefore mislead.

Christian killed a lot of jew, just because some of their ancestors were involved in the death of the Christian Messiah ...

This is not hot news ...

Nothing to do with the religion. If muslim integrism is soo "popular" it's due to economical poverty of Muslim country.
-> More poverty,
-> less education system (mainly managed by religious mouvment)
-> less hope for young generation.

If they are poor, this not because Arabs are jerk people but such situation is mainly due to past colonizations and actual western policies toward ME countries.

If you have no hope in better futur, you will become more certainly violant toward what you considere the cause of your ill situation.

Jew religion how described in the Books is not a peacefull, man-loving religion, too.

[morb]

Originally posted by Roland
Couple of points:

1. US power is hopelessly overstated. You can go against 3rd rate powers. That's about it.

i can agree that it may be overstated at times, but nowhere near "hopelessly" overstated. US armed forces are both the best equipped and the best traind in the world. the difference between US and the rest of the world who still rely on SU designed weapons is that the US actually knows how to use them under taxing war time conditions. SU philosophy emphesised superior weaponry rather than training. clearly a downside of central planning. i suspect a similar situation in most of Russia's wapons consumers. My point is, that when push comes to shove, US will keep a cooler head and show better control and execution than other states. for the time being this combined with some of the best weapons in the world keeps the US a true superpower.

[Roland]

Hegemonial position and ideas that the US in a short clean war can oversome China or even a united europe are under "hopelessly".

The question is always what forces can the US project, what is the loss tolerance at home, how easy is air superiority to gain, how effective is it once gained, etc etc.

The US would have a serious problem in fighting scond rate powers like Britain, France, Russia or China, even at the conventional level.

[Az]

Zobo:

Christian killed a lot of jew, just because some of their ancestors were involved in the death of the Christian Messiah ...
This is not hot news ...

I find it doubtful , at least . But that's far from being the point . I am not claiming that christianity is good . I am claiming all religions are bad , but Islam is the one that presents the most danger to human progress.

Nothing to do with the religion. If muslim integrism is soo "popular" it's due to economical poverty of Muslim country.
-> More poverty,
-> less education system (mainly managed by religious mouvment)
-> less hope for young generation.

The religion is spreading both in the poor countries as in the rich. in England for example. we have a muslim poster here , that I actually respect very much as a individual.He's from Britain, and he's NOT an immigrant . But I agree , that generally , poverty does play a role.

If they are poor, this not because Arabs are jerk people but such situation is mainly due to past colonizations and actual western policies toward ME countries.

First of all the notion that the ME countries were screwed by the european powers is true, But they hardly can call themselves victims of the evils of colonialism on any scale even nearing the ones that were occured in Africa, and the New World. European Imperialist (not colonialist , since no colonies were established )activities in the region of the Middle East lasted from 150 to less than 50 years, depending on the area. The area was screwed well before the europeans came over . in the destruction of muslim high culture a finger can be pointed towards the mongols in the early previous millenium . But then again, It was not much different from what the first muslims themselves did to the Ancient persian cultures , that still existed before they came.

If you have no hope in better futur, you will become more certainly violant toward what you considere the cause of your ill situation.

yes , But the point is , that the west is not always to blame. It's rather that the people of the region are being told it is.

Jew religion how described in the Books is not a peacefull, man-loving religion, too.

and your point is ? noone claimed it to be so.

GePap:

When i meant political Judaism, i meant many of the things currently policy in Israel, such as the Rabbi's having control over many civil laws in marriage, death, and so forth.

they're not having control over civil laws, but over religious laws. Everyone could marry everyone (no , no gay marriage yet ) , in a civil marriage. It simply wouldn't apply to Judaism. Does that make judaism bad ? yes. does that make Israel a theocracy? no. There are issues however that DO disturb me, like the openning of bussinesses on saturday. The status-quo between the religious and the secular population of the country is wrong, and has to be changed.

nd as you well know, there are extremist streams in jewish life, which believe in mutual respect of peoples of other faits as much as Osama.

what's your point? I've already mentioned that I have no love for them as well.

God and relegion are intangibles, they are issues of faith. I am also an aethist, but Dalgetti, can you prove to me that God doesn't exist?

you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that there is no animal called Gvazunda that has purple skin , 5 mouths , and 23 eyes.

You, as I , have put our FAITH in reason, perhaps just as blindly as those that believe in God.

Yes, I've blindly put my faith in reason.

If someone asks me a 'why, perhaps my answer will involve less invoking of sacred texts and more experimental data, but if anyone asks me an existensial question, what answers can we give them?

once again, the burden of proof is not on me /

Besides, mockery is no form of adult debate, and a moral system that adopts mockery can't help but be corrupt. You will not succeed in lessening faiths, for faith is to strong for that.

If you whish to create a moral world then, you must try to convince people with arguments, not mockery, and if you can't convince them on the reason, convince them on the path of action, but again, that calls for reasoned argument, not mockery.

don't preach to me, please. I am tired of that.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
KrazyHorse:

I agree with the idea that Europe is *not* the primary target of various terrorist groups and/or more aggressive nations.

We are no more a primary target ... We suffered from several terrorst campaign is the past. Last one in France was a algerian terrorist campaign ...

[BeBro]

BTW, I agree to some extent that Europe is a "secondary" target after the US, but what role does that play?

The attack in Tunisia was primarily against a Jewish target (synagogue), however, the victims were mainly German tourists, and they were certainly not "secondary" victims. The threat from terrorists is too serious to make a difference between "primary" and "secondary" - the simple fact that there COULD be similiar attacks in Europe itself too is threat enough...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
and your point is ? noone claimed it to be so.

The Muslim Prophet's word aren't at the source of the violance of the Muslim world (because the violance exists).

Christian is quite a peacefull religion. Killing people is forbidden as men are too sinner to be wise enough to decide who must die or live. Since Christian world was the theatre of extremly bloody religious wars. Of course (even if Human madness is too blame too), the real reasons were mostly economics and politicals.

My point of view is not to argue that Muslim world is not violant. But to argue that this violance have politics and economical roots. The religion and the faith is only the fuel for the accomplishment of the goals.

[Az]

yeah sure . if so , how come Muhammed himself waged endless wars of occupation and agression?

[Kropotkin]

Ehh is that really such a smart thing to say Dal.? Considering how the Israelits that came from Egypt took back the promised land. What does that say about judaism then?

[morb]

Originally posted by Roland
Hegemonial position and ideas that the US in a short clean war can oversome China or even a united europe are under "hopelessly".

The question is always what forces can the US project, what is the loss tolerance at home, how easy is air superiority to gain, how effective is it once gained, etc etc.

The US would have a serious problem in fighting scond rate powers like Britain, France, Russia or China, even at the conventional level.

i understand now. you are operating under the assumption that US actions against a '2nd tier' power will bring the whole world in a union against it, much like what happened to germany and japan in WWII. It is foolish to suspect that any power super or otherwise can sustain a prolonged period of all-out conventional war against the entire world. it is not likely.

also you are assuming the US will be the aggressor or the instigator. which is also unlikely against a 2nd tier power.

what IS basically FACT at this time is that no other state can project conventional military power onto US soil without severely exposing their own, while the US can project its power almost anywhere in the world at the same time. this to me is what separates a superpower from what is simply a well equipped defence force that's de facto in europe.

also, you completely neglect the fact that a good large amount of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal serve as a powerful deterent against both nuclear and conventional warfare. the mere threat of action by the US in such a manner will first of all require a truely severe situation and secondly will most likely neglegent use of conventional military against another state. from this point things ether cool down or escalate. you can be sure the US will execute a strike if nessesary/forced to.

to summerise, the US is a true super power, not overstated for 2 reasons overall: 1)strong, world class military, 2)appearance of strong, world class military and the resolve to act when nessesary. both of these things are lacking in europe and no other state so far has both ingredients nailed. to put it another way, you are not thinking 4th dimentionally. yes, it is unlikely that the US can take on a campaign against europe or china while acting as an agressor or without facing major battles and heavy losses. however, neither is likely to happen in the first place. but that doesn't mean the US is not a super power.

[Az]

Kropo : you're not paying attention to what I am saying , at all , do you ? read my previous posts.

[Roland]

"you are operating under the assumption that US actions against a '2nd tier' power will bring the whole world in a union against it"

No, I meant those countries individually.

As for the rest, from my list of 2nd rate powers, it should be clear that I see the US as the only 1st rate power at the moment. I do not think I conflict with anything you said. The only point is that the position of nr 1 is always relative, and the relative advantage is often overstated.

[Kropotkin]

Yes, I do sometimes pay attentions to your earlier posts Dal. and my first statement stands. A religion and it's impact on society and violence against others in the society and other societies shouldn't be taken from the historical context.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
yeah sure . if so , how come Muhammed himself waged endless wars of occupation and agression?

Hmmm ... read some text of Coran ... Few text speek about spreading the truth faith ... But not as violant you tend to describe.

Of course depend of translation. Maybe my version was a peacefull one (censored for minor protection ...).

[Az]

I must be getting old. Basically : judaism is bad , because it's archaic, and so is every religion.

[Az]

Zobo : well , you could see what muhammad did. he captured many territories , in the name of religion. The Quran was fully written in his end version , at the next millenium.

[morb]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


The Muslim Prophet's word aren't at the source of the violance of the Muslim world (because the violance exists).

Christian is quite a peacefull religion. Killing people is forbidden as men are too sinner to be wise enough to decide who must die or live. Since Christian world was the theatre of extremly bloody religious wars. Of course (even if Human madness is too blame too), the real reasons were mostly economics and politicals.

My point of view is not to argue that Muslim world is not violant. But to argue that this violance have politics and economical roots. The religion and the faith is only the fuel for the accomplishment of the goals.

what worries me about this is that politics are motivated by a strongly conservative interpretation of religion. but religion is a creature absent of reason. therefore, it isn't even right to call one interpretation of religion wrong or incorrect BECAUSE its an interpretation.

The countries of the west will never wage full scale wars against militant muslim states even if nessesary for their security or survival for a simple ideological reason. too many people will view such actions as "holy wars" or "war against religion." this is something the US in particular heavily frowns upon as its vary foundation was based on freedom from religious prosecution. in theory this is how things SHOULD be. but in reality, it is all too easy to use religion to wage war and the US will gladly tie its own hands even when faced with grave danger. it doesn't matter how bizzar, obscure, unbeleveble or twisted the religion may be (ahem, scientology). this is truely one big gigantic gaping hole in the US "armor" and I think it will come to be exploited more and more in the future as limits are tested and boundaries are set.

on a final thought, perhaps islam is not a militant religion by its nature. but the people who are fighting political wars against the west certainly make it seem so.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
I must be getting old. Basically : judaism is bad , because it's archaic, and so is every religion.

At least, you don't have pedophil rabbin ...

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by morb
on a final thought, perhaps islam is not a militant religion by its nature. but the people who are fighting political wars against the west certainly make it seem so.

It would be even stranger if those that waged political war didn't make it seem like a militant religion.

I've meet enough muslim pacifists and feminists to really take the hate-mongering of Al-Quiada and others seriously.

[DanS]

"Oh bollocks. We hand out x-times more foreign aid. We have a similar level of immigration. And the US has always been as protectionist as the EU. And we spend just about 1 percentage point less of GDP on the military - 1.5 % after dubya's latest budget."

I'm going to need to see those immigration numbers again on another thread. (One that isn't so serious .) The 2000 Census puts the number of immigrants at 31 million.

"You want to spread western values with fire and sword ? Are you really nuts ?"

The potential of fire and sword can be pretty potent.

[Roland]

"I'm going to need to see those immigration numbers again on another thread."

Stats, stats, stats.....

"The potential of fire and sword can be pretty potent."

Especially the backfiring potential.

[DanS]

We would prefer not to use them for just this reason (and a couple of others).

[Ned]

What I find the most disturbing about the developments in the '90's are

- the increasing independence of Europe (although they like to say it is the US that ignores them);
- the weakness of Europe to handle affairs even in Europe;
- the unwillingness to help the US defend itself.

This last bit, the more I think about it given all we have done for Europe in the last century, make my blood boil with anger.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Ned

This last bit, the more I think about it given all we have done for Europe in the last century, make my blood boil with anger.

:???: crap !

The first western country to have send men on the soif of afghanistan to hunt down terrorist were British.

The problem is not that you want Europe as an ally, you want Europe as a puppet.

[DanS]

You guys take foreign policy way too personally.

[Roland]

"- the increasing independence of Europe (although they like to say it is the US that ignores them);"

Some may say that. For my taste, you can't ignore us enough as long as you don't get in our way.

"- the weakness of Europe to handle affairs even in Europe"

Then get out of europe and don't try blocking our integration.

"- the unwillingness to help the US defend itself"

You can have any help in defending yourself. But we don't feel like having people killed for dubya's reelection.

[DanS]

Austria is probably one of the most extreme cases of that described in the article. How exactly did you stay out of the Cold War, Roland?

[Roland]

Extreme in what ? Military weakness ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Roland
"you are operating under the assumption that US actions against a '2nd tier' power will bring the whole world in a union against it"

No, I meant those countries individually.

Well, Britain and France also have a nuclear deterent, but conventionally, they'd get rolled over. Russia only has a nuclear deterant, and would like collapse politically and economically if it went to war with the US. Only China could sustain a long war against the US, but it would still lose, and the US would likely remain unscathed.

The much vaunted Chinese air defenses I don't see as a serious problem. After all, Iraq purchased those same defenses, and they didn't do a damn bit of good in 1991 or since. Yugoslavia also had those defenses, and only managed to shoot down one US bomber (albeit the supposedly invisible stealth bomber).