Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manstein wrote:I hope he is right. Its about time the Euros started taking care of themselves when it comes to military matters.

Granted, the U.S. has been at the forefront, wrongly so, in many of the various conflicts that have arisen lately (Iraq, Afganistan).

What do they need to take care of?

As you've noted, Europe's greatest military problem is US stupidity, not European weakness. The top 10 countries in terms of military spending are heavily European.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Clearly there were many NATO members who did not agree with that interpretation of the situation.

Which is why its worthless.

No, that's wrong. If an alliance does not function during an event which is not explicitly related to its stated purpose, then it is not necessarily worthless, it simply had no utility in that situation.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

dogma wrote:

Manstein wrote:I hope he is right. Its about time the Euros started taking care of themselves when it comes to military matters.

Granted, the U.S. has been at the forefront, wrongly so, in many of the various conflicts that have arisen lately (Iraq, Afganistan).

What do they need to take care of?

As you've noted, Europe's greatest military problem is US stupidity, not European weakness. The top 10 countries in terms of military spending are heavily European.

Apparently you have forgotton Bosnia, and the fact that "NATO" spearheaded the Libyan conflict diplomatically.

Also, pretty much the only American stupidity goign around is America allowing itself to become entangled in all of the foreign engagements. Europe hasn't suffered from the U.S. conflicts in Iraw + Afganistan nearly as much as one would imply. Only the Brits have put significant aide on the table.

Manstein wrote:
Apparently you have forgotton Bosnia, and the fact that "NATO" spearheaded the Libyan conflict diplomatically.

Sure, and they continue to be the primary force there, and they were the primary ground components in Bosnia, a war which the US wanted as much as anyone else.

The idea that the US does everything for Europe is just patriotic nonsense.

Manstein wrote:
Also, pretty much the only American stupidity goign around is America allowing itself to become entangled in all of the foreign engagements. Europe hasn't suffered from the U.S. conflicts in Iraw + Afganistan nearly as much as one would imply. Only the Brits have put significant aide on the table.

The fastest way to piss off an ally is to declare war, and summon their aid without cause. America did that twice, and the NATO countries were, for the most part, able to appreciate that helping us in combat would have connected them to our stupidity.

Bush's foreign policy was a damn travesty with the exception of his aid to Africa, and connective relations with India.

dogma wrote:

Manstein wrote:
Apparently you have forgotton Bosnia, and the fact that "NATO" spearheaded the Libyan conflict diplomatically.

Sure, and they continue to be the primary force there, and they were the primary ground components in Bosnia, a war which the US wanted as much as anyone else.

The idea that the US does everything for Europe is just patriotic nonsense.

Manstein wrote:
Also, pretty much the only American stupidity goign around is America allowing itself to become entangled in all of the foreign engagements. Europe hasn't suffered from the U.S. conflicts in Iraw + Afganistan nearly as much as one would imply. Only the Brits have put significant aide on the table.

The fastest way to piss off an ally is to declare war, and summon their aid without cause. America did that twice, and the NATO countries were, for the most part, able to appreciate that helping us in combat would have connected them to our stupidity.

Bush's foreign policy was a damn travesty with the exception of his aid to Africa, and connective relations with India.

I am of the opinion that all American intevention was wrong. Whether "America" wanted it or not is totally irrelevant in my eyes. Also, I kind of remember Clinton being pretty hesitant to get involved in Bosnia, Blaire was the one who really pulled him in.

As for Bush's policies, I agree that they were a disaster. I think that the invasion of Afganistan was justified and Europe's tacit support was disheartening. Iraq and subsequent operations, including our continued presence in Afganistan were totally wrong and should be redacted post haste.

Kilkrazy wrote:He taught me the Webley 0.455 is the best gun evar.

I'm sorry you people are carrying on as if Kilkrazy didn't post this. What is this!?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

I'm sorry you people are carrying on as if Kilkrazy didn't post this. What is this!?

....Victory. ZARDOZ speaks to YOU!

Only just realised that Zardoz spelt back'ards is
Zodraz, which, imho is wholly more appropriate to the puss in boots image.

It's 03:32 hours and lack of sleep is beginning to tell.

Manstein wrote:
I am of the opinion that all American intevention was wrong. Whether "America" wanted it or not is totally irrelevant in my eyes.

I consider them morally neutral actions that are only assessable in terms of military success, planning, or political necessity.

Manstein wrote:
Also, I kind of remember Clinton being pretty hesitant to get involved in Bosnia, Blaire was the one who really pulled him in.

Clinton campaigned on it.

Manstein wrote:
As for Bush's policies, I agree that they were a disaster. I think that the invasion of Afganistan was justified and Europe's tacit support was disheartening. Iraq and subsequent operations, including our continued presence in Afganistan were totally wrong and should be redacted post haste.

Justified or not, the invasion of Afghanistan was only justified because the public wanted it. We could have very easily have just launched a few cruise missiles and called it a day. At the end of the day the death of 3000 people is only important because it upsets other people.

Manstein wrote:

dogma wrote:

Manstein wrote:I hope he is right. Its about time the Euros started taking care of themselves when it comes to military matters.

Granted, the U.S. has been at the forefront, wrongly so, in many of the various conflicts that have arisen lately (Iraq, Afganistan).

What do they need to take care of?

As you've noted, Europe's greatest military problem is US stupidity, not European weakness. The top 10 countries in terms of military spending are heavily European.

Apparently you have forgotton Bosnia, and the fact that "NATO" spearheaded the Libyan conflict diplomatically.

Also, pretty much the only American stupidity goign around is America allowing itself to become entangled in all of the foreign engagements. Europe hasn't suffered from the U.S. conflicts in Iraw + Afganistan nearly as much as one would imply. Only the Brits have put significant aide on the table.