Full Version: US pulling troops out of Europe ... a good thing?
bucket, I would never argue that the UN is capable of accomplishing anything impressive. My point is really that we shouldn't expect Iraq to develop democracy on our terms, and using military force to aid this foolish task is a big step backwards. Maybe it isn't the UN's responsibility. I know that there is a peaceful way to solve this mess, and it isn't by allocating 70,000 non-combat stationed troops into a combat situation that grows in intensity based on how much low-brow chest beating each side does.
I think this move is a good one.
The forces are completely unnecessary in Europe.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed (the suddenly ultra partisan) Wesley Clark yesterday and kept hammering him to admit that the US does not need troops in Europe to respond to the world's hot spots. It needs heavy equipment redeployment to sensitive areas, since heavy equipment is so much harder to move than troops.
The troops themselves, according to Blitzer (and myself) are just as capable of deploying from Kansas as they are from Germany. Clark refused to admit any up side to this move, saying that it represented the sudden, unilateral abandonment of our allies despite the fact that all of the affected Allies are on board and that this plan has been in the works for years.
That's Europe.
As far as South Korea, we have troops there, as General Clark explained, as a "trip wire" force. Any attack on South Korea would be an attack on the US, resulting in our all out response.
But we have 37,000 troops in SK. The removal of 12,000 of them (or whatever the number is) does not diminish their "trip wire" effect. It simply means 12,000 less targets. 37,000 troops are not enough to hold off the 1 million plus man North Korea army should they invade.
The US's strength is largely based on technology, not sheer numbers. The US military could defeat North Korea's army without needing to match its numbers due to this fact. Those extra troops are not needed as a trip wire. They should be brought home.
The forces are completely unnecessary in Europe.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed (the suddenly ultra partisan) Wesley Clark yesterday and kept hammering him to admit that the US does not need troops in Europe to respond to the world's hot spots. It needs heavy equipment redeployment to sensitive areas, since heavy equipment is so much harder to move than troops.
The troops themselves, according to Blitzer (and myself) are just as capable of deploying from Kansas as they are from Germany. Clark refused to admit any up side to this move, saying that it represented the sudden, unilateral abandonment of our allies despite the fact that all of the affected Allies are on board and that this plan has been in the works for years.
That's Europe.
As far as South Korea, we have troops there, as General Clark explained, as a "trip wire" force. Any attack on South Korea would be an attack on the US, resulting in our all out response.
But we have 37,000 troops in SK. The removal of 12,000 of them (or whatever the number is) does not diminish their "trip wire" effect. It simply means 12,000 less targets. 37,000 troops are not enough to hold off the 1 million plus man North Korea army should they invade.
The US's strength is largely based on technology, not sheer numbers. The US military could defeat North Korea's army without needing to match its numbers due to this fact. Those extra troops are not needed as a trip wire. They should be brought home.
QUOTE
Does anybody here still think this is NOT a political move by GWB?
I think it's very political.......but not by GWB, by John Kerry, when he said the following (posted by Carlitoswhey, and unsurprisingly overlooked by most):
JOHN KERRY: If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror. (John Kerry, ABC’s “This Week,” 8/1/04)
I almost feel sorry for Kerry supporters. Here they are vehemently denying the flip-flop charge, and Kerry within about two weeks, does just that. It's just sad that JFK has to make this play.....it's juvenile, pathetic and very transparent. Kerry knows full well that talks about re-deploying troops from Germany were ongoing during the Clinton administration. JFK knows full well that this proposed re-deployment was part of the overall strategy of transforming the Army into a more mobile, lighter weight force, and that a large concentration of our armored formations currently reside in Korea and Germany. JFK knows this full well because two weks ago he said as much.
It's political all right....and Kerry should be ashamed.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Aug 18 2004, 11:18 AM)
QUOTE(bucket @ Aug 18 2004, 10:22 AM)
I too disagree with Kerry Eeyore..and I think this may in fact have a positive effect on the NK situation.
I would feel that the withdrawal of US troops makes NK feel less urgent and under attack..it will make NK feel more like she is speaking to SK without a heavy American influence and I also feel it will make China take on the more aggressive role. So far just going on pure hypothetical and positive wishes..I feel America's withdrawal from the Korean peninsula (but still voiced commitment to defend SK) will improve this situation. It is not one to be won in war.
I would feel that the withdrawal of US troops makes NK feel less urgent and under attack..it will make NK feel more like she is speaking to SK without a heavy American influence and I also feel it will make China take on the more aggressive role. So far just going on pure hypothetical and positive wishes..I feel America's withdrawal from the Korean peninsula (but still voiced commitment to defend SK) will improve this situation. It is not one to be won in war.
Don't worry - even Kerry disagrees with Kerry, of course that was 2 whole weeks ago. My emphasis added. Bush seems to be showing just the imagination Kerry was calling for here, no?
QUOTE
JOHN KERRY: If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror. (John Kerry, ABC’s “This Week,” 8/1/04)
I also agree with your points about Korea. I would love to know how leaving 12,000 more troops within range of a North Korean nuke would make the USA safer. While I'm not a Korean expert, I do a little business there, and Koreans are notoriously more suspicious of outsiders than other cultures. Probably due to being on a much-invaded peninsula. Getting the white faces out of that peninsula would seem to be less, not more antagonistic in terms of policy.
Since this interview is nearly two weeks old, would it be possible for you to post a direct link to the article on John Kerry?
I have looked, but can't find it, and I would really like to read the article in it's entirety......it's sometimes hard to debate just one paragraph.
Thanks!
QUOTE
I almost feel sorry for Kerry supporters. Here they are vehemently denying the flip-flop charge, and Kerry within about two weeks, does just that. It's just sad that JFK has to make this play.....it's juvenile, pathetic and very transparent. Kerry knows full well that talks about re-deploying troops from Germany were ongoing during the Clinton administration. JFK knows full well that this proposed re-deployment was part of the overall strategy of transforming the Army into a more mobile, lighter weight force, and that a large concentration of our armored formations currently reside in Korea and Germany. JFK knows this full well because two weks ago he said as much.
Sorry, but I don't see any Kerry supporters denying any of his "flip-flop" charges.
And, I prefer to have the whole article in front of me, with source before I argue points.
But, if you want to get into flip-flops, take a gander at THIS ARTICLE, and then we can discuss claims vs. facts. It might take your mind off of Kerry and his flip-floppiness.
I know it did mine!
There was a large article yesterday in the Dallas Morning News (sorry, can't find link), indicating that German talk shows were flooded with calls on this issue. The callers were primarily concerned with the economic impact of losing the billions of dollars of contracts the US has to support those troops. Of particular concern was the impact on smaller towns where the base was the primary employer in the area. These are the same issues faced with base closing domestically, so I find none of this surprising--although it does support my contention that one of the reasons the bases have been left there so long is because the German government lobbied to keep them there precisely for the economic impact.
Also of note in the article was that Germans spend today 1/10 of what the US does on security (it was counting military, intelligence, and homeland security in that figure). Much of this is spent in countries such as Germany as much for their security as for ours. So, it asked the pertinent question--why should US taxpayers have to bear the burden of providing security for foreign citizens? I think this is a very good point, and part of the reason for the pullout.
One other concern many of the callers had was whether or not this pullout was 'retaliation' for their stance against us in Iraq. While I do not think this was (it has been discussed since long before then), I do find it an interesting observation. For it implies the thinking that they should be able to criticize and thwart our actions at will without our rethinking our obligation to bear the cost for much of their security. This goes back to my thoughts on the 'Why do they hate us' threads regarding our troop deployments--these were there, in my opinion, as much for the benefit of the local population as they were for our benefit, and were therefore somewhat of a burden to the US, not a boon (and visa versa for that area).
Also of note in the article was that Germans spend today 1/10 of what the US does on security (it was counting military, intelligence, and homeland security in that figure). Much of this is spent in countries such as Germany as much for their security as for ours. So, it asked the pertinent question--why should US taxpayers have to bear the burden of providing security for foreign citizens? I think this is a very good point, and part of the reason for the pullout.
One other concern many of the callers had was whether or not this pullout was 'retaliation' for their stance against us in Iraq. While I do not think this was (it has been discussed since long before then), I do find it an interesting observation. For it implies the thinking that they should be able to criticize and thwart our actions at will without our rethinking our obligation to bear the cost for much of their security. This goes back to my thoughts on the 'Why do they hate us' threads regarding our troop deployments--these were there, in my opinion, as much for the benefit of the local population as they were for our benefit, and were therefore somewhat of a burden to the US, not a boon (and visa versa for that area).
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 19 2004, 06:55 AM)
I think it's very political.......but not by GWB, by John Kerry, when he said the following (posted by Carlitoswhey, and unsurprisingly overlooked by most):
JOHN KERRY: If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror. (John Kerry, ABC’s “This Week,” 8/1/04)
JOHN KERRY: If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror. (John Kerry, ABC’s “This Week,” 8/1/04)
Ok, admittedly I haven't had my coffee yet this morning so my brain could be working a little slow, but where is the flip-flop? I'm not saying there isn't one, but is Kerry now saying removing the troops is a bad idea? And if he is, what reasons does he give? Links to complete speeches and/or articles would be nice so we can get the words in context if anyone wants to step up here (not specifically DTOM, post was just easy to quote).
I checked back a few pages in this thread and found carlitos original post, but not Kerry's alleged new position. Am I missing something here?
QUOTE
but where is the flip-flop? I'm not saying there isn't one, but is Kerry now saying removing the troops is a bad idea?
He says so right here, for one link:
John Kerry on Wednesday set out his opposition to the Bush administration's plans to bring home 70,000 US troops from permanent overseas bases, leaving their future dependent on the outcome of the presidential election.
“Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars,” Kerry said in speech. “But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way,”
Setting out one of the few clear strategic differences between himself and George W. Bush, Mr Kerry argued that the withdrawal of troops from Europe and Asia threatens to undercut alliances and weakens America's ability to project its power overseas.
“For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons? ’’ Kerry said.
FT Link
[1]10:46:57 SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE)
I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror.
ABCNews Link (Transcript)
Thanks DTOM, wasn't aware of that new development 
I will say that I can easily see how this can be spun as a flip-flop but in my opinion it really isn't if you really take a look at what Kerry is saying.
Above is the statement everyone keeps quoting, but everyone is also ignoring the first part of the sentence there - "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work". That implies actually talking with the allies where we have soldiers stationed about this pull-out and if necessary phasing the troop pull-out so they can adequately mount their own defense.
Now from more recent times:
I fail to see how this is a flip-flop of any kind here. Kerry is not in anyway suggesting that the troops not be brought home, he is being consistent with his previous statement (the one everyone ignored the first part of) that we need to time it correctly.
Some of the things that Kerry mentioned such as the economic impact to Germany, and the fact that we are in the middle of negotiations in Korea are factors that should be considered - maybe they don't effect the decision and maybe they do, but they should be considered. This once again highlights the very large stylistic difference between Kerry and Bush. Bush doesn't give any kind of thought or analysis to his actions or the possible impacts - he just does things as he sees fit. He is pretty much proud of that fact and thinks it makes him standout - he calls it being a Texan. Kerry on the other hand has the same "goal" but is actually willing to analyze the situation a little bit here and make sure the United States gets what we want, but in the process we don't damage relationships with our allies or adversely effect diplomatic efforts now under way. If you set these two up in a chess match together to me it is very clear who would win the match.
So, I said earlier that I supported pulling the troops out of Europe and South Korea and I still do ( I can already see people saying I flip-flopped
). But maybe I spoke too quickly in singing the praises for Bush because I didn't realize these forces didn't have near future plans for re-deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan - if they don't then what is the point exactly, these are fulltime soldiers, not reservists? We should be sending reservists home, not full time soldiers. I admit that I also didn't know about some of the possible impacts of this. So I would say the overall goal of re-deploying troops is correct and it should happen in the near term (within the next year), but as Kerry put it - "it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way".
I will say that I can easily see how this can be spun as a flip-flop but in my opinion it really isn't if you really take a look at what Kerry is saying.
QUOTE
I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the region. If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror.
Above is the statement everyone keeps quoting, but everyone is also ignoring the first part of the sentence there - "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work". That implies actually talking with the allies where we have soldiers stationed about this pull-out and if necessary phasing the troop pull-out so they can adequately mount their own defense.
Now from more recent times:
QUOTE
“Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars,” Kerry said in speech. “But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way,”
I fail to see how this is a flip-flop of any kind here. Kerry is not in anyway suggesting that the troops not be brought home, he is being consistent with his previous statement (the one everyone ignored the first part of) that we need to time it correctly.
Some of the things that Kerry mentioned such as the economic impact to Germany, and the fact that we are in the middle of negotiations in Korea are factors that should be considered - maybe they don't effect the decision and maybe they do, but they should be considered. This once again highlights the very large stylistic difference between Kerry and Bush. Bush doesn't give any kind of thought or analysis to his actions or the possible impacts - he just does things as he sees fit. He is pretty much proud of that fact and thinks it makes him standout - he calls it being a Texan. Kerry on the other hand has the same "goal" but is actually willing to analyze the situation a little bit here and make sure the United States gets what we want, but in the process we don't damage relationships with our allies or adversely effect diplomatic efforts now under way. If you set these two up in a chess match together to me it is very clear who would win the match.
So, I said earlier that I supported pulling the troops out of Europe and South Korea and I still do ( I can already see people saying I flip-flopped
). But maybe I spoke too quickly in singing the praises for Bush because I didn't realize these forces didn't have near future plans for re-deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan - if they don't then what is the point exactly, these are fulltime soldiers, not reservists? We should be sending reservists home, not full time soldiers. I admit that I also didn't know about some of the possible impacts of this. So I would say the overall goal of re-deploying troops is correct and it should happen in the near term (within the next year), but as Kerry put it - "it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way".
Kerry also has Wes Clark and Richard Holbrooke ripping the plan. from deutsche welle
Gotta get those talking points in. Bush is a unilateral cowboy, blah blah blah. What would be a multi-lateral way to move troops from Germany to other places, including the USA. We are still in NATO, no? And as for not saving money, does that mean that we should leave troops there FOREVER? It will always cost money to move them back, no? The opposition is very transparent in its knee-jerk reaction.
At least the Germans are putting on a brave face... and remembering that we did indeed win the cold war! Funny how having a big part of your population displaced and a Soviet satellite state on your border for 45 years occasionally reminds Germans that we are the good guys.
QUOTE
Ex-General Clark warns of timing in terror war
Another Kerry-supporter, retired army General Wesley Clark, warned of a military mistake in the making. "As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces."
Clark, who commanded NATO and US forces in Europe from 1997 to 2000, added in his statement: "This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security."
Another Kerry-supporter, retired army General Wesley Clark, warned of a military mistake in the making. "As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces."
Clark, who commanded NATO and US forces in Europe from 1997 to 2000, added in his statement: "This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security."
QUOTE
"This is another example of the (Bush) administration's unilateralism. It's going to weaken our national security," said Richard Holbrooke, a Kerry foreign policy adviser and former ambassador to the UN and Germany under former President Clinton, in a widely reported statement. "It is not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to bring these troops home."
Gotta get those talking points in. Bush is a unilateral cowboy, blah blah blah. What would be a multi-lateral way to move troops from Germany to other places, including the USA. We are still in NATO, no? And as for not saving money, does that mean that we should leave troops there FOREVER? It will always cost money to move them back, no? The opposition is very transparent in its knee-jerk reaction.
At least the Germans are putting on a brave face... and remembering that we did indeed win the cold war! Funny how having a big part of your population displaced and a Soviet satellite state on your border for 45 years occasionally reminds Germans that we are the good guys.
QUOTE
Karsten Voigt, Berlin's coordinator for German-American relations, said Germany would remain the largest base for US troops in Europe and security in Europe was not at risk.
"But, nevertheless, the withdrawal of troops is a loss, of course. We regret it; the American soldiers were welcome here. But it is a sign of success at the same time -- the success of having overcome the Cold War and European division," Voigt told reporters.
"But, nevertheless, the withdrawal of troops is a loss, of course. We regret it; the American soldiers were welcome here. But it is a sign of success at the same time -- the success of having overcome the Cold War and European division," Voigt told reporters.
QUOTE
That implies actually talking with the allies where we have soldiers stationed about this pull-out and if necessary phasing the troop pull-out so they can adequately mount their own defense.
Just a note on this, for clarification in the debate. In the areas in Europe where the troop pullouts are planned--there is no need for the defensive force at all. (Who, exactly, is currently threatening to invade Germany?) So, what any discussion would amount to is a delay in pullout or negotiations for purely economic means. Nothing wrong with that, its part of politics (happens all the time with our domestic base closings). But I wanted to make the point for future debate, since negotiations on this matter would, in effect, be trading our security for their economic interests--which I think is, at the least, very open to debate as a beneficial tactic, and goes to many of the very issues Kerry raises for international 'negotiations'.
Note--this is not meant as a 'slam' on Kerry--the types of discussions I am referring to have been a part of US international diplomacy since, well, always. However, everyone should recognize them for what they are.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 19 2004, 10:08 AM)
But I wanted to make the point for future debate, since negotiations on this matter would, in effect, be trading our security for their economic interests--which I think is, at the least, very open to debate as a beneficial tactic, and goes to many of the very issues Kerry raises for international 'negotiations'.
Point taken on the defense thing, you are probably right about the reasons being mostly economic.
However, I think that if you look at it as "trading security for economic benefit" you are looking at it in a strictly black and white manner. This would imply that we either leave the troops there or pull them out.
I think that there is a lot of room for negotiation here and creative solutions. We could give the host country a heads up, discuss the impacts and then come up with a phased plan so that the effects are spread out and the host country can compensate by hiring soldiers of their own if they so choose.
I am not suggesting that the United States doesn't have the right to pull its soldiers out and re-deploy them, I'm just suggesting that if it isn't handled appropriately we risk further alienating our allies and making them less likely to help us when we really need them.
We are already rather cool with Germany, don't you think that pulling all the troops at once and destroying several local economies with only a few weeks warning won't make things worse? The Bush administration (and some here at AD) don't seem to care, but I know that I do. The more we alienate people, the less we'll be effective in the war on terror. This thing won't be won through military force, it is going to be won through cooperation and sharing information. Both of those things are nearly impossible if you manage to anger all the people in a position to help you.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 19 2004, 10:29 AM)
We are already rather cool with Germany, don't you think that pulling all the tr1 5{ estroying several local economies with only a few weeks warning won't make things worse? The Bush administration (and some here at AD) don't seem to care, but I know that I do. The more we alienate people, the less we'll be effective in the war on terror. This thing won't be won through military force, it is going to be won through cooperation and sharing information. Both of those things are nearly impossible if you manage to anger all the people in a position to help you.
The plan to pull troops out of those specific bases in Germany will take two years. The relocation of the troops in Korea is scheduled over a period of four years. There is no overnight shifting here, nor would that be possible. Relocations take time and money. The local economies which depend on those bases will lose out regardless of the length of time it takes to carry out these goals. That happens in all local economies with base closures (which is why it is so hard to close superfluous bases, even within the continental US).
[quote=Cube Jockey,Aug 19 2004, 05:29 PM] [QUOTE=Hobbes,Aug 19 2004, 10:08 AM] .
I think that there is a lot of room for negotiation here and creative solutions. We could give the host country a heads up, discuss the impacts and then come up with a phased plan so that the effects are spread out and the host country can compensate by hiring soldiers of their own if they so choose.
Both of those things are nearly impossible if you manage to anger all the people in a position to help you. [/quote]
It is time for host countries to step up and take over their own security needs. We have built some very nice bases, they can step in with their own troops to replace our troops that get to go home. If they don't have enough troops, they can institute a draft or require all their able bodied men to serve as the Swiss do, life long membership in the reserves.
And it seems that we must have already angered many of those who are in a position to help us. They were asked to participate, they refused. Seems they want us to assume the majority of the risks in their behalf. And why shouldn't they want that? Haven't we been protecting them since the end of WWII? They have grown to expect it. Sounds like a form of welfare to me. We started out to help them, but just made them dependent on us.
I am not advocating isolationism, but it certainly seems to be a good time to back off a bit.
I think that there is a lot of room for negotiation here and creative solutions. We could give the host country a heads up, discuss the impacts and then come up with a phased plan so that the effects are spread out and the host country can compensate by hiring soldiers of their own if they so choose.
Both of those things are nearly impossible if you manage to anger all the people in a position to help you. [/quote]
It is time for host countries to step up and take over their own security needs. We have built some very nice bases, they can step in with their own troops to replace our troops that get to go home. If they don't have enough troops, they can institute a draft or require all their able bodied men to serve as the Swiss do, life long membership in the reserves.
And it seems that we must have already angered many of those who are in a position to help us. They were asked to participate, they refused. Seems they want us to assume the majority of the risks in their behalf. And why shouldn't they want that? Haven't we been protecting them since the end of WWII? They have grown to expect it. Sounds like a form of welfare to me. We started out to help them, but just made them dependent on us.
I am not advocating isolationism, but it certainly seems to be a good time to back off a bit.
I don't have a link handy at the moment, but I do know from personal experience that: a. we have been talking with host countries concerning downsizing and pullouts ever since the wall came down in 1989. (in the case of Germany)
b; We have already closed down numerous bases, consolidating, and in some cases re-deploying the units stateside. There seems to have been no major outcry that I have ever heard about a monumental negative impact on the local economies.
Link
In the cases of ROK and Germany, the standing military's in both nations are well equipped to deal with any threat. The caveat being that ROK would rely on US support in the event of an invasion by DPRK.
b; We have already closed down numerous bases, consolidating, and in some cases re-deploying the units stateside. There seems to have been no major outcry that I have ever heard about a monumental negative impact on the local economies.
QUOTE
The Department of Defense announced on September 12, 2002 plans for the transfer of four U.S. Army Europe facilities located in Germany back to the German government. The facilities affected are the Oberdachstetten family housing area in Ansbach, the Regensburg housing area in Regensburg, the Rheinau Coal Point D1 in Mannheim, the Johnson Barracks in Nuernberg and a portion of the Garmisch Shopping Center. These transfers continue the process of returning facilities to Germany. The last such transfer occurred in January 2001 when the Rheingrafenstein Training and Storage Area in the city of Bad Kreuznach and the Quirnheim Missile Station near Mannheim were returned to the German government. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army continually review force structure and facilities around the world to identify the most efficient means of operation. The process for reviewing and adjusting the stationing of forces has always involved close cooperation with appropriate U.S. and host nation officials.
Link
In the cases of ROK and Germany, the standing military's in both nations are well equipped to deal with any threat. The caveat being that ROK would rely on US support in the event of an invasion by DPRK.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Aug 19 2004, 10:46 AM)
It is time for host countries to step up and take over their own security needs. We have built some very nice bases, they can step in with their own troops to replace our troops that get to go home. If they don't have enough troops, they can institute a draft or require all their able bodied men to serve as the Swiss do, life long membership in the reserves.
I agree with you there, and as but as Hobbes pointed out it isn't really about defense anymore most likely.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ)
And it seems that we must have already angered many of those who are in a position to help us. They were asked to participate, they refused. Seems they want us to assume the majority of the risks in their behalf.
I disagree with that completely, these countries are angry because of the war in Iraq and it is more complicated than being unwilling to accept risks. We have numerous threads discussing that, so I won't go any further into detail here
QUOTE(Mrs. P)
The plan to pull troops out of those specific bases in Germany will take two years. The relocation of the troops in Korea is scheduled over a period of four years.
Thanks for the info, I'm just trying to think through this whole thing with incomplete information
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 19 2004, 12:58 PM)
I don't have a link handy at the moment, but I do know from personal experience that: a. we have been talking with host countries concerning downsizing and pullouts ever since the wall came down in 1989. (in the case of Germany)
b; We have already closed down numerous bases, consolidating, and in some cases re-deploying the units stateside. There seems to have been no major outcry that I have ever heard about a monumental negative impact on the local economies.
Link
In the cases of ROK and Germany, the standing military's in both nations are well equipped to deal with any threat. The caveat being that ROK would rely on US support in the event of an invasion by DPRK.
b; We have already closed down numerous bases, consolidating, and in some cases re-deploying the units stateside. There seems to have been no major outcry that I have ever heard about a monumental negative impact on the local economies.
QUOTE
The Department of Defense announced on September 12, 2002 plans for the transfer of four U.S. Army Europe facilities located in Germany back to the German government. The facilities affected are the Oberdachstetten family housing area in Ansbach, the Regensburg housing area in Regensburg, the Rheinau Coal Point D1 in Mannheim, the Johnson Barracks in Nuernberg and a portion of the Garmisch Shopping Center. These transfers continue the process of returning facilities to Germany. The last such transfer occurred in January 2001 when the Rheingrafenstein Training and Storage Area in the city of Bad Kreuznach and the Quirnheim Missile Station near Mannheim were returned to the German government. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army continually review force structure and facilities around the world to identify the most efficient means of operation. The process for reviewing and adjusting the stationing of forces has always involved close cooperation with appropriate U.S. and host nation officials.
Link
In the cases of ROK and Germany, the standing military's in both nations are well equipped to deal with any threat. The caveat being that ROK would rely on US support in the event of an invasion by DPRK.
QUOTE
I will be tenacious in the interests of the American people to get our troops home but not to do so in a way that fails our objective of a stable Iraq moving towards democracy capable of standing on its own two feet, and I know from my own experience, I know from colleagues of mine, Senator Biden, Senator Levin, you go talk to them, they've been abroad recently. They've talked with many of these leaders. They know there's a different equation available to us. This administration has failed in its diplomacy. I will not.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes...kerry_john.html
I can't swear that this is a true transcript as I am not familiar with this site, it does seem to be a Republican site though. But, that's ok.
I'm with cube on this....I like to have the whole story before I make a decision.
I can't see a flip flop either, to be quite honest.
IMO, Kerry is only saying that GWB is latching onto a bit of a plan that was already in the works to make it look like it was all his idea. I call this: dirty pool.
QUOTE
I can't swear that this is a true transcript as I am not familiar with this site, it does seem to be a Republican site though. But, that's ok.
Fair enough, but it was the only transcript for the program that I found that didn't charge for a video or paper copy to be sent to me.
QUOTE
IMO, Kerry is only saying that GWB is latching onto a bit of a plan that was already in the works to make it look like it was all his idea. I call this: dirty pool.
It's been DoD policy since early 1990. It's been the aim of every administration since Bush I. I hardly think it's fair to allege that GWB 'latched on' to this idea. The downsizing plan after the wall fell, that included rotating units home and closing bases, has not changed in it's essence. I guess Clinton 'latched on' to it as well.
It is the right move at the right time. The cold war is over boys and girls, it's time to move on. Kerry saying that we should keep troops in South Korea because North Korea has nukes doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. When he said that I actually felt embarassed for him.
Let Freedom Ring, Let the White Dove Sing
Let Freedom Ring, Let the White Dove Sing
QUOTE
My point is really that we shouldn't expect Iraq to develop democracy on our terms, and using military force to aid this foolish task is a big step backwards. Maybe it isn't the UN's responsibility. I know that there is a peaceful way to solve this mess, and it isn't by allocating 70,000 non-combat stationed troops into a combat situation that grows in intensity based on how much low-brow chest beating each side does.
Are these troops being yanked out of Europe and Asia and sent marching into Iraq? I hadn't thought so.
QUOTE
IMO, Kerry is only saying that GWB is latching onto a bit of a plan that was already in the works to make it look like it was all his idea. I call this: dirty poo
I had thought this was something the US gov/military had been discussing for many years now. It seems too that Kerry is also dirtying the pool by latching on and claiming it is a rash, unplanned and inappropriately timed military decision by Bush. He makes out as if Bush ...or even better Rove... came up with this idea on a whim.
Jaime & Bucket
I apologise if I caused any offence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hobbes = Lookin' good
Technically, America is not leaving Europe. It is only relocating some troops to other parts of Europe and reducing the numbers of troops in central Europe.
I understand and appreciate the worry about China. Perhaps it will replace the US as the worlds foremost economy? I don't know. I have a hard time accepting that China is suddenly going to develop from a nation of a billion peasants to the foremost power on the planet though. Especially given its history and tradition of seclusion from the rest of the world.
China is a potential threat, I agree, but it currently has no ability to project its political or military power outside of its own borders. It holds no territories about the planet has no former colonial contacts, is burdened by its pseudo communist system and borders up against India whose population and potential are equally large.
If China is such an economic threat, then so too, if not more so is India.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
I am not the topic in this thread. Deal with the topic at hand and not my personal opinions please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly. So if its okay for Switzerland to have a strong military to garantee its independence than why isn't it okay for the EU to do the same?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the EU has the potential to become a military threat. I said the EU is a potential economic threat, but that it will never become so unless it has true indepence of the USA.
The only way for the EU, or any other state for that matter, to have true independence, that is to say; (political independence) is for it to have its own strong military.
Also I never said AMERICANS, I said America. Meaning America the state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the UK is not subservient then kindly provide examples of incidents where the US followed a British agenda.
As for the nuclear weapons deal, Britain's entire nuclear deterent is currently entirely manufactured and provided by the USA. Not only that, but the British nuclear force is a submarine force, and the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. If Britain was truly independent of the USA it would not have its most powerful weapons given to it and looked after by the USA, or any other country.
For all the fancy words and flowers, Britain is subservient to the USA. France on the other hand is not. It maintains its own military force, builds its own weapons, ships and aircraft and has its own nuclear arsenal built by its own people.
And with regards to Northern Ireland, I was not referring to Clinton or the late 90's. I was referring to the fact that the USA allowed the IRA to collect funds for terrorist actions in the province despite the fact that the IRA were killing British service men.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amlord
I disagree. The same was once said about Vietnam. In fact, since 1945 the USA has never once entered a war where it did not have a technological advantage, but this has never yet garanteed victory.
The truth is, military presence grants political power and if the US does not have troops in a country then its threat of retribution is sensibly diminished. North Korea may take this withdrawal as a sign of weakness since it illustrates how stretched the US forces now are. On the other hand their appetite for war may be over so perhaps nothing will happen, but either way, the threat of technology is not enough to counter the sheer bulk of North Korean forces if these decide to enter South Korea.
I apologise if I caused any offence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hobbes = Lookin' good
QUOTE
Actually, Moif, I think most would say that China is the greatest potential threat to America, both economically and militarily. Since China is an emerging economy that, by the way, just happens to have 1 billion people, the possibility of it replacing the US as the world's dominant economy is quite high. I think most do not view the EU as an economic threat--rather, it creates additional opportunity (it is much easier to sell to the EU market than it is to the French market, the German market, the British market, etc.). Surely, it would have more political power, but, as everyone here seems to agree, the US is primarily concerned with economic matters. If we were more concerned about the EU as a threat in any degree, we wouldn't be pulling the troops out.
Technically, America is not leaving Europe. It is only relocating some troops to other parts of Europe and reducing the numbers of troops in central Europe.
I understand and appreciate the worry about China. Perhaps it will replace the US as the worlds foremost economy? I don't know. I have a hard time accepting that China is suddenly going to develop from a nation of a billion peasants to the foremost power on the planet though. Especially given its history and tradition of seclusion from the rest of the world.
China is a potential threat, I agree, but it currently has no ability to project its political or military power outside of its own borders. It holds no territories about the planet has no former colonial contacts, is burdened by its pseudo communist system and borders up against India whose population and potential are equally large.
If China is such an economic threat, then so too, if not more so is India.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket
QUOTE
Maybe it is just me but again your comments are very confusing and you seem to be saying many different things all at once. You claim Europe is perceived as an economic threat to the US..then you hope that the EU will match it's economic power it has with America and include military..so how is that not wanting for a military threat? Yet you claim that is not what you want you just want self defense. Huh?
I am not the topic in this thread. Deal with the topic at hand and not my personal opinions please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Switzerland..(I LOVE CH!!) is armed to the teeth..no need for American assistance to defend their nation as they got it all under control. Yet they are hardly even one to be considered a military threat to America..and at the same time I think they have a very loud booming voice on the international stage considering their size, their lack of membership in NATO, EU and only just recently UN.
Exactly. So if its okay for Switzerland to have a strong military to garantee its independence than why isn't it okay for the EU to do the same?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
I don't doubt European nation's need for self defense..and personally feel many of them already have it....FR and UK are nuclear powers for gawd sakes.
I just question the reality and need for them to ever become a rival to American forces..as your belief that Americans feel that only the EU has the potential to become a military threat..well I doubt that..it is a very small percentage of (paranoid) Americans who fear this future.
I just question the reality and need for them to ever become a rival to American forces..as your belief that Americans feel that only the EU has the potential to become a military threat..well I doubt that..it is a very small percentage of (paranoid) Americans who fear this future.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the EU has the potential to become a military threat. I said the EU is a potential economic threat, but that it will never become so unless it has true indepence of the USA.
The only way for the EU, or any other state for that matter, to have true independence, that is to say; (political independence) is for it to have its own strong military.
Also I never said AMERICANS, I said America. Meaning America the state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
The UK is not subservient. Firstly she is too a nuclear power. Secondly the UK and the US have a long history of sharing international interests and participating jointly. Iraq is not a vision of Blair's too? Please that man justifies his ME campaign far better than any American president could ever hope to.
Thirdly your history of snubbing is incorrect.. The US was there in support politically in the Falkland war and openly declared her support. As for the Suez crisis the US did feel horrible for snubbing a dear trusted ally..and in return as a please forgive me I am so sorry let's kiss and make up gift the US signed an agreement to share all nuclear weaponry knowledge with the UK.
As for Northern Ireland this became an obsession for President Clinton.
Thirdly your history of snubbing is incorrect.. The US was there in support politically in the Falkland war and openly declared her support. As for the Suez crisis the US did feel horrible for snubbing a dear trusted ally..and in return as a please forgive me I am so sorry let's kiss and make up gift the US signed an agreement to share all nuclear weaponry knowledge with the UK.
As for Northern Ireland this became an obsession for President Clinton.
If the UK is not subservient then kindly provide examples of incidents where the US followed a British agenda.
As for the nuclear weapons deal, Britain's entire nuclear deterent is currently entirely manufactured and provided by the USA. Not only that, but the British nuclear force is a submarine force, and the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. If Britain was truly independent of the USA it would not have its most powerful weapons given to it and looked after by the USA, or any other country.
For all the fancy words and flowers, Britain is subservient to the USA. France on the other hand is not. It maintains its own military force, builds its own weapons, ships and aircraft and has its own nuclear arsenal built by its own people.
And with regards to Northern Ireland, I was not referring to Clinton or the late 90's. I was referring to the fact that the USA allowed the IRA to collect funds for terrorist actions in the province despite the fact that the IRA were killing British service men.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amlord
QUOTE
The US's strength is largely based on technology, not sheer numbers. The US military could defeat North Korea's army without needing to match its numbers due to this fact.
I disagree. The same was once said about Vietnam. In fact, since 1945 the USA has never once entered a war where it did not have a technological advantage, but this has never yet garanteed victory.
The truth is, military presence grants political power and if the US does not have troops in a country then its threat of retribution is sensibly diminished. North Korea may take this withdrawal as a sign of weakness since it illustrates how stretched the US forces now are. On the other hand their appetite for war may be over so perhaps nothing will happen, but either way, the threat of technology is not enough to counter the sheer bulk of North Korean forces if these decide to enter South Korea.
Hmmm, this is not a difficult one. With the actions of France and Germany wanting to seemingly take power of the foruming Euro Union, and their current actions against the United States, I say, keep the troops there to keep France and German at bay.
The United States has to show its strength and power.
Remember the words of Ronald Reagan! "peace throught strenth"
The United States has to show its strength and power.
Remember the words of Ronald Reagan! "peace throught strenth"
QUOTE
I am not the topic in this thread. Deal with the topic at hand and not my personal opinions please.
I am sorry but...but I don't understand what you are talking about. When have I once made you the topic of the thread? And exactly how am I to debate/respond to your comments/opinions and at the same time not "deal" with your personal opinions?
QUOTE
Exactly. So if its okay for Switzerland to have a strong military to garantee its independence than why isn't it okay for the EU to do the same?
I never said it was not okay for any European nation to have a strong military defense in fact I welcome it and feel many already do. To me tho it just feels false to be comparing CH..to the EU. EU to NATO..yes.. but CH to EU...no., they are not the same..CH is but one country while the EU is a collection of states. CH having her own national defense is a lot different than a multinational defensive force. It is actually becoming a little bewildering to me how reluctant you are to mention NATO in regards to this issue. QUOTE
The only way for the EU, or any other state for that matter, to have true independence, that is to say; (political independence) is for it to have its own strong military.
And what about the independence of all the nations contained within the EU? You say this will help lead to the EU's independence..by having a defensive force..once that is.. France and the UK puts aside their own independent military needs and desires. It is not really state independence we are speaking of here is it..it is power..the only way any European nation (to some) will ever compete fairly and wholly with the US is through the EU..which in the end just becomes a new form of subservience or lack of independence.
QUOTE
If the UK is not subservient then kindly provide examples of incidents where the US followed a British agenda.
As for the nuclear weapons deal, Britain's entire nuclear deterent is currently entirely manufactured and provided by the USA. Not only that, but the British nuclear force is a submarine force, and the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. If Britain was truly independent of the USA it would not have its most powerful weapons given to it and looked after by the USA, or any other country.
For all the fancy words and flowers, Britain is subservient to the USA. France on the other hand is not. It maintains its own military force, builds its own weapons, ships and aircraft and has its own nuclear arsenal built by its own people.
And with regards to Northern Ireland, I was not referring to Clinton or the late 90's. I was referring to the fact that the USA allowed the IRA to collect funds for terrorist actions in the province despite the fact that the IRA were killing British service men.
As for the nuclear weapons deal, Britain's entire nuclear deterent is currently entirely manufactured and provided by the USA. Not only that, but the British nuclear force is a submarine force, and the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. If Britain was truly independent of the USA it would not have its most powerful weapons given to it and looked after by the USA, or any other country.
For all the fancy words and flowers, Britain is subservient to the USA. France on the other hand is not. It maintains its own military force, builds its own weapons, ships and aircraft and has its own nuclear arsenal built by its own people.
And with regards to Northern Ireland, I was not referring to Clinton or the late 90's. I was referring to the fact that the USA allowed the IRA to collect funds for terrorist actions in the province despite the fact that the IRA were killing British service men.
Whew..where to begin. First off Halliburton? What does Halliburton have to do with Nuclear weaponry? I would seriously like to see some evidence of this link...please.
Also you are again assuming that the current war in Iraq is only an American agenda..I asked once but I will ask again..don't you feel this is a joint agenda? Isn't the UK pursuing this too for her own self interests?
In regards to the nuclear force and reliance on US cooperation..yes I know I addressed this in my last post it has been an agreement the US and the UK have had since the late 1950s...BUT your wrong..France too has such agreements/cooperation with the US ..and the US believed so much in this cooperation with France they even sought essentially illegal means to provide it.
The UK and the US do maintain joint nuclear readiness under NATO..that to which France is not a military member. So yeah your right France maintains its own nuclear arsenal and has never placed it under or within a multinational force..unlike the US and unlike the UK. And yet France somehow became the spokesperson for multilateralism ..odd.
The UK does build it's nuclear capable subs tho..and it is a big big deal for them..as it was a massive project/undertaking..altho the nuclear missiles these subs carry are in fact made in the USA. But I do hope France is no longer building her nuclear missiles as it is illegal for them to do so.
Besides I have no doubt the US has had nuclear weapons under it's own military control in every NATO nation..France included. Because the US does not have just a national defensive military.
And yes.. the US has used it countless times towards what is not to be considered her own agenda...Kosovo comes to mind. How was that a US agenda and not a European one?
In regards to US support of IRA I used to have a joke in response to the idea we must bomb iraq for support of terrorism...well then we must bomb Boston too..but it was just a joke..I never meant it seriously as I never believed that America the state..not Americans as in people/individuals..supported the IRA.
I read this article in The Observer this weekend, which I tought would be an interesting contirbution to the debate.
The author visits a US garrison town in Germany which was previously a French, then a Nazi garrison. Basically it has been dependent on being a military base for at least the last 100 years, and is going to lose that soon.
I was surprised to read that the response from locals is more stoical and resigned, and even grateful, than disappointed or annoyed. The sense seems to be "well, we didn't expect them to stay this long, so we can't really complain".
So, if the intention WAS to thumb a nose to Germany in return for her opposition to the Iraq War (and I don't think that IS the intention, just an interpretation that suits the political fringes on both sides of the US election), it doesn't appear to be working.
I disagree with moif on one tangential matter - I think China (yes, and India too) will be the next big powers after the USA, and my logic is as follows.
Britain was the global superpower before last. Our preeminence started in trade and industry - we invented Industry. We had always been a trading nation, being a small island with limited resources, so we had an instant market for our new products and inventions. With all this money and invention, our military capabilities could grow, and (being of the times) our Empire grew too. Within the Empire there was a free trade zone that permitted the most efficient producers (the UK, at that time) to sell into global markets easily and profitably.
As UK living standards and wages rose, and as industrial capability spread to other countries with their own economic strengths and weaknesses, the British began to "outsource" basic production. This made sound economic sense at the time - other people could dig stuff up in larger quantities, and more cheaply, than we could. We could then concentrate on more specialist industry (secondary production - we no longer grew wool so much, but imported wool and cotton to make cloth). Then we moved to tertiary production, outsourcing more manufacturing - much of it to the USA.
Essentially, as we grew in sophistication we enabled more and more industrial capacity abroad, and closed it at home, concentrating on more and more sophisticated or service-based industries at home. This process is still underway.
Much of this "exported" industry (for want of a better expression, it wasn't really "exported") went to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They became a manufacturing world power, which then enabled them to become a military, political and cultural world power (eventually becoming the dominant one).
Already, though, much primary production has been outsourced, and now secondary manufacturing is moving to China and India at a rate of knots. China and, to a lesser extent, India are becoming the "workshops of the world" that both Britain and America were prior to their military and political preeminence.
History tends to repeat itself, and I think this is probably a GOOD thing overall. I'm not suggesting that America should try to avoid what I think is inevitable. Some Mandarin lessons might not be a terrible idea for our kids, though. (The Indians use English as their common language, so that's not a problem :-))
The author visits a US garrison town in Germany which was previously a French, then a Nazi garrison. Basically it has been dependent on being a military base for at least the last 100 years, and is going to lose that soon.
I was surprised to read that the response from locals is more stoical and resigned, and even grateful, than disappointed or annoyed. The sense seems to be "well, we didn't expect them to stay this long, so we can't really complain".
So, if the intention WAS to thumb a nose to Germany in return for her opposition to the Iraq War (and I don't think that IS the intention, just an interpretation that suits the political fringes on both sides of the US election), it doesn't appear to be working.
I disagree with moif on one tangential matter - I think China (yes, and India too) will be the next big powers after the USA, and my logic is as follows.
Britain was the global superpower before last. Our preeminence started in trade and industry - we invented Industry. We had always been a trading nation, being a small island with limited resources, so we had an instant market for our new products and inventions. With all this money and invention, our military capabilities could grow, and (being of the times) our Empire grew too. Within the Empire there was a free trade zone that permitted the most efficient producers (the UK, at that time) to sell into global markets easily and profitably.
As UK living standards and wages rose, and as industrial capability spread to other countries with their own economic strengths and weaknesses, the British began to "outsource" basic production. This made sound economic sense at the time - other people could dig stuff up in larger quantities, and more cheaply, than we could. We could then concentrate on more specialist industry (secondary production - we no longer grew wool so much, but imported wool and cotton to make cloth). Then we moved to tertiary production, outsourcing more manufacturing - much of it to the USA.
Essentially, as we grew in sophistication we enabled more and more industrial capacity abroad, and closed it at home, concentrating on more and more sophisticated or service-based industries at home. This process is still underway.
Much of this "exported" industry (for want of a better expression, it wasn't really "exported") went to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They became a manufacturing world power, which then enabled them to become a military, political and cultural world power (eventually becoming the dominant one).
Already, though, much primary production has been outsourced, and now secondary manufacturing is moving to China and India at a rate of knots. China and, to a lesser extent, India are becoming the "workshops of the world" that both Britain and America were prior to their military and political preeminence.
History tends to repeat itself, and I think this is probably a GOOD thing overall. I'm not suggesting that America should try to avoid what I think is inevitable. Some Mandarin lessons might not be a terrible idea for our kids, though. (The Indians use English as their common language, so that's not a problem :-))
Bucket
I've already answered you with regards to NATO. I have addressed your questions on the matter even though they are not a part of the thread topic.
The fact that you continue to harp on about my reluctance to mention NATO despite my having done so is you making me the topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not subservience if you have a share in the power. Then it is collaboration. The EU member states choose to join the EU because they anticipate a share in the decision making process. Something which they do not have in their relationship with the USA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again I must ask you to stop putting words in to my mouth. I said Halliburton maintained the British submarine fleet. I did not say Halliburton had anything to do with the actual nuclear weapons, though they may possibly maintain them as well for all I know.
Here is your link.
http://www.halliburton.com/gov_ops/pe0501.jsp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course the UK is making the most it can from its relationship to the USA. That goes without saying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
France is a member of NATO so why should they not advocate multilateralism?
Yes, France does have agreements with the USA, but that does not change the fact that France controls its own military industries and nuclear weapons. If this is appears to be a contradiction, then it is because France, like all nations says one thing and does another when ever it must to protect its national interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The American agenda is to ensure European military inferiority so that the EU does not become a serious threat to US economic interests. If the EU were independent of the USA then it would quickly move to counter US interests throughout the world. Since the USA cannot allow this, it has done all it can to prolong its own military superiority in Europe. Kosovo was just another example of how this strategy keeps Europe militarily (and thus politically) weak.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America the state did not care whether or not the IRA collected weapons and funds in the US to use against the British in Northrn Ireland. It made no effort to prevent the IRA from using the USA as a means of income.
editted to add
Julian
Hound!
It'll be interesting to see how things develop in the next decade or so
QUOTE
I am sorry but...but I don't understand what you are talking about. When have I once made you the topic of the thread? And exactly how am I to debate/respond to your comments/opinions and at the same time not "deal" with your personal opinions?
QUOTE
I never said it was not okay for any European nation to have a strong military defense in fact I welcome it and feel many already do. To me tho it just feels false to be comparing CH..to the EU. EU to NATO..yes.. but CH to EU...no., they are not the same..CH is but one country while the EU is a collection of states. CH having her own national defense is a lot different than a multinational defensive force. It is actually becoming a little bewildering to me how reluctant you are to mention NATO in regards to this issue.
I've already answered you with regards to NATO. I have addressed your questions on the matter even though they are not a part of the thread topic.
The fact that you continue to harp on about my reluctance to mention NATO despite my having done so is you making me the topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
And what about the independence of all the nations contained within the EU? You say this will help lead to the EU's independence..by having a defensive force..once that is.. France and the UK puts aside their own independent military needs and desires. It is not really state independence we are speaking of here is it..it is power..the only way any European nation (to some) will ever compete fairly and wholly with the US is through the EU..which in the end just becomes a new form of subservience or lack of independence.
It is not subservience if you have a share in the power. Then it is collaboration. The EU member states choose to join the EU because they anticipate a share in the decision making process. Something which they do not have in their relationship with the USA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Whew..where to begin. First off Halliburton? What does Halliburton have to do with Nuclear weaponry? I would seriously like to see some evidence of this link...please.
Once again I must ask you to stop putting words in to my mouth. I said Halliburton maintained the British submarine fleet. I did not say Halliburton had anything to do with the actual nuclear weapons, though they may possibly maintain them as well for all I know.
Here is your link.
http://www.halliburton.com/gov_ops/pe0501.jsp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Also you are again assuming that the current war in Iraq is only an American agenda..I asked once but I will ask again..don't you feel this is a joint agenda? Isn't the UK pursuing this too for her own self interests?
Of course the UK is making the most it can from its relationship to the USA. That goes without saying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
In regards to the nuclear force and reliance on US cooperation..yes I know I addressed this in my last post it has been an agreement the US and the UK have had since the late 1950s...BUT your wrong..France too has such agreements/cooperation with the US ..and the US believed so much in this cooperation with France they even sought essentially illegal means to provide it.
The UK and the US do maintain joint nuclear readiness under NATO..that to which France is not a military member. So yeah your right France maintains its own nuclear arsenal and has never placed it under or within a multinational force..unlike the US and unlike the UK. And yet France somehow became the spokesperson for multilateralism ..odd.
The UK and the US do maintain joint nuclear readiness under NATO..that to which France is not a military member. So yeah your right France maintains its own nuclear arsenal and has never placed it under or within a multinational force..unlike the US and unlike the UK. And yet France somehow became the spokesperson for multilateralism ..odd.
France is a member of NATO so why should they not advocate multilateralism?
Yes, France does have agreements with the USA, but that does not change the fact that France controls its own military industries and nuclear weapons. If this is appears to be a contradiction, then it is because France, like all nations says one thing and does another when ever it must to protect its national interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
Kosovo comes to mind. How was that a US agenda and not a European one?
The American agenda is to ensure European military inferiority so that the EU does not become a serious threat to US economic interests. If the EU were independent of the USA then it would quickly move to counter US interests throughout the world. Since the USA cannot allow this, it has done all it can to prolong its own military superiority in Europe. Kosovo was just another example of how this strategy keeps Europe militarily (and thus politically) weak.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE
In regards to US support of IRA I used to have a joke in response to the idea we must bomb iraq for support of terrorism...well then we must bomb Boston too..but it was just a joke..I never meant it seriously as I never believed that America the state..not Americans as in people/individuals..supported the IRA.
America the state did not care whether or not the IRA collected weapons and funds in the US to use against the British in Northrn Ireland. It made no effort to prevent the IRA from using the USA as a means of income.
editted to add
Julian
QUOTE
I disagree with moif on one tangential matter - I think China (yes, and India too) will be the next big powers after the USA, and my logic is as follows.
Hound!
It'll be interesting to see how things develop in the next decade or so
The American agenda is to ensure European military inferiority so that the EU does not become a serious threat to US economic interests. If the EU were independent of the USA then it would quickly move to counter US interests throughout the world. Since the USA cannot allow this, it has done all it can to prolong its own military superiority in Europe. Kosovo was just another example of how this strategy keeps Europe militarily (and thus politically) weak.
What? Guess I am completely off base if this is true. I always thought we shared intelligence, weaponry technology, etc. with our EU allies. Granted, we always hold back a little, that is normal.
I believe the REAL reason that the EU has not yet become a great economic power that can compete with the USA is that they are still a bunch of squabbling siblings with festering grudges over past wars. If they ever decide to actually cooperate with each other politically and economically, and put their past where it belongs (in the past) they might just become an economic super power. Forming the EU is a start, but many changes still need to be made within each country.
There are still a lot of places in Europe where the average person will probably NEVER own property. That one point alone is a major driving force in American economics.
What? Guess I am completely off base if this is true. I always thought we shared intelligence, weaponry technology, etc. with our EU allies. Granted, we always hold back a little, that is normal.
I believe the REAL reason that the EU has not yet become a great economic power that can compete with the USA is that they are still a bunch of squabbling siblings with festering grudges over past wars. If they ever decide to actually cooperate with each other politically and economically, and put their past where it belongs (in the past) they might just become an economic super power. Forming the EU is a start, but many changes still need to be made within each country.
There are still a lot of places in Europe where the average person will probably NEVER own property. That one point alone is a major driving force in American economics.
Bill55AZ
Just as was formerly the case with the USSR.
The EU is already a great economic power.
Also, please note that I did not say that the USA was the reason why the EU is not more powerful than it is. I am merely pointing out that the USA does what ever it can to assure its dominant position.
I have to make that distinction, but otherwise I agree with you. It is the divisions within the EU which keep it weak.
And, I think also individual Americans seem to be better at investing their money in companies where as Europeans seem content to pay high taxes.
QUOTE
What? Guess I am completely off base if this is true. I always thought we shared intelligence, weaponry technology, etc. with our EU allies. Granted, we always hold back a little, that is normal.
Just as was formerly the case with the USSR.
QUOTE
I believe the REAL reason that the EU has not yet become a great economic power that can compete with the USA is that they are still a bunch of squabbling siblings with festering grudges over past wars. If they ever decide to actually cooperate with each other politically and economically, and put their past where it belongs (in the past) they might just become an economic super power. Forming the EU is a start, but many changes still need to be made within each country.
The EU is already a great economic power.
Also, please note that I did not say that the USA was the reason why the EU is not more powerful than it is. I am merely pointing out that the USA does what ever it can to assure its dominant position.
I have to make that distinction, but otherwise I agree with you. It is the divisions within the EU which keep it weak.
QUOTE
There are still a lot of places in Europe where the average person will probably NEVER own property. That one point alone is a major driving force in American economics.
And, I think also individual Americans seem to be better at investing their money in companies where as Europeans seem content to pay high taxes.
Moif...no you did not address or answer any of my questions on NATO. I gave up. How am I not focusing on the topic but somehow you are? NATO is an actual real multinational force who is currently the military defense of Europe as a whole..the EU is not. So how is focusing on the EU's non existent military force and ignoring how this move of troops will effect NATO somehow more on topic?
No that is your personal opinion. Hate to bring up NATO again..but what about NATO? How is NATO not a collaboration..how are other states not a part of the decision making process in NATO? And when did NATO become so meaningless in the interrelations of US and European nations on military matters?
And it will be subservience..unquestionably! And member states will be asked to put aside their own interests and independence...UK being that her nuclear readiness is intertwined with the US and NATO..what will the EU demand of the UK? Will the UK have to forfeit these nuclear agreements and cooperations in order to better serve the EU agenda?
Once again I must ask you to stop putting words in to my mouth. I said Halliburton maintained the British submarine fleet. I did not say Halliburton had anything to do with the actual nuclear weapons, though they may possibly maintain them as well for all I know.
Here is your link.
Thanks..but that is Davenport..the UK's nuclear submarines Vanguard are not housed there..their homeport is in Faslane, Scotland. It is in the news allllll the time..as it is always being protested.
France is a member of NATO so why should they not advocate multilateralism?
Yes, France does have agreements with the USA, but that does not change the fact that France controls its own military industries and nuclear weapons. If this is appears to be a contradiction, then it is because France, like all nations says one thing and does another when ever it must to protect its national interests.
France is not a military member of NATO and hasn't been one since the 1960s. I think that is pretty significant being NATO is a military force...and the ONLY multinational defensive force in Europe. It's a wee bit hypocritical for them to tell others about the need for military actions to be multilateral.
France has collaborated, shared nuclear information, research and designs with America. France now has essentially the same level of nuclear information agreement as the UK does. You used this as an example to show Britain's subservience..but that is not the case with France? Why? IF Europe and even more specifically France is seen as such a threat to American interests why do we have these agreements with our enemies? Sharing nuclear information with enemies? That is truly bizarre.
The American agenda is to ensure European military inferiority so that the EU does not become a serious threat to US economic interests. If the EU were independent of the USA then it would quickly move to counter US interests throughout the world. Since the USA cannot allow this, it has done all it can to prolong its own military superiority in Europe. Kosovo was just another example of how this strategy keeps Europe militarily (and thus politically) weak.
The only reason the US headed the NATO invasion was because European nations are among her greatest and most valued allies and it is her commitment under NATO.
NATO is not an American only agenda..and it's agenda is not to weaken Europe's defense. Are you now claiming Europe's military had no role in Kosovo..and that this was more a focus of America's own interests..not Europe's? This was not the US versus the EU..this was NATO where we all sit together.
QUOTE
It is not subservience if you have a share in the power. Then it is collaboration. The EU member states choose to join the EU because they anticipate a share in the decision making process. Something which they do not have in their relationship with the USA.
No that is your personal opinion. Hate to bring up NATO again..but what about NATO? How is NATO not a collaboration..how are other states not a part of the decision making process in NATO? And when did NATO become so meaningless in the interrelations of US and European nations on military matters?
And it will be subservience..unquestionably! And member states will be asked to put aside their own interests and independence...UK being that her nuclear readiness is intertwined with the US and NATO..what will the EU demand of the UK? Will the UK have to forfeit these nuclear agreements and cooperations in order to better serve the EU agenda?
QUOTE
Once again I must ask you to stop putting words in to my mouth. I said Halliburton maintained the British submarine fleet. I did not say Halliburton had anything to do with the actual nuclear weapons, though they may possibly maintain them as well for all I know.
Here is your link.
Thanks..but that is Davenport..the UK's nuclear submarines Vanguard are not housed there..their homeport is in Faslane, Scotland. It is in the news allllll the time..as it is always being protested.
QUOTE
France is a member of NATO so why should they not advocate multilateralism?
Yes, France does have agreements with the USA, but that does not change the fact that France controls its own military industries and nuclear weapons. If this is appears to be a contradiction, then it is because France, like all nations says one thing and does another when ever it must to protect its national interests.
France is not a military member of NATO and hasn't been one since the 1960s. I think that is pretty significant being NATO is a military force...and the ONLY multinational defensive force in Europe. It's a wee bit hypocritical for them to tell others about the need for military actions to be multilateral.
France has collaborated, shared nuclear information, research and designs with America. France now has essentially the same level of nuclear information agreement as the UK does. You used this as an example to show Britain's subservience..but that is not the case with France? Why? IF Europe and even more specifically France is seen as such a threat to American interests why do we have these agreements with our enemies? Sharing nuclear information with enemies? That is truly bizarre.
QUOTE
The American agenda is to ensure European military inferiority so that the EU does not become a serious threat to US economic interests. If the EU were independent of the USA then it would quickly move to counter US interests throughout the world. Since the USA cannot allow this, it has done all it can to prolong its own military superiority in Europe. Kosovo was just another example of how this strategy keeps Europe militarily (and thus politically) weak.
The only reason the US headed the NATO invasion was because European nations are among her greatest and most valued allies and it is her commitment under NATO.
NATO is not an American only agenda..and it's agenda is not to weaken Europe's defense. Are you now claiming Europe's military had no role in Kosovo..and that this was more a focus of America's own interests..not Europe's? This was not the US versus the EU..this was NATO where we all sit together.
Bucket
[quote]Moif...no you did not address or answer any of my questions on NATO. [/quote]
Alright. This is the last time I am going to repeat this. In response to your post asking;
[quote]BUCKET: Although I do find it interesting the focus on American troops ...what about Britain's?[/quote]
I responded thus;
[quote]MOIF: Why is that interesting? British troops are not the same as American troops since Great Britain is a member of the EU, as is Germany. In this case the focus is on US bases because America currently dominates global politics and is in the the process of redistributing its resources to meet existing demands. [/quote]
AMERICA IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE EU. BRITAIN IS.
NATO membership has nothing to do it. The difference I was pointing out between Britain and the USA in this matter is that Britain is a member of the EU and America is not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]No that is your personal opinion. Hate to bring up NATO again..but what about NATO? How is NATO not a collaboration..how are other states not a part of the decision making process in NATO? And when did NATO become so meaningless in the interrelations of US and European nations on military matters? [/quote]
NATO ceased to have any meaning when the Soviet Union collapsed.
That it remains in place, begs the question; What is NATO's purpose?
NATO is, and always was a way for the United States to guard its territorial acquisitions after the second world war. The Soviets did the same thing with their Warsaw pact. Europe was divided by two powers, both of whom used their alliances to their own purposes. NATO is a political tool by which the USA told the western Europeans what to do in return for protection against the Soviets.
Only the French, geographically safe behind NATO's front line could not be brought into line by fear of the Soviet Union.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And it will be subservience..unquestionably! And member states will be asked to put aside their own interests and independence...UK being that her nuclear readiness is intertwined with the US and NATO..what will the EU demand of the UK? Will the UK have to forfeit these nuclear agreements and cooperations in order to better serve the EU agenda? [/quote]
Why is it unquestionably? Do you characterize the relationship between American's states as one of subservience to the US federal government?
The UK will be a party to the decision making process. Britain, like all other European nations will be democratically represented in the EU. This is whare the difference lies for no matter how close you think Britain is to the USA, it is not, nor ever will be democratically represented in the US state apparatus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Thanks..but that is Davenport..the UK's nuclear submarines Vanguard are not housed there..their homeport is in Faslane, Scotland. It is in the news allllll the time..as it is always being protested. [/quote]
AS I WROTE:
[quote]the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. [/quote]
If you read the link I provided it staes quite clearly:
[quote]Devonport Royal Dockyard, the UK's major warship and submarine support site.[/quote]
My empthasis.
And from Davenports own website (the link to which can be found at the bottom of the Halliburton site)
[quote]Plant Managers are appointed to cover 9 dock, the Submarine Refit Complex (SRC), 10 Dock, 5 Basin and specialist services. They are responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of the facilities and the safe prescription of all nuclear and radiological work.[/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]France is not a military member of NATO and hasn't been one since the 1960s. I think that is pretty significant being NATO is a military force...and the ONLY multinational defensive force in Europe. It's a wee bit hypocritical for them to tell others about the need for military actions to be multilateral. [/quote]
NATO is not a military force. It is a political union as can be clearly seen by the fact that France is a non military member.
As for hypocrisy. ALL states are hypocritical. Even the USA. After all how can the USA claim to be bringing democracy to Iraq when its own president lost the election and was placed on the throne by a select few?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]France has collaborated, shared nuclear information, research and designs with America. France now has essentially the same level of nuclear information agreement as the UK does. You used this as an example to show Britain's subservience..but that is not the case with France? Why? [/quote]
Because France controls its own nuclear arsenal and more importantly can do what it likes with it. This was clearly demonstrated when France gave its nuclear tech to Israel despite US wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]IF Europe and even more specifically France is seen as such a threat to American interests why do we have these agreements with our enemies? Sharing nuclear information with enemies? That is truly bizarre. [/quote]
Because by collaboration you can control.
The fact that two states are in competetion does not mean that they will not co-operate when it is in their best interests to do so. Britain and France have been in competition since the fall of the Roman Empire, but that did not stop them from uniting to prevent Germany from gaining the upper hand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]The only reason the US headed the NATO invasion was because European nations are among her greatest and most valued allies and it is her commitment under NATO. [/quote]
I disagree. NATO was set up to protect its member states from attack and Kosovo was never a NATO member state.
I believe the reason why America intervened (I'm not sure invasion is the right word either) in Kosovo is because it was forced to in order to protect its position as the dominant military power in Europe. It was certainly not to protect Europe since Kosovo posed no threat to any European member state of NATO.
And neither was it for any reasons of humanity, since the USA did nothing to stop similar ethnic cleansing from taking place in Africa.
Some people have pointed out that Kosovo has uranium mines and the control of these was the motivating factor for the USA, but I am unable to document this so I am not sure if it is correct or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO is not an American only agenda..and it's agenda is not to weaken Europe's defense. [/quote]
I never said NATO's agenda was to weaken Europe's defence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Are you now claiming Europe's military had no role in Kosovo.. [/quote]
...and I am not claiming any such thing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]This was not the US versus the EU..this was NATO where we all sit together. [/quote]
You can believe that if you wish. Thats your right.
I don't believe for one moment that the USA would spend a single dollar on Europe unless it were obliged to do so to maintain its global position of dominance.
[quote]Moif...no you did not address or answer any of my questions on NATO. [/quote]
Alright. This is the last time I am going to repeat this. In response to your post asking;
[quote]BUCKET: Although I do find it interesting the focus on American troops ...what about Britain's?[/quote]
I responded thus;
[quote]MOIF: Why is that interesting? British troops are not the same as American troops since Great Britain is a member of the EU, as is Germany. In this case the focus is on US bases because America currently dominates global politics and is in the the process of redistributing its resources to meet existing demands. [/quote]
AMERICA IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE EU. BRITAIN IS.
NATO membership has nothing to do it. The difference I was pointing out between Britain and the USA in this matter is that Britain is a member of the EU and America is not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]No that is your personal opinion. Hate to bring up NATO again..but what about NATO? How is NATO not a collaboration..how are other states not a part of the decision making process in NATO? And when did NATO become so meaningless in the interrelations of US and European nations on military matters? [/quote]
NATO ceased to have any meaning when the Soviet Union collapsed.
That it remains in place, begs the question; What is NATO's purpose?
NATO is, and always was a way for the United States to guard its territorial acquisitions after the second world war. The Soviets did the same thing with their Warsaw pact. Europe was divided by two powers, both of whom used their alliances to their own purposes. NATO is a political tool by which the USA told the western Europeans what to do in return for protection against the Soviets.
Only the French, geographically safe behind NATO's front line could not be brought into line by fear of the Soviet Union.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And it will be subservience..unquestionably! And member states will be asked to put aside their own interests and independence...UK being that her nuclear readiness is intertwined with the US and NATO..what will the EU demand of the UK? Will the UK have to forfeit these nuclear agreements and cooperations in order to better serve the EU agenda? [/quote]
Why is it unquestionably? Do you characterize the relationship between American's states as one of subservience to the US federal government?
The UK will be a party to the decision making process. Britain, like all other European nations will be democratically represented in the EU. This is whare the difference lies for no matter how close you think Britain is to the USA, it is not, nor ever will be democratically represented in the US state apparatus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Thanks..but that is Davenport..the UK's nuclear submarines Vanguard are not housed there..their homeport is in Faslane, Scotland. It is in the news allllll the time..as it is always being protested. [/quote]
AS I WROTE:
[quote]the British submarine fleet is maintained by none other than Haliburton, which is an American corporation. [/quote]
If you read the link I provided it staes quite clearly:
[quote]Devonport Royal Dockyard, the UK's major warship and submarine support site.[/quote]
My empthasis.
And from Davenports own website (the link to which can be found at the bottom of the Halliburton site)
[quote]Plant Managers are appointed to cover 9 dock, the Submarine Refit Complex (SRC), 10 Dock, 5 Basin and specialist services. They are responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of the facilities and the safe prescription of all nuclear and radiological work.[/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]France is not a military member of NATO and hasn't been one since the 1960s. I think that is pretty significant being NATO is a military force...and the ONLY multinational defensive force in Europe. It's a wee bit hypocritical for them to tell others about the need for military actions to be multilateral. [/quote]
NATO is not a military force. It is a political union as can be clearly seen by the fact that France is a non military member.
As for hypocrisy. ALL states are hypocritical. Even the USA. After all how can the USA claim to be bringing democracy to Iraq when its own president lost the election and was placed on the throne by a select few?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]France has collaborated, shared nuclear information, research and designs with America. France now has essentially the same level of nuclear information agreement as the UK does. You used this as an example to show Britain's subservience..but that is not the case with France? Why? [/quote]
Because France controls its own nuclear arsenal and more importantly can do what it likes with it. This was clearly demonstrated when France gave its nuclear tech to Israel despite US wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]IF Europe and even more specifically France is seen as such a threat to American interests why do we have these agreements with our enemies? Sharing nuclear information with enemies? That is truly bizarre. [/quote]
Because by collaboration you can control.
The fact that two states are in competetion does not mean that they will not co-operate when it is in their best interests to do so. Britain and France have been in competition since the fall of the Roman Empire, but that did not stop them from uniting to prevent Germany from gaining the upper hand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]The only reason the US headed the NATO invasion was because European nations are among her greatest and most valued allies and it is her commitment under NATO. [/quote]
I disagree. NATO was set up to protect its member states from attack and Kosovo was never a NATO member state.
I believe the reason why America intervened (I'm not sure invasion is the right word either) in Kosovo is because it was forced to in order to protect its position as the dominant military power in Europe. It was certainly not to protect Europe since Kosovo posed no threat to any European member state of NATO.
And neither was it for any reasons of humanity, since the USA did nothing to stop similar ethnic cleansing from taking place in Africa.
Some people have pointed out that Kosovo has uranium mines and the control of these was the motivating factor for the USA, but I am unable to document this so I am not sure if it is correct or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO is not an American only agenda..and it's agenda is not to weaken Europe's defense. [/quote]
I never said NATO's agenda was to weaken Europe's defence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Are you now claiming Europe's military had no role in Kosovo.. [/quote]
...and I am not claiming any such thing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]This was not the US versus the EU..this was NATO where we all sit together. [/quote]
You can believe that if you wish. Thats your right.
I don't believe for one moment that the USA would spend a single dollar on Europe unless it were obliged to do so to maintain its global position of dominance.
QUOTE
NATO is, and always was a way for the United States to guard its territorial acquisitions after the second world war.
I'm sorry, I'm missing something here--which territorial acquisitions? The US hasn't had any territorial acquisitions of this type since, well, ever. If you're claiming the US used Europe as a 'territorial acquisition' post WWII--then I think you are misreading the situation significantly. NATO was set up to counteract the Warsaw Pact--but moreso for the interest of Europe. Basically, it bound the US to defend Europe in the face of a Soviet invasion--removing any doubt about our response. The purpose of this was to reduce the chance of that invasion happening. Were other US interests involved? Certainly--they always are in international negotiations or agreements. But to say that this elevated to the level of 'territorial acquisitions' is missing the boat by a huge margin--although that perception does do much to explain some of the anti US sentiment discussed in other threads. However, it flies in the face of facts, as explained by Colin Powell:
QUOTE
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in.
QUOTE
I believe the reason why America intervened (I'm not sure invasion is the right word either) in Kosovo is because it was forced to in order to protect its position as the dominant military power in Europe. It was certainly not to protect Europe since Kosovo posed no threat to any European member state of NATO.
Again, I think you are misreading the situation. The US begged Europe to get involved--we had no interest in doing so. It was only in the face of European refusal to act, and their insistence that we do so, that we became involved. Did we have some personal motivation beyond that? Surely...but much of that was due to perceptions created by Europe's refusal to act, essentially putting the onus on us. Even if I grant that we are trying to maintain a dominant military position in Europe (which I disagree with)--how exactly is picking on a little country like Kosovo, without even inserting any ground troops, necessary to maintain that dominance? If Europe's military were so degraded that such an act carries the significance you assign to it, then the act itself would be completely unnecessary, as our dominance would already be completely self-evident and would require no such action to demonstrate.
QUOTE
I don't believe for one moment that the USA would spend a single dollar on Europe unless it were obliged to do so to maintain its global position of dominance.
All I can say is that it is sad that you think so, given the history of our commitment and the effort we spent to rebuild Europe.
...although there may be some truth to the sentiment currently, simply because the need to spend any money there, given the relative health of the countries there, is non-existant. But to assign the feeling you do to our past efforts is sad, and does much to prove the point in the many anti US threads that the US is vastly misunderstood around the world--sometimes particularly so in countries we have done the most for.
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 24 2004, 11:41 AM)
NATO is, and always was a way for the United States to guard its territorial acquisitions after the second world war.
Moif, i've aslways respected your opinions, but this one, i have to ask what the hell are you talking about? The US has NO territories in Europe. NATO was to protect the countries on the western side of the Berlin Wall from Soviet agression.
Hobbes
I once thought as you. If I had had to describe the situation a few years ago then I would have written much the same post as you just did. But I have been forced to look again at what I once took for granted. Since 11th September 2001 the United States has shown a very different aspect of its character than the accepted post second world war perception. My change of heart came when I heard GW Bush say, 'you are either with us or against us'. For, until that point I had always assumed that Europe and America were as one in all regards and NATO was the seal that garanteed this. I did not understand how we in Europe could suddenly be placed in the same catagory as the rest of the world. After 11 September, Europe was in shock. We held memorials and our leaders pledged support to the USA, but what we received in return was not the open embrace of a brother, but the distant appraisal of a hostile neighbour. At first I was confused. I started to debate politics online in order to understand the world and I began to take note of how events were managed and how they mirrored history. I also began to read more literature on the nature of power itself. One book I found very interesting is 'The Prince' by Niccolo Machivelli.
Now I see NATO, and the USA in a very different light.
I do not use the words 'territorial acquisitions' lightly. I believe the USA maintains an empire without any formal claims and with few legal ties to the territories it holds in order to avoid the accusations of empire which in the modern age would incite resentment and weaken its holdings. Instead it maintains direct influence upon its territories by means of political and military pressure. I believe NATO was founded so the USA could consolidate its hold over western Europe not just to defend western Europe, but to lock western Europe to America's agenda.
There is a principle that states in order to hold territory you have to have the military capability to defend it. It is for this reason for example that Denmark patrols much of Greenland despite the fact that it is a vast barren wasteland of interest to no one.
In the same way I believe the USA was obliged to defend western Europe lest it fall into the hands of the Soviet Union and become a threat to America. I do not believe that the USA has ever been interested in maintaining the European nations as independent political entities. It should be recalled that the USA only actually came to Europe in the first place because Germany declared war on the USA and not through any urge to save Europe.
Had Germany not declared war on the USA, and in the light of America's willingness to deal with such people as the Saudi Royal family, Agusto Pinochet, (even Stalin himself) when ever it is in America's best interests to do so, I believe that the USA would gladly have done business with nazi Germany if Hitler had not thrown down the gauntlet. As it was Hitler gave the USA the perfect opportunity to come to Europe and remove both Britain and France from the international stage. Both nations had extensive post colonial holdings and responsibilities through out the world and American basically inherited these in return for liberation from the nazi's and salvation from the Soviet menace. Vietnam is a perfect example of how the USA replaced France as the post colonial power in the region.
That America claims no actual land for its empire is a legally technicality. It has the military muscle in place to safe guard its aquisitions and can use these and the further threat of reinforcements to maintain its dominance. This means that in fact it maintains an empire in all but name.
Like the Romans however, the US 'legions' are not omnipotent, and so they must be placed with great care in order to do most good for America. It is no accident there fore that the US maintains military installations in central Europe today. Rammstein AFB is still used as a staging post for military operations.
The US troops which will leave Europe do not represent a US pull out of Europe. America will continue to maintain a military presence, (Rammstein will probably remain in place) the USA has simply moved its 'legions' to the new frontier in order to consolidate its power over the newly aquired European territory whilst meeting its obligations else where.
I once thought as you. If I had had to describe the situation a few years ago then I would have written much the same post as you just did. But I have been forced to look again at what I once took for granted. Since 11th September 2001 the United States has shown a very different aspect of its character than the accepted post second world war perception. My change of heart came when I heard GW Bush say, 'you are either with us or against us'. For, until that point I had always assumed that Europe and America were as one in all regards and NATO was the seal that garanteed this. I did not understand how we in Europe could suddenly be placed in the same catagory as the rest of the world. After 11 September, Europe was in shock. We held memorials and our leaders pledged support to the USA, but what we received in return was not the open embrace of a brother, but the distant appraisal of a hostile neighbour. At first I was confused. I started to debate politics online in order to understand the world and I began to take note of how events were managed and how they mirrored history. I also began to read more literature on the nature of power itself. One book I found very interesting is 'The Prince' by Niccolo Machivelli.
Now I see NATO, and the USA in a very different light.
I do not use the words 'territorial acquisitions' lightly. I believe the USA maintains an empire without any formal claims and with few legal ties to the territories it holds in order to avoid the accusations of empire which in the modern age would incite resentment and weaken its holdings. Instead it maintains direct influence upon its territories by means of political and military pressure. I believe NATO was founded so the USA could consolidate its hold over western Europe not just to defend western Europe, but to lock western Europe to America's agenda.
There is a principle that states in order to hold territory you have to have the military capability to defend it. It is for this reason for example that Denmark patrols much of Greenland despite the fact that it is a vast barren wasteland of interest to no one.
In the same way I believe the USA was obliged to defend western Europe lest it fall into the hands of the Soviet Union and become a threat to America. I do not believe that the USA has ever been interested in maintaining the European nations as independent political entities. It should be recalled that the USA only actually came to Europe in the first place because Germany declared war on the USA and not through any urge to save Europe.
Had Germany not declared war on the USA, and in the light of America's willingness to deal with such people as the Saudi Royal family, Agusto Pinochet, (even Stalin himself) when ever it is in America's best interests to do so, I believe that the USA would gladly have done business with nazi Germany if Hitler had not thrown down the gauntlet. As it was Hitler gave the USA the perfect opportunity to come to Europe and remove both Britain and France from the international stage. Both nations had extensive post colonial holdings and responsibilities through out the world and American basically inherited these in return for liberation from the nazi's and salvation from the Soviet menace. Vietnam is a perfect example of how the USA replaced France as the post colonial power in the region.
That America claims no actual land for its empire is a legally technicality. It has the military muscle in place to safe guard its aquisitions and can use these and the further threat of reinforcements to maintain its dominance. This means that in fact it maintains an empire in all but name.
Like the Romans however, the US 'legions' are not omnipotent, and so they must be placed with great care in order to do most good for America. It is no accident there fore that the US maintains military installations in central Europe today. Rammstein AFB is still used as a staging post for military operations.
The US troops which will leave Europe do not represent a US pull out of Europe. America will continue to maintain a military presence, (Rammstein will probably remain in place) the USA has simply moved its 'legions' to the new frontier in order to consolidate its power over the newly aquired European territory whilst meeting its obligations else where.
QUOTE
I do not use the words 'territorial acquisitions' lightly. I believe the USA maintains an empire without any formal claims and with few legal ties to the territories it holds in order to avoid the accusations of empire which in the modern age would incite resentment and weaken its holdings. Instead it maintains direct influence upon its territories by means of political and military pressure. I believe NATO was founded so the USA could consolidate its hold over western Europe not just to defend western Europe, but to lock western Europe to America's agenda.
Moif,
I belief the 'truth' is probably somewhere in between. I am not naive enough to think that everything the US does is altruistic--surely there is almost always some self-interest at heart (in fact, the US did do much business with Nazi Germany up until they declared war). I will also freely admit that after WWII, and during the Cold War, we probably did try to control many countries much as you describe--as much for self interest as for their benefit. However, I think that post Cold War, it has been much more altruistic than empire-building. I think it is the basic stance in the US government that free countries will benefit us--without our having to influence them very much at all. Which brings me to:
QUOTE
I do not believe that the USA has ever been interested in maintaining the European nations as independent political entities.
I think we have, as much for self-interest as for anything else. Mainly because exerting control is expensive--and therefore not in our interests. Economically, the EU is not viewed as a large competitor--it is more likely viewed as a large market. Therefore, a successful EU is an asset to us, not a liability (because, being Americans, we naturally assume we'll win any economic competition
). Also, I don't think we view the EU as a military threat to us at all--there really isn't any reason to think otherwise. Now, we might be 'flexing our muscles' a bit now to reinforce that fact that, as the EU grows stronger both economically and politically, we will not allow that fact to restrict our ability to act in our national interests. But I don't think we view the EU as any form of threat. China, on the other hand, has the capability to be both an economic and a military threat. Therefore, I don't doubt that we employ some of the strategies there that we may have earlier in other parts of the world--the very strategies I think you are alluding to. I also don't doubt that there are segments within our government that do think much as you submit, and that they do have some influence--always have, probably always will. But, there are also elements within our government that believe in the purely altruistic strategies and policies as well--which tends to balance out, somewhat, the other groups. So, it seems, we probably just differ in matters of degree. QUOTE
For, until that point I had always assumed that Europe and America were as one in all regards and NATO was the seal that garanteed this. I did not understand how we in Europe could suddenly be placed in the same catagory as the rest of the world.
I don't think Europe was placed that far down the ladder, but I will agree that it was also probably not viewed as one in all regards, either. The US stance on NATO, in particular, had been changing for the last decade or so--as has been discussed elsewhere, the need for it really didn't exist anymore. So, it had been increasingly viewed as an unnecessary burden, and one that potentially restricting our ability to respond elsewhere. The events of 9-11 probably just sped that process up.
So, what I think I'm trying to point out is that while your prior view might have been too rosy, IMHO the pendulum seems to have swung too far back ('course, as the saying goes, you're not being paranoid if everyone really is out to get you!).
This certainly seems like one of those conversations best carried on all night, over several pints. Who knows--maybe I'll be in Europe some time, and we can do just that, eh?
I've always wanted to read 'The Prince', but never have gotten around to it--I'll bump it up my reading list. Who knows--maybe, afterwards, I'll come closer to your viewpoint. Stranger things have happened (I've even agreed with Wertz, and on several occasions, no less!
)
moif...
Halliburton does not maintain UK's nuclear submarine fleet. As I already said the Vanguard ..which is the British submarine that is designed to carry NUCLEAR WEAPONS ..and was in fact designed and built in the UK.. is housed in Faslane Scotland. I know this to be true...as it is controversial and in the news on and off.
I am not a military enthusiast..but I am quite certain that all submarines nowadays are in fact nuclear powered and that is what I believe the reference you have quoted is in fact referring to. I am also completely certain that the UK does in fact own other submarines besides just nuclear armed submarines.
Information on Vanguard.
Also I asked many questions about NATO not just the one you chose to quote. And NATO has nothing to do with it? NATO has nothing to do with American or British forces in Germany? Yet the EU does. No worries...again I am just going to give up.
You honestly believe the Warsaw pact is the same as NATO and that what the Soviets did post WWII is also the same as what America did in regards to Western Europe? How can you make such claims? Just look at Germany (western) France, Uk, Italy, Norway etc...then take a look at the Warsaw pact's ex-members..Poland..Hungary..Romania. Just compare the two groups and I think it is quite obvious the same things were NOT being done.
NATO is not a military force? What is it then? It's sole purpose is defense..it is NATO's agenda ..her purpose of being....
NATO has no meaning? Go tell that to Mr Milosevic. Your right tho there are some in Europe who do feel NATO should have no meaning and should not be the dominant military force in Europe. As was the example in what happened after 9/11...being a member of NATO you pledge to view all attacks on one NATO member as being an attack on all NATO members...and none of the other NATO members viewed it as such....their inability to fulfill their pledged commitment to Afghanistan is a sorry and very sad manifestation of this. So for all the vigils and flowers lain at American embassies..there are still a few European nations who have not supported America like they promised to do.
Kosovo..America intervened for some crummy uranium mines? And Europe never felt threatened? It was NATO that this war was waged by moif..not America..NATO. As I said America led it..as she must as she is the only nation capable...and I am not saying that in a descending manner..it is just reality.
Look Europe learnt her lesson ..it took two wars...but it did finally sink in.
You don't just sit idly by and watch the Balkans erupt in civil war...because it will not remain contained. Not to mention several of NATO's member states are just a little too close to comfort or have too much shared history. And I know how unpopular immigrants (refugees) are..especially true from that region.
Greece and Hungary just happened to be direct neighbors to this new incarnation of the Balkan war..don't you think they may have perhaps brought the issue up in Brussels? Turkey and Italy..just a wee bit away from it all..I think they would support this concern in Brussels too.
Look I lived in Europe at the time of this war and Europe was worried and did feel threatened and NATOs actions were welcomed by many. Yet your right it was a preemptive action...one that funny enough did not get the same angered reaction as the Iraq war 2003.
But hey..you are a fan of the EU so why not take their word for it? As the EU was then and still is very much concerned with the stability of Europe.
source
As for all the territorial acquisitions stuff...not surprised you got a reaction from a few here on that one. Yes any nation has agendas and political desires they wish to influence others with or persuade in favor of. I don't for one moment feel Europe is the victim in this little game either...not for one moment.
And again I lived in Europe and I know what happened after 9/11..I know what was said to me or my friends and family. There never was....9/11 or not..blind devotion to America's needs.There never will be. Europe did not feel one way..or one emotion..why are you simplifying and washing over it like this..that is dishonest. I had all kinds of reactions as did every other European.
I am curious tho I would like to engage any of the American posters
Do you feel this movement of troops is the US wishing to distance herself from NATO? Or to further place NATOs control in Eastern Europe? Do you hope for NATO to become meaningless? Or do you feel America should remain committed to NATO?
Halliburton does not maintain UK's nuclear submarine fleet. As I already said the Vanguard ..which is the British submarine that is designed to carry NUCLEAR WEAPONS ..and was in fact designed and built in the UK.. is housed in Faslane Scotland. I know this to be true...as it is controversial and in the news on and off.
I am not a military enthusiast..but I am quite certain that all submarines nowadays are in fact nuclear powered and that is what I believe the reference you have quoted is in fact referring to. I am also completely certain that the UK does in fact own other submarines besides just nuclear armed submarines.
Information on Vanguard.
Also I asked many questions about NATO not just the one you chose to quote. And NATO has nothing to do with it? NATO has nothing to do with American or British forces in Germany? Yet the EU does. No worries...again I am just going to give up.
You honestly believe the Warsaw pact is the same as NATO and that what the Soviets did post WWII is also the same as what America did in regards to Western Europe? How can you make such claims? Just look at Germany (western) France, Uk, Italy, Norway etc...then take a look at the Warsaw pact's ex-members..Poland..Hungary..Romania. Just compare the two groups and I think it is quite obvious the same things were NOT being done.
NATO is not a military force? What is it then? It's sole purpose is defense..it is NATO's agenda ..her purpose of being....
QUOTE
The core provision of the treaty is Article V, which states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO has no meaning? Go tell that to Mr Milosevic. Your right tho there are some in Europe who do feel NATO should have no meaning and should not be the dominant military force in Europe. As was the example in what happened after 9/11...being a member of NATO you pledge to view all attacks on one NATO member as being an attack on all NATO members...and none of the other NATO members viewed it as such....their inability to fulfill their pledged commitment to Afghanistan is a sorry and very sad manifestation of this. So for all the vigils and flowers lain at American embassies..there are still a few European nations who have not supported America like they promised to do.
Kosovo..America intervened for some crummy uranium mines? And Europe never felt threatened? It was NATO that this war was waged by moif..not America..NATO. As I said America led it..as she must as she is the only nation capable...and I am not saying that in a descending manner..it is just reality.
Look Europe learnt her lesson ..it took two wars...but it did finally sink in.
You don't just sit idly by and watch the Balkans erupt in civil war...because it will not remain contained. Not to mention several of NATO's member states are just a little too close to comfort or have too much shared history. And I know how unpopular immigrants (refugees) are..especially true from that region.
Greece and Hungary just happened to be direct neighbors to this new incarnation of the Balkan war..don't you think they may have perhaps brought the issue up in Brussels? Turkey and Italy..just a wee bit away from it all..I think they would support this concern in Brussels too.
Look I lived in Europe at the time of this war and Europe was worried and did feel threatened and NATOs actions were welcomed by many. Yet your right it was a preemptive action...one that funny enough did not get the same angered reaction as the Iraq war 2003.
But hey..you are a fan of the EU so why not take their word for it? As the EU was then and still is very much concerned with the stability of Europe.
QUOTE
European Union foreign ministers meeting on Thursday closed ranks behind Nato's air raids, calling them "necessary and warranted".
Ministers said military action was necessary "in the face of extreme and criminally irresponsible policies" and repeated violations of UN resolutions.
Ministers said military action was necessary "in the face of extreme and criminally irresponsible policies" and repeated violations of UN resolutions.
source
As for all the territorial acquisitions stuff...not surprised you got a reaction from a few here on that one. Yes any nation has agendas and political desires they wish to influence others with or persuade in favor of. I don't for one moment feel Europe is the victim in this little game either...not for one moment.
And again I lived in Europe and I know what happened after 9/11..I know what was said to me or my friends and family. There never was....9/11 or not..blind devotion to America's needs.There never will be. Europe did not feel one way..or one emotion..why are you simplifying and washing over it like this..that is dishonest. I had all kinds of reactions as did every other European.
I am curious tho I would like to engage any of the American posters
Do you feel this movement of troops is the US wishing to distance herself from NATO? Or to further place NATOs control in Eastern Europe? Do you hope for NATO to become meaningless? Or do you feel America should remain committed to NATO?
Hobbes
[quote]I belief the 'truth' is probably somewhere in between. I am not naive enough to think that everything the US does is altruistic--surely there is almost always some self-interest at heart (in fact, the US did do much business with Nazi Germany up until they declared war). I will also freely admit that after WWII, and during the Cold War, we probably did try to control many countries much as you describe--as much for self interest as for their benefit. However, I think that post Cold War, it has been much more altruistic than empire-building. I think it is the basic stance in the US government that free countries will benefit us--without our having to influence them very much at all. Which brings me to:[/quote]
The iron fist in the velvet glove?
Note that I do not consider the USA to be a negative power. I believe it does what it can to make its 'rule' good and as profitable for all involved as possible. I also agree with you that America has essentially done what it can to keep its allies as free as possible.
But I also recognise the genius of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. The USA has been gifted with some very astute minds (General Marshal for example) and these have managed to bring the states to their current level of power not by conquest but by alliance and mutual benefit.
I believe the current administration lacks the light touch of former US governments and this may be a sign of a declining skill in foreign policy where the USA is now pressured by an enemy it can't see (international terrorism and the threat of a nuclear attack) whilst trying to contain those enemies (Iran/ North Korea) and potential enemies (China) it can see.
At the same time though I also believe that the idea of friendship amongst states in a political climate is an illusion cultivated for the masses. America and Europe have been as close as its possible for two separate continents to become, but the reality is that if the EU is realised and it gets the chance, then it will replace the USA as the dominant global power.
This is a situation that the USA cannot risk. Not because there is any actual danger in the EU becoming the dominant power, but simply because once you have power, you never let go of it, and the USA has no intention of playing second fiddle to the EU, or any one else for that matter!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket.
[quote]Halliburton does not maintain UK's nuclear submarine fleet. As I already said the Vanguard ..which is the British submarine that is designed to carry NUCLEAR WEAPONS ..and was in fact designed and built in the UK.. is housed in Faslane Scotland. I know this to be true...as it is controversial and in the news on and off. [/quote]
Did you even bother to read the sites I linked to?
They state quite clearly that the UK's prime site for submarine and nuclear maintenance is Davenport which is operated by Halliburton. Faslane is a submarine pen, not a maintenance facility.
That the UK built its own subs is also besides the point since they did not build their own nuclear weapons (which was my original point ) and since they don't even maintain those subs. Halliburton does at Davenport (also my point)
Incidently, a quick Google search brought this site to my attention;
[quote]All operational British nuclear armed submarines are based at Faslane. There are a total of four Trident submarines. From February 2002 one of these, HMS Vanguard, will be in refit at Devonport. The other three are each armed with 48 nuclear warheads and are all based at Faslane. These Trident submarines are both nuclear armed and nuclear powered.
There are also five other nuclear powered submarines based at Faslane. These Swiftsure class submarines are armed with conventional weapons. At any time one or two of them are likely to be in refit at Rosyth or Devonport Dockyards.[/quote]
Empthasis mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You honestly believe the Warsaw pact is the same as NATO and that what the Soviets did post WWII is also the same as what America did in regards to Western Europe? How can you make such claims? Just look at Germany (western) France, Uk, Italy, Norway etc...then take a look at the Warsaw pact's ex-members..Poland..Hungary..Romania. Just compare the two groups and I think it is quite obvious the same things were NOT being done. [/quote]
Both the Warsaw pact and NATO were defence alliances designed to strength the holdings of each super power. In that, they were identical. What you are referring to is the management of those alliances. That such management was ideologically and practically different does not change the fundamental similarity of the two alliances or the reasons why they were brought into being.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO is not a military force? What is it then? It's sole purpose is defense..it is NATO's agenda ..her purpose of being.... [/quote]
The USMC is a military force. The British army is a military force. The French foreign legion is a military force.
NATO is a political alliance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO has no meaning? [/quote]
In the context of my original point, NATO has no meaning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Your right tho there are some in Europe who do feel NATO should have no meaning and should not be the dominant military force in Europe. [/quote]
I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As was the example in what happened after 9/11...being a member of NATO you pledge to view all attacks on one NATO member as being an attack on all NATO members...and none of the other NATO members viewed it as such....[/quote]
Denmark is a nation of just over 5 million people. It has a tiny military budget ($ 3,271,600,000 in 2003) and yet it has military operations both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Danish ships (Mærsk shipping) carried US military hardware for free and recently Denmark and Greenland also signed documentation allowing the USA to use Thule AFB in Greenland for its advanced missile shield. And thats just Denmark. Britain is also a European NATO member, and with its bigger military budget has a larger force deployed. It also extends the use of its oversea's military bases (such as Diego Garcia) to the USA because of its NATO commitments.
I don't need lessons from you concerning Europe's NATO commitments to the USA.
The fact is NATO was never designed to fight terrorists but in the light of 11 September, we sent our soldiers half way around the planet to help our ally as best we could.
As for Kosovo, The wars in the Balkans had been going on long before the Kosovo action took place. There as well Danish UN troops were coming under artillery fire years before the USA decided to get involved. My own brother was near killed in Croatia whilst serving in the Danish UN battalion, so again, I don't need any lessons about Balkan instability from you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]there are still a few European nations who have not supported America like they promised to do. [/quote]
And when Britain was attacked in 1982, how many US soldiers came to Britains aid in the Falklands?
Answer: none.
And when British soldiers were being cut to shreds by roadside bombs by the IRA, how many troops did the USA send to assist its NATO partner?
Answer: none.
Britain currently has about 11,000 troops supporting operations in Iraq. On the 17th of this month, a British soldier was killed whilst supporting the US troops in Iraq because Britain has honoured its NATO commitments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Kosovo..America intervened for some crummy uranium mines?[/quote]
As I said. Some people claim this. I don't know if its true or not.
However, I do know that there is nothing crummy about a Uranium mine. With Uranium you can build nuclear weapons.
Another point which you should consider is that in the fighting in Kosovo, as had previously happened in Bosnia and which is also happening on Chechnya, Muhajdin warriors from Afghanistan were fighting on the side of the local Muslims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And Europe never felt threatened? [/quote]
Europe is not some hand grenade that goes off when ever some one pulls out the Balkans pin.
Yes, there was a danger that the fighting might affect the EU but it was never the threat of extended war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]It was NATO that this war was waged by moif..not America..NATO. [/quote]
As I have already pointed out. NATO is a political alliance not a military force. It has no weapons of its own.
What you mean to say is that the Kosovo action was under taken by US forces under the auspices of NATO. As it turns out, this is also misleading since you appear to be unaware that British and Germany forces were also engaged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As I said America led it..as she must as she is the only nation capable...and I am not saying that in a descending manner..it is just reality. [/quote]
The reality is that any European nation with an air-force could have undertaken to bomb Serbia and Kosovo. That they did not do so until the USA sanctioned such action illustrates my point that NATO is a political tool of the USA and is used only when the USA requires it.
If you disagree with me then please provide me with examples of when other NATO nations invoked the alliance for their own purposes...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Greece and Hungary just happened to be direct neighbors to this new incarnation of the Balkan war..don't you think they may have perhaps brought the issue up in Brussels? Turkey and Italy..just a wee bit away from it all..I think they would support this concern in Brussels too. [/quote]
Turkey and Hungry?
Neither country was an EU member at the time of Kosovo.
Also, I never said the EU was not concerned by events in the Balkans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Look I lived in Europe at the time of this war and Europe was worried and did feel threatened and NATOs actions were welcomed by many. Yet your right it was a preemptive action...one that funny enough did not get the same angered reaction as the Iraq war 2003. [/quote]
The bombing of Serbia and Kosovo unleashed quite a lot of demonstrations actually, but this is getting so far off topic that I'm not sure why we are even debating it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]But hey..you are a fan of the EU so why not take their word for it? As the EU was then and still is very much concerned with the stability of Europe. [/quote]
Again. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for all the territorial acquisitions stuff...not surprised you got a reaction from a few here on that one. Yes any nation has agendas and political desires they wish to influence others with or persuade in favor of. I don't for one moment feel Europe is the victim in this little game either...not for one moment. [/quote]
And now I'm totally lost.
Who said anything about being victims?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And again I lived in Europe and I know what happened after 9/11..I know what was said to me or my friends and family. There never was....9/11 or not..blind devotion to America's needs.There never will be. Europe did not feel one way..or one emotion..why are you simplifying and washing over it like this..that is dishonest. I had all kinds of reactions as did every other European.[/quote]
What on Earth are you talking about?
Where did I say that there was a blind devotion to America's needs?
Where did I presume to speak on behalf of the rest of Europe?
All I have related is my own perception and at no point have I given any indication of the preposterous idea that Europe is a 'victim'.
[quote]I belief the 'truth' is probably somewhere in between. I am not naive enough to think that everything the US does is altruistic--surely there is almost always some self-interest at heart (in fact, the US did do much business with Nazi Germany up until they declared war). I will also freely admit that after WWII, and during the Cold War, we probably did try to control many countries much as you describe--as much for self interest as for their benefit. However, I think that post Cold War, it has been much more altruistic than empire-building. I think it is the basic stance in the US government that free countries will benefit us--without our having to influence them very much at all. Which brings me to:[/quote]
The iron fist in the velvet glove?
Note that I do not consider the USA to be a negative power. I believe it does what it can to make its 'rule' good and as profitable for all involved as possible. I also agree with you that America has essentially done what it can to keep its allies as free as possible.
But I also recognise the genius of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. The USA has been gifted with some very astute minds (General Marshal for example) and these have managed to bring the states to their current level of power not by conquest but by alliance and mutual benefit.
I believe the current administration lacks the light touch of former US governments and this may be a sign of a declining skill in foreign policy where the USA is now pressured by an enemy it can't see (international terrorism and the threat of a nuclear attack) whilst trying to contain those enemies (Iran/ North Korea) and potential enemies (China) it can see.
At the same time though I also believe that the idea of friendship amongst states in a political climate is an illusion cultivated for the masses. America and Europe have been as close as its possible for two separate continents to become, but the reality is that if the EU is realised and it gets the chance, then it will replace the USA as the dominant global power.
This is a situation that the USA cannot risk. Not because there is any actual danger in the EU becoming the dominant power, but simply because once you have power, you never let go of it, and the USA has no intention of playing second fiddle to the EU, or any one else for that matter!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bucket.
[quote]Halliburton does not maintain UK's nuclear submarine fleet. As I already said the Vanguard ..which is the British submarine that is designed to carry NUCLEAR WEAPONS ..and was in fact designed and built in the UK.. is housed in Faslane Scotland. I know this to be true...as it is controversial and in the news on and off. [/quote]
Did you even bother to read the sites I linked to?
They state quite clearly that the UK's prime site for submarine and nuclear maintenance is Davenport which is operated by Halliburton. Faslane is a submarine pen, not a maintenance facility.
That the UK built its own subs is also besides the point since they did not build their own nuclear weapons (which was my original point ) and since they don't even maintain those subs. Halliburton does at Davenport (also my point)
Incidently, a quick Google search brought this site to my attention;
[quote]All operational British nuclear armed submarines are based at Faslane. There are a total of four Trident submarines. From February 2002 one of these, HMS Vanguard, will be in refit at Devonport. The other three are each armed with 48 nuclear warheads and are all based at Faslane. These Trident submarines are both nuclear armed and nuclear powered.
There are also five other nuclear powered submarines based at Faslane. These Swiftsure class submarines are armed with conventional weapons. At any time one or two of them are likely to be in refit at Rosyth or Devonport Dockyards.[/quote]
Empthasis mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]You honestly believe the Warsaw pact is the same as NATO and that what the Soviets did post WWII is also the same as what America did in regards to Western Europe? How can you make such claims? Just look at Germany (western) France, Uk, Italy, Norway etc...then take a look at the Warsaw pact's ex-members..Poland..Hungary..Romania. Just compare the two groups and I think it is quite obvious the same things were NOT being done. [/quote]
Both the Warsaw pact and NATO were defence alliances designed to strength the holdings of each super power. In that, they were identical. What you are referring to is the management of those alliances. That such management was ideologically and practically different does not change the fundamental similarity of the two alliances or the reasons why they were brought into being.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO is not a military force? What is it then? It's sole purpose is defense..it is NATO's agenda ..her purpose of being.... [/quote]
The USMC is a military force. The British army is a military force. The French foreign legion is a military force.
NATO is a political alliance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]NATO has no meaning? [/quote]
In the context of my original point, NATO has no meaning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Your right tho there are some in Europe who do feel NATO should have no meaning and should not be the dominant military force in Europe. [/quote]
I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As was the example in what happened after 9/11...being a member of NATO you pledge to view all attacks on one NATO member as being an attack on all NATO members...and none of the other NATO members viewed it as such....[/quote]
Denmark is a nation of just over 5 million people. It has a tiny military budget ($ 3,271,600,000 in 2003) and yet it has military operations both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Danish ships (Mærsk shipping) carried US military hardware for free and recently Denmark and Greenland also signed documentation allowing the USA to use Thule AFB in Greenland for its advanced missile shield. And thats just Denmark. Britain is also a European NATO member, and with its bigger military budget has a larger force deployed. It also extends the use of its oversea's military bases (such as Diego Garcia) to the USA because of its NATO commitments.
I don't need lessons from you concerning Europe's NATO commitments to the USA.
The fact is NATO was never designed to fight terrorists but in the light of 11 September, we sent our soldiers half way around the planet to help our ally as best we could.
As for Kosovo, The wars in the Balkans had been going on long before the Kosovo action took place. There as well Danish UN troops were coming under artillery fire years before the USA decided to get involved. My own brother was near killed in Croatia whilst serving in the Danish UN battalion, so again, I don't need any lessons about Balkan instability from you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]there are still a few European nations who have not supported America like they promised to do. [/quote]
And when Britain was attacked in 1982, how many US soldiers came to Britains aid in the Falklands?
Answer: none.
And when British soldiers were being cut to shreds by roadside bombs by the IRA, how many troops did the USA send to assist its NATO partner?
Answer: none.
Britain currently has about 11,000 troops supporting operations in Iraq. On the 17th of this month, a British soldier was killed whilst supporting the US troops in Iraq because Britain has honoured its NATO commitments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Kosovo..America intervened for some crummy uranium mines?[/quote]
As I said. Some people claim this. I don't know if its true or not.
However, I do know that there is nothing crummy about a Uranium mine. With Uranium you can build nuclear weapons.
Another point which you should consider is that in the fighting in Kosovo, as had previously happened in Bosnia and which is also happening on Chechnya, Muhajdin warriors from Afghanistan were fighting on the side of the local Muslims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And Europe never felt threatened? [/quote]
Europe is not some hand grenade that goes off when ever some one pulls out the Balkans pin.
Yes, there was a danger that the fighting might affect the EU but it was never the threat of extended war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]It was NATO that this war was waged by moif..not America..NATO. [/quote]
As I have already pointed out. NATO is a political alliance not a military force. It has no weapons of its own.
What you mean to say is that the Kosovo action was under taken by US forces under the auspices of NATO. As it turns out, this is also misleading since you appear to be unaware that British and Germany forces were also engaged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As I said America led it..as she must as she is the only nation capable...and I am not saying that in a descending manner..it is just reality. [/quote]
The reality is that any European nation with an air-force could have undertaken to bomb Serbia and Kosovo. That they did not do so until the USA sanctioned such action illustrates my point that NATO is a political tool of the USA and is used only when the USA requires it.
If you disagree with me then please provide me with examples of when other NATO nations invoked the alliance for their own purposes...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Greece and Hungary just happened to be direct neighbors to this new incarnation of the Balkan war..don't you think they may have perhaps brought the issue up in Brussels? Turkey and Italy..just a wee bit away from it all..I think they would support this concern in Brussels too. [/quote]
Turkey and Hungry?
Neither country was an EU member at the time of Kosovo.
Also, I never said the EU was not concerned by events in the Balkans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]Look I lived in Europe at the time of this war and Europe was worried and did feel threatened and NATOs actions were welcomed by many. Yet your right it was a preemptive action...one that funny enough did not get the same angered reaction as the Iraq war 2003. [/quote]
The bombing of Serbia and Kosovo unleashed quite a lot of demonstrations actually, but this is getting so far off topic that I'm not sure why we are even debating it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]But hey..you are a fan of the EU so why not take their word for it? As the EU was then and still is very much concerned with the stability of Europe. [/quote]
Again. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]As for all the territorial acquisitions stuff...not surprised you got a reaction from a few here on that one. Yes any nation has agendas and political desires they wish to influence others with or persuade in favor of. I don't for one moment feel Europe is the victim in this little game either...not for one moment. [/quote]
And now I'm totally lost.
Who said anything about being victims?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]And again I lived in Europe and I know what happened after 9/11..I know what was said to me or my friends and family. There never was....9/11 or not..blind devotion to America's needs.There never will be. Europe did not feel one way..or one emotion..why are you simplifying and washing over it like this..that is dishonest. I had all kinds of reactions as did every other European.[/quote]
What on Earth are you talking about?
Where did I say that there was a blind devotion to America's needs?
Where did I presume to speak on behalf of the rest of Europe?
All I have related is my own perception and at no point have I given any indication of the preposterous idea that Europe is a 'victim'.
I don't think the fact the UK built their own state of the art nuclear powered submarines is beside the point at all..what good are nuclear weapons to you if you have no delivery system. I guess you could strap it behind a truck and pull it down the main boulevard for a parade.
I have already acknowledge the very close relationship UK and the US have had since the 1950s to which continues this day into the new millennia..I have no problem with it..nothing sinister in my book. Nice to have each of my nations so close.
I read up on the Devonport factor..that is a brand new facility..specifically built for the Trident subs..Vanguard was the first sub to go in for refitting..each sub only has to go in every 8-10 yrs for this. None other has..so prior to the new Devonport facility upgrade what was the UK doing? Were they not maintaining their nuclear armed submarines? As these Trident subs have been in operation since 1994.
I think you are arguing semantics here..force, alliance...when it comes to military..what is the difference!? But NATO is not solely a political alliance it is absolutely military in nature.
You are confusing me with this because you just corrected me and informed me that NATO is a political alliance..but then here you claim it was defensive.
Just because Denmark commits a few troops here and there it does not mean as a whole Europe felt the 9/11 attacks were an attack on their own nations and have reacted as such. I don't think they have.
You can quote all the military operation outlines you want fact is NATO made a commitment to Afghanistan and they are failing to fulfill it. There are more than double the American forces in that nation then there are NATO forces and yet NATO is the one who went to the UN and promised to take responsibility for Afghanistan.. They pledged their commitment not only to NATO nations but also then to the entire world in the UN. They now even have HR groups condemning their lack of action.
Falklands is way off topic and I addressed this already once. In order for NATO to take action..they have to bring it to Brussels and vote on it. I don't recall the UK bringing the Falklands matter to NATO and I doubt they would ever have considered it...this was at the height of the Cold War....and the USSR would have viewed any NATO military action in this region as very aggressive behavior. It would have brought about a showdown between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I am certain this was viewed as too much of a risk by the UK and the US. But like I already said once but must repeat again. The US backed the UK on this war loud and clear politically..and she even provided logistical and military support in the form of an aircraft carrier and even an entire island.
Weinberger..who was the main source of support in the US admin for this even got himself knighted ove
I have already acknowledge the very close relationship UK and the US have had since the 1950s to which continues this day into the new millennia..I have no problem with it..nothing sinister in my book. Nice to have each of my nations so close.
I read up on the Devonport factor..that is a brand new facility..specifically built for the Trident subs..Vanguard was the first sub to go in for refitting..each sub only has to go in every 8-10 yrs for this. None other has..so prior to the new Devonport facility upgrade what was the UK doing? Were they not maintaining their nuclear armed submarines? As these Trident subs have been in operation since 1994.
QUOTE
The USMC is a military force. The British army is a military force. The French foreign legion is a military force.
NATO is a political alliance.
NATO is a political alliance.
I think you are arguing semantics here..force, alliance...when it comes to military..what is the difference!? But NATO is not solely a political alliance it is absolutely military in nature.
QUOTE
Both the Warsaw pact and NATO were defence alliances designed to strength the holdings of each super power.
You are confusing me with this because you just corrected me and informed me that NATO is a political alliance..but then here you claim it was defensive.
Just because Denmark commits a few troops here and there it does not mean as a whole Europe felt the 9/11 attacks were an attack on their own nations and have reacted as such. I don't think they have.
You can quote all the military operation outlines you want fact is NATO made a commitment to Afghanistan and they are failing to fulfill it. There are more than double the American forces in that nation then there are NATO forces and yet NATO is the one who went to the UN and promised to take responsibility for Afghanistan.. They pledged their commitment not only to NATO nations but also then to the entire world in the UN. They now even have HR groups condemning their lack of action.
QUOTE
And when Britain was attacked in 1982, how many US soldiers came to Britains aid in the Falklands?
Answer: none.
And when British soldiers were being cut to shreds by roadside bombs by the IRA, how many troops did the USA send to assist its NATO partner?
Answer: none.
Britain currently has about 11,000 troops supporting operations in Iraq. On the 17th of this month, a British soldier was killed whilst supporting the US troops in Iraq because Britain has honoured its NATO commitments.
Answer: none.
And when British soldiers were being cut to shreds by roadside bombs by the IRA, how many troops did the USA send to assist its NATO partner?
Answer: none.
Britain currently has about 11,000 troops supporting operations in Iraq. On the 17th of this month, a British soldier was killed whilst supporting the US troops in Iraq because Britain has honoured its NATO commitments.
Falklands is way off topic and I addressed this already once. In order for NATO to take action..they have to bring it to Brussels and vote on it. I don't recall the UK bringing the Falklands matter to NATO and I doubt they would ever have considered it...this was at the height of the Cold War....and the USSR would have viewed any NATO military action in this region as very aggressive behavior. It would have brought about a showdown between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I am certain this was viewed as too much of a risk by the UK and the US. But like I already said once but must repeat again. The US backed the UK on this war loud and clear politically..and she even provided logistical and military support in the form of an aircraft carrier and even an entire island.
Weinberger..who was the main source of support in the US admin for this even got himself knighted ove