Yeah I agree here, the United States only has a few true allies, and i would put the Brits at the top of that list. The two countries have been through to much together to ever let anything happen to the other. To me, its like to old friends, yeah they've had their spats here and there but they would never turn on each other. I sometimes wonder why we (U.S.) are hated so much in Europe but I guess people have their reasons.
Peace
The US has not always been "hated". In fact the us is not hated even now except a few hyperbolizing protestors(something that exists in the states as well... and protestors in the US nor the EU hate the US... They may hate the sitting president, but not the US). The US has been a beacon of hope and the land of dreams and whatever over the top metaphors you can think of, until the last 7 years. To answer your question you need to only review that time period. The antipathy towards the US is not hatred and the roots are not deep. You can pluck that antipathy out in a year by voting in a humane and honest president who chooses a wise presidential cabinet.
Well as we are pretty much the 51st state I don’t think its necessary to renew it any WMD attack on UK soil would no doubt be leading to an attack on US soil so any US administration would properly launch an pre-emptive strike on any party that would bomb the UK.
But maybe it’s about time we as a global community started to ask some serious questions of our leaders on why there are failing to think in a joined up manner. over the last few years we have seen the war on terror, climate change nuclear proliferation, massive natural disasters (e.g. Asian tsunami hurricane Katrina various earthquakes) death bots (not just Bush & Blair) bringing whole regions into chaos that coupled with the fact that in most developed countries personal debt is at an record high and we are all pretty much a few days of bad stock trading away from an international economic collapse.
While reading forums posts, watching the news, buying news papers or talking to people in general everyone has a comment on how bad it all is on why the hell does this or that happen. Almost no one asks the question where is the human race heading untill Joe public asks that question our leaders will waste billions on things we don’t need on wars we don’t want let our resources run dry let ½ the would starve and the other ½ get fat and kill themselves.
Oh BTW I’m not a conspiracy theorist… and I agree with Babbuun’s post just above me
Oh yes, I'm sure they would all attack you, especially Israel and the US. Definitely. How delusional are you? What incentive would the US/Israel ever have to attack your country (or seize any of it's assets)? You're not that economically significant, nor could you ever pose a threat as your country's motives/ideals are absolutely entwined with the US'. The US seizing anything from Britain is like a mother taking candy from her own baby. That kind of nonsense is no different from uneducated Americans spouting jingoistic garbage in the south....
I think his agument wasn't about the likelyhood of the attacks tomorrow, but what would occur if the instance does occur...
And also, Relations between country does change, maybe what's impossible today isn't that far out of reach 20 yrs down the road.
Hitler thought Britain and Germany were natural allies too. Bound by history, geography and mutual intrest to be natural allies.
3 years later we declared war on him.
As for not being that economically significant, we're the largest foreign investor in your country. No other country is more economically significant to you than us. We have assets all over the world and you have shown no qualms about backstabbing us for them at any time in history including during 2 world wars and all through the NATO years. Why would you do it? Greed, national security, principle, all the usual reasons people do these things.
America's first priority is to act in it's own self intrest. That's the way it is. You're not our mum. When we are underattack, you don't come running to the rescue. You are always a no show. You look around and see what you have to gain. I don't disapprove of that. That's just how it is.
You're not our mum, and your not the kind of people we can afford to take our eyes off. Being your ally is great. But that's all it is, an alliance. If you get out of hand or the things you do in our intrest become outweighed by the things you do against it, we'll deal with you. You're big, but your not that big.
If we wished to join the EU anti-US block for example, whereby we join the federation in it's goal as a trade bloc and military bloc to curb U.S. expansion; Europe would need our detterant. Personally, I'd rather become the 51st state of course, but it doesn't hurt to keep your options open.
I don't want to be the 51st state of America or the 29th state of Europe. I want to be independant and have the means to stand up to either of you and anyone else I please at any time I please. The ability to destroy you is a sanction I wish to reserve.
I don't want to be the 51 st state of America or the 29th state of Europe. I want to be independant and have the means to stand up to either of you and anyone else I please at any time I please. The ability to destroy you is a sanction I wish to reserve.
You're speaking as if Britain, a country full of all kinds of different people, is a continuation of your phallos.
I'm socially handicapped, so could you tell me if you're joking or not?
A big intercontinental ballistic missile shaped phallus.
I'm deadly serious.
A country full of all kinds of different people who united together are capable of standing up to the largest powers the world has to offer. To choose it's own path. To live by it's own ideals. To fear no others.
And you still haven't described what conceivable threat couldn't be dealt with by NATO conventional forces without any nukes at all.
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
I read the whole debate, but I couldn't decipher whether this was sarcasm or not.
Rival nations?
The last time I checked France, Germany and the UK were in the European Union. The European Union is nothing like the flimsy League Of Nations, because the EU has strict humanitarian and democratic requirements.
The EU is a voluntary union of democratic countries. To have joined this voluntary union you need to have accepted it's laws(the first supernational legal system). And to break it's laws is to leave the union.
The league of nations was a forced union of countries with leading countries that wanted to restrict anything and everything that could threaten them... and failed bysmally.
If Britain were the lone wolf you describe, it would have never joined the EU. It would have done like Norway or Switzerland.
In the age of information people are beginning to feel more unified not by nationality, but by state of mind and universal ethics(although nationalism is a state of mind that can unify people ). Nationalism and xenophobia are currently looked down upon in most EU countries. I'm not sure if Britain is one of them, as nationalism coupled with racism does seem to be, at least, a very visible problem.
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes.
So france and germany Members of the EU can moraly have these weopons but if britain simple maintains (note Maintains not add to) a nuclear deterent , Xenophobia (which you seem to point as a british phenomina) would suddenly run riot. I'm sorry thats just hypacritical. Germany by the way was percieved abserved and ignored all through the thirties look what happend.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations.
Like the world is such wonderfull place now No the world is and allways has been a pretty nasty place to live. You either equip yourself to deal with it the best you can you you are simply An easy target.
Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
In a world where every tinpot dictator is scrabbling to get these weopons we should be left without........Nope There really just is no logic to this arguement.
I said it befor an ill say it again. I would rather have them and not need them, then need them and not have em.
The last time I checked France, Germany and the UK were in the European Union. The European Union is nothing like the flimsy League Of Nations, because the EU has strict humanitarian and democratic requirements.
The EU is a voluntary union of democratic countries. To have joined this voluntary union you need to have accepted it's laws(the first supernational legal system). And to break it's laws is to leave the union.
The league of nations was a forced union of countries with leading countries that wanted to restrict anything and everything that could threaten them... and failed bysmally.
If Britain were the lone wolf you describe, it would have never joined the EU. It would have done like Norway or Switzerland.
In the age of information people are beginning to feel more unified not by nationality, but by state of mind and universal ethics(although nationalism is a state of mind that can unify people ). Nationalism and xenophobia are currently looked down upon in most EU countries. I'm not sure if Britain is one of them, as nationalism coupled with racism does seem to be, at least, a very visible problem.
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes.
Yes, rival nations, we compete for the same trade and contracts. The same resources. We may all be in the same EU, but we all want different things from it and for it. We compete and have a lot of conflicting goals and intrests.
When we joined the EU, there weren't any humanitarian or democratic requirements. All you had to have was money. The rich countries break the EU laws (the same ones that they themselves made) as often as they like. Who is going to ask them to leave? Germany and France broke the Euro regualtions. Make them leave? LMAO, there is no Euro without France and Germany.
The leading countries still restrict anything and everything. They make the laws for this very purpose. Some things don't change. Did you really think Lithuania was ever going to have equal say with Germany?
Germany doesn't have nukes. It has British and American soldiers though if you catch my drift.
Britain is a very cosmopolitan culture. We have loads of national pride. If other European cultures look down upon it, that is down to them. Perhaps they don't feel their nations have achieved very much. still, since they aren't in a position to do anything about it, we'll just go one living the way we like to live. And they can just going on judging us from afar. No offense but this isn't a popularity contest. We're friendly, open minded and respectful of foreign cultures. If you don't like us, that is your right.
BTW I think there are some very politically strong Nationalist movements in France, Austria and the Netherlands currently. It's been on the rise in almost lockstep with the EU. It's a backlash perhaps. A reaction. In fact didn't the Nationalists in France and The Netherlands vote down the EU constitution? Oh yes. So they did. How problematic.
We shall keep our weapons in case those people who called for that vote, and didn't like the result, attempt to force it upon us by other means.
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes. So france and germany Members of the EU can moraly have these weopons but if britain simple maintains (note Maintains not add to) a nuclear deterent , Xenophobia (which you seem to point as a british phenomina) would suddenly run riot. I'm sorry thats just hypacritical. Germany by the way was percieved abserved and ignored all through the thirties look what happend. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we still have nukes in nearby places, that will inevitably be affected by any nuke landing on their allies (and don't say Britain isn't allied with France or Germany... why in the hell are they abiding by the same supernational law and economic union then? Also radiation from nuclear blasts in Britain will undoubtedly affect other parts of Europe). When the time for France and Germany comes to renew their nukes, they should of course follow the exempliary actions of the United Kingdom, a country that has set an example to others in many events in recent history. A country that has made wise decisions.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations. Like the world is such wonderfull place now No the world is and allways has been a pretty nasty place to live. You either equip yourself to deal with it the best you can you you are simply An easy target. There is no logic in what you're saying. The world isn't such a nice place... So that mean we shouldn't try to make it any nicer? The fact that it isn't so nice right now, means we should strive harder to make it nicer. And if you happen to get invaded by some buttmunch pointing 10 nukes at you and creating famine, death and inequality all around, you can always form a guerilla group and assassinate him. That's making the world a nicer place as well. There is no point in making women, children, the elderly, and anyone else getting caught up in the arguements of a few uncompromising people suffer.
Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.
Nowadays we live in the age of information. Diplomatic relations are easier to uphold, and conflicts have narrowed down to those that have been deeply rooted into certain regions. It is imperative that communications and conventions with all other countries are kept, and that laws are upheld concerning cruel and long-term effect weapons, and that weapon inspectors be allowed within every and any country at any time. In this respect, the lack of communication, the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The way communication was attempted to be established, is a different issue altogether, as is how quickly the attack was made and how much recoinnasance and logistics were gathered before the assaults.
The nature of the conflicts we fight are no longer as opportunistic and nationalist as they used to be.
There is no logic in what you're saying. The world isn't such a nice place... So that mean we shouldn't try to make it any nicer?
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.
How does opening yourself up for attack make the world a nicer place?
Doesn't it just encourage bad people who are looking to take advantage, to take advantage?
If I leave a wad of bank notes on the pavement, am I not encouraging someone to steal it? If I left it in the bank, wouldn't there be one less thief in the world?
If I wear a sign on my back that says "if you kick me, I won't kick you back" am I more likely to get kicked than if I wear a sign on my back that says "If you kick me I will rip your legs off". The world is a nicer place when you are not getting kicked.
As for Germany, they utterly destroyed our army. We weren't fighting from the mountains of Finland outside our own homes. We were out in the open. A war of manouvre in a foreign country, with hundreds of miles of supply lines to protect. We tried hiding behind rocks and throwing molotovs, we tried to hold the line. Only they just drove right past us.
And he had the invasion barges all prepped and ready to cross the channel. The plans drawn up, the troops in position, the airforce attacking. yes we had a Navy, so did they and at that stage of the war, their Navy was beating ours too.
Our Navy might have been big, but then it was spread out over every ocean in the planet. Not all sitting off the coast of Holland in artillery and airbombardment rangeof German forces.
Hitler thought Britain and Germany were natural allies too. Bound by history, geography and mutual intrest to be natural allies.
3 years later we declared war on him.
As for not being that economically significant, we're the largest foreign investor in your country. No other country is more economically significant to you than us. We have assets all over the world and you have shown no qualms about backstabbing us for them at any time in history including during 2 world wars and all through the NATO years. Why would you do it? Greed, national security, principle, all the usual reasons people do these things.
America's first priority is to act in it's own self intrest. That's the way it is. You're not our mum. When we are underattack, you don't come running to the rescue. You are always a no show. You look around and see what you have to gain. I don't disapprove of that. That's just how it is.
You're not our mum, and your not the kind of people we can afford to take our eyes off. Being your ally is great. But that's all it is, an alliance. If you get out of hand or the things you do in our intrest become outweighed by the things you do against it, we'll deal with you. You're big, but your not that big.
If we wished to join the EU anti-US block for example, whereby we join the federation in it's goal as a trade bloc and military bloc to curb U.S. expansion; Europe would need our detterant. Personally, I'd rather become the 51st state of course, but it doesn't hurt to keep your options open.
I don't want to be the 51st state of America or the 29th state of Europe. I want to be independant and have the means to stand up to either of you and anyone else I please at any time I please. The ability to destroy you is a sanction I wish to reserve.
I love your arrogance. Why are you lumping me with my country? Who says that I will even be a part of this country forever?
Why you would even think that America would annex Britain is beyond all human comprehension: Britain does not have a superabundance of natural resources, is far too small a country to ever be any threat and (first and foremost) has functioned already as an American state for the past few years(<3 @ the support in Iraq, eh?).
It would be like America invading Canada, or (modern day) Germany invading Austria; countries with similar ideals and cultures that have absolutely no economic incentive to go to war will not go to war with each other. America is better off leaving Britain the way it is, since they have both have successful markets and America would rather not have to deal with the much larger percentage of the unemployed Islamic population that is giving Britain trouble.
You can't overlook economics when looking at history, much like how you can't consider chemistry without physics.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I would support Britain if it were to renew it's nuclear arsenal; my only stipulation would be that they prohibit anyone from being involved that could possibly be affiliated with terrorists. America has already made that mistake in the past and it would only benefit Britain, since it's no less a target than the US.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Hmm lets see our military foreign policy is almost completely dictated by America. Balir is bushes poodle. American citizens carry guns in England but English citizens are not allowed to. British citizens may be axttradited to America without trial or evidence for crimes commited in England that are not even criminal offences in English law.
You already do have us annexed enough for my liking. The more power we get the more freedom to call the shots diplomatically. The balance is not even, militarily or diplomatically, this is not a good position to negotiate from. We are guarenteed the worst from every deal.
America has invaded Canada. Do it again and we'll nuke you.
America persistently uses it's military and economic muscle to exert influence and pressure on Canada. But Canada is not alone. Of course, why would America want to invade Canada, American's love Canadians and have loads of vested intrest. We are just doing are bit to maintain this happy circumstance.
And yes America would be better off leaving us as we are. The trouble with those markets though, is that we are all looking for growth. We are expansionist cultures. If we do not "grow" we think something is wrong. Some of those markets you are trying to expand into are mine. Some of those markets I am trying to expand into are yours.
Now since we both agree, that Americans are nice people and have nothing but Britains best intrest at heart, you don't have anything to worry about now do you?
Yes, rival nations, we compete for the same trade and contracts. The same resources. We may all be in the same EU, but we all want different things from it and for it. We compete and have a lot of conflicting goals and intrests. One of the points of the EU is to have all countries benefit from trade and contracts, thus creating more trade and contracts for all countries. Of course there will be competition, but that is down to entrepeneurs, not governments. The governments are what represents you, the entrepeneurs can be considered rival human beings or people who create occupations for you (depending on how competitive you are). Also expert teams from your country can help in some other country which does not have enough expertise, or is encountering new problems in different new fields. They can move in and out without complication, unlike before. This improves your economy as well as theirs. You can set up new businesses in other EU countries, and they can set up new businesses in yours. You can go work in another EU country, a Swede can work in yours.
When we joined the EU, there weren't any humanitarian or democratic requirements. All you had to have was money. The rich countries break the EU laws (the same ones that they themselves made) as often as they like. Who is going to ask them to leave? Germany and France broke the Euro regualtions. Make them leave? LMAO, there is no Euro without France and Germany. Well why didn't you just quit once those laws came into place? Also the rich countries cannot break the laws as much as they like. This is just an ill-informed illusion. If at all possible, they can and will try to instate legislations that are more befitting for their countries in the European parliament. The breaking of laws is punished. True the European Union is at least 75% France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and those countries are represented accordingly in the union's different branches.
The leading countries still restrict anything and everything. They make the laws for this very purpose. Some things don't change. Did you really think Lithuania was ever going to have equal say with Germany? Of course the majority will rule. When didn't it? But the majority isn't just France or just Germany. These countries need to establish dialogue with other countries, like Spain or Italy, or representatives of similar parties, democrats or rural parties or green parties or whatever, in other countries. The European Union is both an instrument for national and political viewpoints from all people involved, just like a coutry's parliament or house of commons. It's not at all black and white like you make it out to be. It's different people with different viewpoints and different degrees of nationalist and political drive. Sheesh. You're making it seem like all European countries are unified fronts of right-wing militant nationalists.
Germany doesn't have nukes. It has British and American soldiers though if you catch my drift. Good for Germany. Letting your boys stay there and create excellent bands like Captain Jack(R.I.P.).
Britain is a very cosmopolitan culture. We have loads of national pride. If other European cultures look down upon it, that is down to them. Perhaps they don't feel their nations have achieved very much. still, since they aren't in a position to do anything about it, we'll just go one living the way we like to live. And they can just going on judging us from afar. No offense but this isn't a popularity contest. We're friendly, open minded and respectful of foreign cultures. If you don't like us, that is your right. It's the general image you emanate that of course creates my illusions. Some excellent TV comes from Britain. But some horrid documentaries and reality TV(with some ridiculous ignoramuses) as well. Of course everything I see in the news and on TV is dramatized. Some of the best websites online are British, especially humour sites. There are a lot of different people in Britain. You are not a unified front. If you want to make it such there is a word for you that starts with an F and ends in an IST. It also has another S and an A and a C.
BTW I think there are some very politically strong Nationalist movements in France, Austria and the Netherlands currently. It's been on the rise in almost lockstep with the EU. It's a backlash perhaps. A reaction. In fact didn't the Nationalists in France and The Netherlands vote down the EU constitution? Oh yes. So they did. How problematic. Nationalist movements may be getting stronger, and the proposed EU constitution has been said to blow from all directions, but this isn't affecting anything yet. Hopefully these less gifted people will get really frightened of the climate change and become Dave Angel, eco-warrior. We'll just have to wait and see. But you're saying you want these mindless racist and xenophobe squads pointing your nukes all around the place?
We shall keep our weapons in case those people who called for that vote, and didn't like the result, attempt to force it upon us by other means. If you voted to keep them and won, your loss.
Hmm lets see our military foreign policy is almost completely dictated by America. Balir is bushes poodle. American citizens carry guns in England but English citizens are not allowed to. British citizens may be axttradited to America without trial or evidence for crimes commited in England that are not even criminal offences in English law. You already do have us annexed enough for my liking. The more power we get the more freedom to call the shots diplomatically. The balance is not even, militarily or diplomatically, this is not a good position to negotiate from. We are guarenteed the worst from every deal.
America has invaded Canada. Do it again and we'll nuke you. America persistently uses it's military and economic muscle to exert influence and pressure on Canada. But Canada is not alone. Of course, why would America want to invade Canada, American's love Canadians and have loads of vested intrest. We are just doing are bit to maintain this happy circumstance.
And yes America would be better off leaving us as we are. The trouble with those markets though, is that we are all looking for growth. We are expansionist cultures. If we do not "grow" we think something is wrong. Some of those markets you are trying to expand into are mine. Some of those markets I am trying to expand into are yours.
Now since we both agree, that Americans are nice people and have nothing but Britains best intrest at heart, you don't have anything to worry about now do you?
You're not understanding how that kind of warfare works: America has much more surface area that it is distributed over unlike Britain. Nuclear bombs work best on cities with high population densities; your entire nation can be bijected to one state and has a much larger population. This means that the casualties inflicted by the same amount of firepower will be much higher in your country than in America.
Also, America has much more capable missle defenses, because a great deal of it's nominal GDP goes to taxes (which is incidentally more than 4 times yours) which in turn has gone to military spending for the past few decades.
You might be able to cripple America to a degree, but the only destruction you'd be assuring is your own.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
There is no logic in what you're saying. The world isn't such a nice place... So that mean we shouldn't try to make it any nicer?
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.
How does opening yourself up for attack make the world a nicer place?
For those in power, stepping down when nukes are called, not letting innocents suffer untimely deaths and perhaps destroy the whole ecosystem of the planet, is a truly admirable deed. Even if it does lead to some genocide and ethnic purging on the enemy's part. Hopefully the valiant deeds will show the people in the enemy's country that there are people with balls still around. It takes balls not to hurl missiles at old grandma's and little kids when you can and it would mean you wouldn't be executed and could stay in power.
Doesn't it just encourage bad people who are looking to take advantage, to take advantage?
Not if the world is overcome with good people, and an environment without fear first
If I leave a wad of bank notes on the pavement, am I not encouraging someone to steal it? If I left it in the bank, wouldn't there be one less thief in the world?
Who knows. A lot of the time people actually return this stuff, if not just for being decent, then for the tax department looking for them when they're spending money they shouldn't have.
If I wear a sign on my back that says "if you kick me, I won't kick you back" am I more likely to get kicked than if I wear a sign on my back that says "If you kick me I will rip your legs off". The world is a nicer place when you are not getting kicked.
Maybe if you're in some very juvenile place or surrounded by drunkards, you will get kicked. Most people will not kick you even if they could.
As for Germany, they utterly destroyed our army. We weren't fighting from the mountains of Finland outside our own homes. We were out in the open. A war of manouvre in a foreign country, with hundreds of miles of supply lines to protect. We tried hiding behind rocks and throwing molotovs, we tried to hold the line. Only they just drove right past us.
The Maginot Line was a ridiculous defence line. And also see below as I ridicule the fact you didn't look up my tiny country that's being trampled and abused by yours, Germany and France.
And he had the invasion barges all prepped and ready to cross the channel. The plans drawn up, the troops in position, the airforce attacking. yes we had a Navy, so did they and at that stage of the war, their Navy was beating ours too.
They wouldn't have won. That's why he pulled back. They wouldn't have won and their resources would have been wasted completely. Their chances of staging a succesful invasion were slim to none. The air invasion was a tie, but the invasion would have been a disaster.
Our Navy might have been big, but then it was spread out over every ocean in the planet. Not all sitting off the coast of Holland in artillery and airbombardment rangeof German forces.
Border between Finland and Russia:
To get a better picture of that let's see a picture of current borders.
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes. So france and germany Members of the EU can moraly have these weopons but if britain simple maintains (note Maintains not add to) a nuclear deterent , Xenophobia (which you seem to point as a british phenomina) would suddenly run riot. I'm sorry thats just hypacritical. Germany by the way was percieved abserved and ignored all through the thirties look what happend. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we still have nukes in nearby places, that will inevitably be affected by any nuke landing on their allies (and don't say Britain isn't allied with France or Germany... why in the hell are they abiding by the same supernational law and economic union then? Also radiation from nuclear blasts in Britain will undoubtedly affect other parts of Europe). When the time for France and Germany comes to renew their nukes, they should of course follow the exempliary actions of the United Kingdom, a country that has set an example to others in many events in recent history. A country that has made wise decisions. You are aware a single nuclear detonation in orbit could fry the entire european or north american Electrical system. You dont need to target city's directly. And as coming up with a defence against such an attack would cost us 20 fold what it would take to simply maintain that abilitie. I will stick with the nukes. We are allied with europe yes and america. But as the 2 continents do not comprise the whole world Im pretty sure a Good defence is still needed. The whole if I stand up an say no other will listen I just rubbish. Im sure Iran would take so mutch notice of us disarming.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations. Like the world is such wonderfull place now No the world is and allways has been a pretty nasty place to live. You either equip yourself to deal with it the best you can you you are simply An easy target. There is no logic in what you're saying. The world isn't such a nice place... So that mean we shouldn't try to make it any nicer? The fact that it isn't so nice right now, means we should strive harder to make it nicer. And if you happen to get invaded by some buttmunch pointing 10 nukes at you and creating famine, death and inequality all around, you can always form a guerilla group and assassinate him. That's making the world a nicer place as well. There is no point in making women, children, the elderly, and anyone else getting caught up in the arguements of a few uncompromising people suffer. So if we where to be invaded women and children would be left out of it. Erm in what war ever have civilians ever been not affected. Thats a confusing point to me. To make the world a nicer place we should all drop our weopons while no one else does and dance naked in the feilds? sorry the real world does not behave like that.
Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.
Nowadays we live in the age of information. Diplomatic relations are easier to uphold, and conflicts have narrowed down to those that have been deeply rooted into certain regions. It is imperative that communications and conventions with all other countries are kept, and that laws are upheld concerning cruel and long-term effect weapons, and that weapon inspectors be allowed within every and any country at any time. In this respect, the lack of communication, the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The way communication was attempted to be established, is a different issue altogether, as is how quickly the attack was made and how much recoinnasance and logistics were gathered before the assaults.
The nature of the conflicts we fight are no longer as opportunistic and nationalist as they used to be.
I would like to point out that during the first days of the battle of brittain germany was hitting raf bases constinuelsy they had the planes and the numbers and for a while many of the air Marshals saw the RAF Collapsing. this is very well documented dont take my word for it. The navy could not provide air cover. we had neither the manufactoring capabilities to sustain those kinds of loses. We had good aircraft yes but not the abilitie to repalce them or pilots quickly. What happend was germany in a bid to make the uk quite quickly switched to hitting london coventry and so forth an so on (civilians by the way). That gave us the time to start replacing loses and at least put up a fight.
Our army was archaic our tactics where relics of world war war 1. static trench warfare atrition if you like. Germany exploited that and we paid the price.
You can maintain as many diplomatic relations with an agressive nation till the cows come home but in the final analsis if you cannot offer to the table anything but good intention they are just going to ignor you.
Also expert teams from your country can help in some other country which does not have enough expertise, or is encountering new problems in different new fields. They can move in and out without complication, unlike before. This improves your economy as well as theirs. You can set up new businesses in other EU countries, and they can set up new businesses in yours. You can go work in another EU country, a Swede can work in yours.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
What is so special about this? We treat Mongolians the same. We're cosmopolitan we enjoy the diversity of culture, we're not restricting ourselves to the EU alone. Our horizons and cultural and economic links span the globe. Don't be such a little European.
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and the prevention of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
Also expert teams from your country can help in some other country which does not have enough expertise, or is encountering new problems in different new fields. They can move in and out without complication, unlike before. This improves your economy as well as theirs. You can set up new businesses in other EU countries, and they can set up new businesses in yours. You can go work in another EU country, a Swede can work in yours.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
Yes unlike before. EU citizens can travel between EU countries without complications.
? They can travel without any needless bureaucracy. Even international experts had to get their passports stamped and papers filled before. Not having to do it saves man-hours in every country.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
Whaaaat? People can just come in and vote? No. People can come in, live there for a long period of time, and vote. Also social services are being provided in every country in varying degrees, only now you can fly your sick butt down here to Finland where medical research is top quality, and check yourself into a specialized ward where you'll be catered to your every need.
What is so special about this?
What's so special about being a xenophobe?
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All members of all parties in all countries are pursuing their own agendas, and trust me, their agendas are not necessarily your agendas.
Lithuania doesn't get one vote per person. All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
For my sake I hope the Germans and French make smart decision. I come from a land of 5 million. Not much difference our euro parliament members make, but they do bring home some bacon from time to time nonetheless.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
Yes. And the other country perfectly capable of getting fascist with you and possibly irradiating and blowing up everyone you love. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
And why did we need killers again. Please elaborate.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and preventing of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
The federalisation of Europe is not necessarily the way to go. If it's done, it has to be done very well, and the proposals thus far have not been up to par. IMO the more micro you go the better. In politics and everything. But you also do need to macro to take care of the micro.
i'm not sure I follow your points in the previous post Babbuun, the one with the map.
If I lower my guard some nasty person will kick me in the balls, but since everyone won't kick me in the balls all day and night, I should just let nasty people kick me in the balls as often as they wish and in this way the world we be a nicer place.
Sorry, but it you kick me in the balls, I'm going to rip your legs off. That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, or you think that is making the world a nastier place to live, that's your problem, personally I think a world in which no one kicks me in the balls is the kind of world I am looking to live in.
If you don't want nukes or guns or bombs and tanks and WMD. That's great news, I don't want you to have them either. But I'll be keeping mine.
Lets see if I understand this Defence of Finland thing.
In 1939. The Russian army invades Finland.
Finland Defeats Russia, therefore the Germany army are weak.
WTF.
The Russian army in 1939 were a ragtag bunch with archaic weapons and no officer corp. They were fighting in a mountainous region where defense is traditionally very easy and large open tank warfare impossible.
You beat the Russians. Gratz. Last time we fought them. We got as far as Sebastopol. How far did you get? What's that you say, you didn't make it outside of your own country? O.
You couldn't even hammer the Russians? It's a good thing you never met the Germans really then isn't it. They took the same Russians you fought all the way back to Moscow and Stalingrad.
No offence mate, I think the Fins had a masterful defence vs the Russians, I really do. But a different league. The Germans whupped us. No army on the planet could stand before them.
i'm not sure I follow your points in the previous post Babbuun, the one with the map. If I lower my guard some nasty person will kick me in the balls, but since everyone won't kick me in the balls all day and night, I should just let nasty people kick me in the balls as often as they wish and in this way the world we be a nicer place. Sorry, but it you kick me in the balls, I'm going to rip your legs off. That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, or you think that is making the world a nastier place to live, that's your problem, personally I think a world in which no one kicks me in the balls is the kind of world I am looking to live in.
Lets see if I understand this Defence of Finland thing. In 1939. The Russian army invades Finland. Finland Defeats Russia, therefore the Germany army are weak. WTF. The Russian army in 1939 were a ragtag bunch with archaic weapons and no officer corp. They were fighting in a mountainous region where defense is traditionally very easy and large open tank warfare impossible. You beat the Russians. Gratz. Last time we fought them. We got as far as Sebastopol. How far did you get? What's that you say, you didn't make it outside of your own country? O. You couldn't even hammer the Russians? It's a good thing you never met the Germans really then isn't it. They took the same Russians you fought all the way back to Moscow and Stalingrad. No offence mate, I think the Fins had a masterful defence vs the Russians, I really do. But a different league. The Germans whupped us. No army on the planet could stand before them.
Finnish army:
250,000 men
30 tanks
130 aircraft
Russian army:
1,000,000 men
3,000 tanks
3,800 aircraft
Finnish casualties:
26,662 dead
39,886 wounded
1,000 captured
Russian casualties:
126,875 dead or missing
264,908 wounded
3,100 captured
Sure the Russians were a rag tag group. And sure the finns were people used to working outdoors. But look at the length of that border. That is one big border to defend against a force that big. The big map can be scrolled for you to compare major European borders to the one Russia and Finland had (now it's slightly smaller since large land masses were lost). CastleGoob said you were outgunned and had an archaic army and that nobody came to help you. The point was: This is an example of my country, that didn't receive any help either, a country far more outgunned, far more outmanned, and with a far more archaic army. Yet Finland was first in line to join an international community after the cold war and our relations with the Soviet Union not permitting it. Even though Finland had only had shabby plans of assistance drawn to it from Allied countries during WWII, and nobody offering any real help.
The italics were there to symbolize unnecessary nationalism. What Finland was, is not me. It's imprinted on me, but it's not me. What Finland is, is not me. It's what I experience every day of my life, but it's not me.
Also Germany saw Russia had a logistical turd as an army, led to their decision to sack the Molotov-Ribbenwhatever treaty and focus on invading the east instead of wasting their resources on bombing the UK and trying to invade a turtle's shell.
Also expert teams from your country can help in some other country which does not have enough expertise, or is encountering new problems in different new fields. They can move in and out without complication, unlike before. This improves your economy as well as theirs. You can set up new businesses in other EU countries, and they can set up new businesses in yours. You can go work in another EU country, a Swede can work in yours.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
Yes unlike before. EU citizens can travel between EU countries without complications.
? They can travel without any needless bureaucracy. Even international experts had to get their passports stamped and papers filled before. Not having to do it saves man-hours in every country.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
Whaaaat? People can just come in and vote? No. People can come in, live there for a long period of time, and vote. Also social services are being provided in every country in varying degrees, only now you can fly your sick butt down here to Finland where medical research is top quality, and check yourself into a specialized ward where you'll be catered to your every need.
What is so special about this?
What's so special about being a xenophobe?
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All members of all parties in all countries are pursuing their own agendas, and trust me, their agendas are not necessarily your agendas.
Lithuania doesn't get one vote per person. All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
For my sake I hope the Germans and French make smart decision. I come from a land of 5 million. Not much difference our euro parliament members make, but they do bring home some bacon from time to time nonetheless.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
Yes. And the other country perfectly capable of getting fascist with you and possibly irradiating and blowing up everyone you love. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
And why did we need killers again. Please elaborate.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and preventing of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
The federalisation of Europe is not necessarily the way to go. If it's done, it has to be done very well, and the proposals thus far have not been up to par. IMO the more micro you go the better. In politics and everything. But you also do need to macro to take care of the micro.
Actually not so many other countries are perfectly capable of getting facist with us. Yours isn't for example. And if any country does blow us all up, we shall go to our graves with the smug satisfaction, that we took them all with us.
And yes any foreign resident gets to vote here. All you need is an address to register. EU, U.S. Campuchean. You live here you get to vote. I know, I know, it's so xenophobic of us.
And no, Europeans cannot travel freely without beurocracy and papers. Have you tried it recently? Go to an airport see how far you get.
Yes all countries in the EU are pursuing their own agendas. And yes they aren't necessarily my agendas. Now you are starting to understand. We are rivals. Not one great big unified supernation of mutual love. Now if all those countries agenda's that weren't my aganda's turned out to be very detrimental to our own agenda's, or worse dangerous to our populous, we might bomb you. Or drive tanks through your houses. We'd like you to bear that in mind during any diplomatic negotiation with us.
Obviously being the nice Eurofriendly information age people you are, all you agenda's will actually be highly beneficial to us anyway, so that's not something we really have to dwell on too much, I shouldn't think.
Why do we need killers? At the risk of stating the obvious we need killers to kill people we want dead.
How many roads on that border are capable of supporting the weight of a tank.
How many bridges can I blow that will not only totally stop that advance but trap an entire army in the base of a valley to be picked of by snipers in the mountains.
How many of those roads go past mountains and hills. How many supply trucks can one man ambush in that kind of terrain.
Have a look at the casualty rates for the fighting in Italy. See what the Germans did to the allies at Monte Casino. See the kill ratio there. That's a similar kind of fight, except the allies had a veteran army and the ability to manouvre up and down the coast with marine landings while the Russians in Finland had no such option.
You're debating a FACT. The gorillas with US aid, in the form of training and supplies, were able to hold off the Soviet army in Afganastan. Whether a portion of that country fell to the Russians I can not comment on as I do not know, but the fact remains that Russia was unable to take all of the country as they intended to do. I would call that a victory on the gorillas part. Who do you think was running the country after the Russiand pulled out, were do you think Bin Laden came from, or why those guys are so pissed at the US. Because we left after the Russians did. Also the coalition of forces in Afganistan have been able to wrest control of the morgity of that country away from the Taliban, something the USSR was unable to do.
Nonsense. They never held off the Russians at all. The Russians captured and held far more of Afghanistan than Nato has managed. Not suprising really since they had an army 10 times the size and a short land linked logistical train enabling them to bring in their heavy equipment en masse.
It's no more factually correct to say the Taleban held the Russians off than it is to say they held NATO off. Far less in fact.
Bin Laden came from Saudi. He operated on the borders of Afghanistan during the Russian occupation where he was a fund raiser. I have no idea why they were so pissed with the U.S. I suspect it has more to do with the U.S. military presence in Saudi and it's support of the Saudi king than it does with the mutual funding of common allies.
After Russia pulled out, Afghanistan continued to be run by a local tribal warlords. Just as it had been all the way through. Only the capital cities were run by Russia and it's puppet government; just as only (some of) the local capital's are run by NATO and it's puppet government. It's a feudal society. There is no effective central government. No "one" runs it.
And the Coaliton has by no means captured the majority of Afghanistan. Just a few key towns. There is only 40,000 troops there. They don't have the manpower to capture the place. Just little bits.
Last year was the first time Coalition forces had even entered the provinces. Up until last year the Coalition's tactics have not been to capture anything at all. They predominately used special forces to reinforce local warlords. Pitting indigineous troops against other indigineous troops. They didn't capture anything. They manipulated tribal rivalries to overthrow the Taleban alliance. And mounted search and destroy missions against suspected Al Quaida bases.
The Lebanese held off the Israeli's with anti-tank and artillery missiles, not M16's. Soviet tech that rendered Abrams based designs dead and the Isreali populous in range of retaliation.
For what it's worth, Germany, Austria, Japan were all independant nations before before we captured them too.
In Cuba, the Russians simply countereds your deployment of medium ranged missiles in Turkey. The called your bluff. You backed down and removed the missiles in Turkey were removed. You threatended them and they were prepared to go all the way.
Lol "Kruschev blinked!" LMAO. Kennedy didn;t like a taste of his own medicine. He didn't like where what he had started was going to end.
Another defeat sold to the masses as victory.
Originally posted by Fariic
And what's up with the edit at the end of your post? When did I even remotely imply any of that?
With every sentence. All I'm getting from you is how inferior and evil Russia is in everyway and how Superior America is. All the "facts" of their failures in the face of America. A long detailed list of examples of this with no point or relavence to any subject other than this end.
I am sorry man. You have some real issues. I'm refering to the statement at the end of your post. Debating with you is pointless as you demonstrate an to ability imagine things. I never said Russia was inferior or evil, nor did I ever make a comment about how great the US is.
You have serious issues discussing this topic in any form that is remotely mature, or civil. You are turning a discussion about Brittian rewing thier nuclear arsenal into a debate over wich country can pwn wich in war; one that you stear in wichever direction you wish to stear it by accusing others of implying ideas or beliefs.
Thank you for ruining this thread, I was having fun till I read this and the last post you made.
Edit: I just wanted to point out as well that debating a topic with soemone that makes crap up is pointless. Also, the Hamas (?) soldiers were carrying M16's and wearing Kevlar body armor; Kevlar was invented by Dupont, a company right down the road from me. This was broadcast on televisions around the world man, you can't argue a proven FACT.
Gah, why the hell am I even trying. Can't convince a crazy man he's crazy.
hehe oh yer. Forgot what this thread was originally about. Hope i Didnt come across nasty babuun. The world you see would be great to live in but I'm just a scinic I really cant see it . Hopefull I'm wrong.
But as to the op I Give thumbs up to replacing trident not adding to it.
You have serious issues discussing this topic in any form that is remotely mature, or civil. You are turning a discussion about Brittian rewing thier nuclear arsenal into a debate over wich country can pwn wich in war; one that you stear in wichever direction you wish to stear it by accusing others of implying ideas or beliefs. Thank you for ruining this thread, I was having fun till I read this and the last post you made.
The purpose of nuclear weapons is to pwn other countries in a war. That's what they are for. The critical importance of the the nuclear bomb is which countries it enables you to pwn.
Sorry if I ruined your fun. I've been enjoying the thread too. (And others you've taken the time to post in also).
The implication from all your words that I have been taking is American Pwns All. America = Good. Russia = Evil. Sorry but that really is a bit too comic book mentality for me not to take you up on it.
You view of history is American centric. I have attempted to offer you something of an alternative that is also true. I do not think it is possible to gain a balanced perspective of events without looking at all the angles.
I'm really not trying to dispute that Hamas used American Made Kevlar or M16's. I'm totally willing to take your word for it.
Comments
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
I think his agument wasn't about the likelyhood of the attacks tomorrow, but what would occur if the instance does occur...
And also, Relations between country does change, maybe what's impossible today isn't that far out of reach 20 yrs down the road.
Hitler thought Britain and Germany were natural allies too. Bound by history, geography and mutual intrest to be natural allies.
3 years later we declared war on him.
As for not being that economically significant, we're the largest foreign investor in your country. No other country is more economically significant to you than us. We have assets all over the world and you have shown no qualms about backstabbing us for them at any time in history including during 2 world wars and all through the NATO years. Why would you do it? Greed, national security, principle, all the usual reasons people do these things.
America's first priority is to act in it's own self intrest. That's the way it is. You're not our mum. When we are underattack, you don't come running to the rescue. You are always a no show. You look around and see what you have to gain. I don't disapprove of that. That's just how it is.
You're not our mum, and your not the kind of people we can afford to take our eyes off. Being your ally is great. But that's all it is, an alliance. If you get out of hand or the things you do in our intrest become outweighed by the things you do against it, we'll deal with you. You're big, but your not that big.
If we wished to join the EU anti-US block for example, whereby we join the federation in it's goal as a trade bloc and military bloc to curb U.S. expansion; Europe would need our detterant. Personally, I'd rather become the 51st state of course, but it doesn't hurt to keep your options open.
I don't want to be the 51st state of America or the 29th state of Europe. I want to be independant and have the means to stand up to either of you and anyone else I please at any time I please. The ability to destroy you is a sanction I wish to reserve.
I'm socially handicapped, so could you tell me if you're joking or not?
A big intercontinental ballistic missile shaped phallus.
I'm deadly serious.
A country full of all kinds of different people who united together are capable of standing up to the largest powers the world has to offer. To choose it's own path. To live by it's own ideals. To fear no others.
Never to be cowed.
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
I read the whole debate, but I couldn't decipher whether this was sarcasm or not.
). Nationalism and xenophobia are currently looked down upon in most EU countries. I'm not sure if Britain is one of them, as nationalism coupled with racism does seem to be, at least, a very visible problem.
Rival nations?
The last time I checked France, Germany and the UK were in the European Union. The European Union is nothing like the flimsy League Of Nations, because the EU has strict humanitarian and democratic requirements.
The EU is a voluntary union of democratic countries. To have joined this voluntary union you need to have accepted it's laws(the first supernational legal system). And to break it's laws is to leave the union.
The league of nations was a forced union of countries with leading countries that wanted to restrict anything and everything that could threaten them... and failed bysmally.
If Britain were the lone wolf you describe, it would have never joined the EU. It would have done like Norway or Switzerland.
In the age of information people are beginning to feel more unified not by nationality, but by state of mind and universal ethics(although nationalism is a state of mind that can unify people
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes.
So france and germany Members of the EU can moraly have these weopons but if britain simple maintains (note Maintains not add to) a nuclear deterent , Xenophobia (which you seem to point as a british phenomina) would suddenly run riot. I'm sorry thats just hypacritical. Germany by the way was percieved abserved and ignored all through the thirties look what happend.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations.
Like the world is such wonderfull place now
No the world is and allways has been a pretty nasty place to live. You either equip yourself to deal with it the best you can you you are simply An easy target.
Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
In a world where every tinpot dictator is scrabbling to get these weopons we should be left without........Nope There really just is no logic to this arguement.
I said it befor an ill say it again. I would rather have them and not need them, then need them and not have em.
Yes, rival nations, we compete for the same trade and contracts. The same resources. We may all be in the same EU, but we all want different things from it and for it. We compete and have a lot of conflicting goals and intrests.
When we joined the EU, there weren't any humanitarian or democratic requirements. All you had to have was money. The rich countries break the EU laws (the same ones that they themselves made) as often as they like. Who is going to ask them to leave? Germany and France broke the Euro regualtions. Make them leave? LMAO, there is no Euro without France and Germany.
The leading countries still restrict anything and everything. They make the laws for this very purpose. Some things don't change. Did you really think Lithuania was ever going to have equal say with Germany?
Germany doesn't have nukes. It has British and American soldiers though if you catch my drift.
Britain is a very cosmopolitan culture. We have loads of national pride. If other European cultures look down upon it, that is down to them. Perhaps they don't feel their nations have achieved very much. still, since they aren't in a position to do anything about it, we'll just go one living the way we like to live. And they can just going on judging us from afar. No offense but this isn't a popularity contest. We're friendly, open minded and respectful of foreign cultures. If you don't like us, that is your right.
BTW I think there are some very politically strong Nationalist movements in France, Austria and the Netherlands currently. It's been on the rise in almost lockstep with the EU. It's a backlash perhaps. A reaction. In fact didn't the Nationalists in France and The Netherlands vote down the EU constitution? Oh yes. So they did. How problematic.
We shall keep our weapons in case those people who called for that vote, and didn't like the result, attempt to force it upon us by other means.
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
Nowadays we live in the age of information. Diplomatic relations are easier to uphold, and conflicts have narrowed down to those that have been deeply rooted into certain regions. It is imperative that communications and conventions with all other countries are kept, and that laws are upheld concerning cruel and long-term effect weapons, and that weapon inspectors be allowed within every and any country at any time. In this respect, the lack of communication, the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The way communication was attempted to be established, is a different issue altogether, as is how quickly the attack was made and how much recoinnasance and logistics were gathered before the assaults.
The nature of the conflicts we fight are no longer as opportunistic and nationalist as they used to be.
How does opening yourself up for attack make the world a nicer place?
Doesn't it just encourage bad people who are looking to take advantage, to take advantage?
If I leave a wad of bank notes on the pavement, am I not encouraging someone to steal it? If I left it in the bank, wouldn't there be one less thief in the world?
If I wear a sign on my back that says "if you kick me, I won't kick you back" am I more likely to get kicked than if I wear a sign on my back that says "If you kick me I will rip your legs off". The world is a nicer place when you are not getting kicked.
As for Germany, they utterly destroyed our army. We weren't fighting from the mountains of Finland outside our own homes. We were out in the open. A war of manouvre in a foreign country, with hundreds of miles of supply lines to protect. We tried hiding behind rocks and throwing molotovs, we tried to hold the line. Only they just drove right past us.
And he had the invasion barges all prepped and ready to cross the channel. The plans drawn up, the troops in position, the airforce attacking. yes we had a Navy, so did they and at that stage of the war, their Navy was beating ours too.
Our Navy might have been big, but then it was spread out over every ocean in the planet. Not all sitting off the coast of Holland in artillery and airbombardment rangeof German forces.
Hitler thought Britain and Germany were natural allies too. Bound by history, geography and mutual intrest to be natural allies.
3 years later we declared war on him.
As for not being that economically significant, we're the largest foreign investor in your country. No other country is more economically significant to you than us. We have assets all over the world and you have shown no qualms about backstabbing us for them at any time in history including during 2 world wars and all through the NATO years. Why would you do it? Greed, national security, principle, all the usual reasons people do these things.
America's first priority is to act in it's own self intrest. That's the way it is. You're not our mum. When we are underattack, you don't come running to the rescue. You are always a no show. You look around and see what you have to gain. I don't disapprove of that. That's just how it is.
You're not our mum, and your not the kind of people we can afford to take our eyes off. Being your ally is great. But that's all it is, an alliance. If you get out of hand or the things you do in our intrest become outweighed by the things you do against it, we'll deal with you. You're big, but your not that big.
If we wished to join the EU anti-US block for example, whereby we join the federation in it's goal as a trade bloc and military bloc to curb U.S. expansion; Europe would need our detterant. Personally, I'd rather become the 51st state of course, but it doesn't hurt to keep your options open.
I don't want to be the 51st state of America or the 29th state of Europe. I want to be independant and have the means to stand up to either of you and anyone else I please at any time I please. The ability to destroy you is a sanction I wish to reserve.
I love your arrogance. Why are you lumping me with my country? Who says that I will even be a part of this country forever?
Why you would even think that America would annex Britain is beyond all human comprehension: Britain does not have a superabundance of natural resources, is far too small a country to ever be any threat and (first and foremost) has functioned already as an American state for the past few years(<3 @ the support in Iraq, eh?).
It would be like America invading Canada, or (modern day) Germany invading Austria; countries with similar ideals and cultures that have absolutely no economic incentive to go to war will not go to war with each other. America is better off leaving Britain the way it is, since they have both have successful markets and America would rather not have to deal with the much larger percentage of the unemployed Islamic population that is giving Britain trouble.
You can't overlook economics when looking at history, much like how you can't consider chemistry without physics.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I would support Britain if it were to renew it's nuclear arsenal; my only stipulation would be that they prohibit anyone from being involved that could possibly be affiliated with terrorists. America has already made that mistake in the past and it would only benefit Britain, since it's no less a target than the US.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Hmm lets see our military foreign policy is almost completely dictated by America. Balir is bushes poodle. American citizens carry guns in England but English citizens are not allowed to. British citizens may be axttradited to America without trial or evidence for crimes commited in England that are not even criminal offences in English law.
You already do have us annexed enough for my liking. The more power we get the more freedom to call the shots diplomatically. The balance is not even, militarily or diplomatically, this is not a good position to negotiate from. We are guarenteed the worst from every deal.
America has invaded Canada. Do it again and we'll nuke you.
America persistently uses it's military and economic muscle to exert influence and pressure on Canada. But Canada is not alone. Of course, why would America want to invade Canada, American's love Canadians and have loads of vested intrest. We are just doing are bit to maintain this happy circumstance.
And yes America would be better off leaving us as we are. The trouble with those markets though, is that we are all looking for growth. We are expansionist cultures. If we do not "grow" we think something is wrong. Some of those markets you are trying to expand into are mine. Some of those markets I am trying to expand into are yours.
Now since we both agree, that Americans are nice people and have nothing but Britains best intrest at heart, you don't have anything to worry about now do you?
You're not understanding how that kind of warfare works: America has much more surface area that it is distributed over unlike Britain. Nuclear bombs work best on cities with high population densities; your entire nation can be bijected to one state and has a much larger population. This means that the casualties inflicted by the same amount of firepower will be much higher in your country than in America.
Also, America has much more capable missle defenses, because a great deal of it's nominal GDP goes to taxes (which is incidentally more than 4 times yours) which in turn has gone to military spending for the past few decades.
You might be able to cripple America to a degree, but the only destruction you'd be assuring is your own.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
How does opening yourself up for attack make the world a nicer place?
For those in power, stepping down when nukes are called, not letting innocents suffer untimely deaths and perhaps destroy the whole ecosystem of the planet, is a truly admirable deed. Even if it does lead to some genocide and ethnic purging on the enemy's part. Hopefully the valiant deeds will show the people in the enemy's country that there are people with balls still around. It takes balls not to hurl missiles at old grandma's and little kids when you can and it would mean you wouldn't be executed and could stay in power.
Doesn't it just encourage bad people who are looking to take advantage, to take advantage?
Not if the world is overcome with good people, and an environment without fear first
If I leave a wad of bank notes on the pavement, am I not encouraging someone to steal it? If I left it in the bank, wouldn't there be one less thief in the world?
Who knows. A lot of the time people actually return this stuff, if not just for being decent, then for the tax department looking for them when they're spending money they shouldn't have.
If I wear a sign on my back that says "if you kick me, I won't kick you back" am I more likely to get kicked than if I wear a sign on my back that says "If you kick me I will rip your legs off". The world is a nicer place when you are not getting kicked.
Maybe if you're in some very juvenile place or surrounded by drunkards, you will get kicked. Most people will not kick you even if they could.
As for Germany, they utterly destroyed our army. We weren't fighting from the mountains of Finland outside our own homes. We were out in the open. A war of manouvre in a foreign country, with hundreds of miles of supply lines to protect. We tried hiding behind rocks and throwing molotovs, we tried to hold the line. Only they just drove right past us.
The Maginot Line was a ridiculous defence line. And also see below as I ridicule the fact you didn't look up my tiny country that's being trampled and abused by yours, Germany and France.
And he had the invasion barges all prepped and ready to cross the channel. The plans drawn up, the troops in position, the airforce attacking. yes we had a Navy, so did they and at that stage of the war, their Navy was beating ours too.
They wouldn't have won. That's why he pulled back. They wouldn't have won and their resources would have been wasted completely. Their chances of staging a succesful invasion were slim to none. The air invasion was a tie, but the invasion would have been a disaster.
Our Navy might have been big, but then it was spread out over every ocean in the planet. Not all sitting off the coast of Holland in artillery and airbombardment rangeof German forces.
Border between Finland and Russia:To get a better picture of that let's see a picture of current borders.
What a small border. Also. No mountains.
Alot of people like to drag up ww2 so I might aswell. Take a good look what happend. Our army was over stretched our equipment was archaic and was underfunded. And what happend we got steam rolled by germany and back straight in to the wall. This was all just 60 years ago. I'm really not sure why people think this could never happen again. (not neccesarily germany btw) the point is still valid tho.
Germany had an army and airforce meant for assault. Blitzkrieg was meant to be a ground and air operation... The only problem was that they didn't have a navy made for assault(and they knew they couldn't expand it to be such as Britain had by far the strongest European navy at the time), and the relatively strong air forces were incapable of invading anything without naval support. Britain did come under heavy attack from the air, but the assault targetted civilian targets excessively instead of military targets. The Germans could not soften up British defences enough to be able to stage any kind of invasion. Britain's army was in no way archaic (nor undermanned) compared to the ones Finland and Poland used. Poland unsuccesfully, but Finland succesfully in the Winter War(using satchel charges and molotov cocktails as primary methods to blow up tanks). The biggest element on Germany's side was momentum, and it was the whole point of their blitzkrieg. Nobody was expecting another world war, and nobody wanted to even consider one.
Nowadays we live in the age of information. Diplomatic relations are easier to uphold, and conflicts have narrowed down to those that have been deeply rooted into certain regions. It is imperative that communications and conventions with all other countries are kept, and that laws are upheld concerning cruel and long-term effect weapons, and that weapon inspectors be allowed within every and any country at any time. In this respect, the lack of communication, the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The way communication was attempted to be established, is a different issue altogether, as is how quickly the attack was made and how much recoinnasance and logistics were gathered before the assaults.
The nature of the conflicts we fight are no longer as opportunistic and nationalist as they used to be.
I would like to point out that during the first days of the battle of brittain germany was hitting raf bases constinuelsy they had the planes and the numbers and for a while many of the air Marshals saw the RAF Collapsing. this is very well documented dont take my word for it. The navy could not provide air cover. we had neither the manufactoring capabilities to sustain those kinds of loses. We had good aircraft yes but not the abilitie to repalce them or pilots quickly. What happend was germany in a bid to make the uk quite quickly switched to hitting london coventry and so forth an so on (civilians by the way). That gave us the time to start replacing loses and at least put up a fight.
Our army was archaic our tactics where relics of world war war 1. static trench warfare atrition if you like. Germany exploited that and we paid the price.
You can maintain as many diplomatic relations with an agressive nation till the cows come home but in the final analsis if you cannot offer to the table anything but good intention they are just going to ignor you.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
What is so special about this? We treat Mongolians the same. We're cosmopolitan we enjoy the diversity of culture, we're not restricting ourselves to the EU alone. Our horizons and cultural and economic links span the globe. Don't be such a little European.
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and the prevention of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
Yes unlike before. EU citizens can travel between EU countries without complications.
? They can travel without any needless bureaucracy. Even international experts had to get their passports stamped and papers filled before. Not having to do it saves man-hours in every country.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
Whaaaat? People can just come in and vote? No. People can come in, live there for a long period of time, and vote. Also social services are being provided in every country in varying degrees, only now you can fly your sick butt down here to Finland where medical research is top quality, and check yourself into a specialized ward where you'll be catered to your every need.
What is so special about this?
What's so special about being a xenophobe?
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All members of all parties in all countries are pursuing their own agendas, and trust me, their agendas are not necessarily your agendas.
Lithuania doesn't get one vote per person. All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
For my sake I hope the Germans and French make smart decision. I come from a land of 5 million. Not much difference our euro parliament members make, but they do bring home some bacon from time to time nonetheless.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
Yes. And the other country perfectly capable of getting fascist with you and possibly irradiating and blowing up everyone you love. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
And why did we need killers again. Please elaborate.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and preventing of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
The federalisation of Europe is not necessarily the way to go. If it's done, it has to be done very well, and the proposals thus far have not been up to par. IMO the more micro you go the better. In politics and everything. But you also do need to macro to take care of the micro.
i'm not sure I follow your points in the previous post Babbuun, the one with the map.
If I lower my guard some nasty person will kick me in the balls, but since everyone won't kick me in the balls all day and night, I should just let nasty people kick me in the balls as often as they wish and in this way the world we be a nicer place.
Sorry, but it you kick me in the balls, I'm going to rip your legs off. That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, or you think that is making the world a nastier place to live, that's your problem, personally I think a world in which no one kicks me in the balls is the kind of world I am looking to live in.
If you don't want nukes or guns or bombs and tanks and WMD. That's great news, I don't want you to have them either. But I'll be keeping mine.
Lets see if I understand this Defence of Finland thing.
In 1939. The Russian army invades Finland.
Finland Defeats Russia, therefore the Germany army are weak.
WTF.
The Russian army in 1939 were a ragtag bunch with archaic weapons and no officer corp. They were fighting in a mountainous region where defense is traditionally very easy and large open tank warfare impossible.
You beat the Russians. Gratz. Last time we fought them. We got as far as Sebastopol. How far did you get? What's that you say, you didn't make it outside of your own country? O.
You couldn't even hammer the Russians? It's a good thing you never met the Germans really then isn't it. They took the same Russians you fought all the way back to Moscow and Stalingrad.
No offence mate, I think the Fins had a masterful defence vs the Russians, I really do. But a different league. The Germans whupped us. No army on the planet could stand before them.
250,000 men
30 tanks
130 aircraft
Russian army:
1,000,000 men
3,000 tanks
3,800 aircraft
Finnish casualties:
26,662 dead
39,886 wounded
1,000 captured
Russian casualties:
126,875 dead or missing
264,908 wounded
3,100 captured
Sure the Russians were a rag tag group. And sure the finns were people used to working outdoors. But look at the length of that border. That is one big border to defend against a force that big. The big map can be scrolled for you to compare major European borders to the one Russia and Finland had (now it's slightly smaller since large land masses were lost). CastleGoob said you were outgunned and had an archaic army and that nobody came to help you. The point was: This is an example of my country, that didn't receive any help either, a country far more outgunned, far more outmanned, and with a far more archaic army. Yet Finland was first in line to join an international community after the cold war and our relations with the Soviet Union not permitting it. Even though Finland had only had shabby plans of assistance drawn to it from Allied countries during WWII, and nobody offering any real help.
The italics were there to symbolize unnecessary nationalism. What Finland was, is not me. It's imprinted on me, but it's not me. What Finland is, is not me. It's what I experience every day of my life, but it's not me.
Also Germany saw Russia had a logistical turd as an army, led to their decision to sack the Molotov-Ribbenwhatever treaty and focus on invading the east instead of wasting their resources on bombing the UK and trying to invade a turtle's shell.
Not unlike before. Exactly the same as before. Needed experts get the red carpet treatment. Alway have always will.
Yes unlike before. EU citizens can travel between EU countries without complications.
? They can travel without any needless bureaucracy. Even international experts had to get their passports stamped and papers filled before. Not having to do it saves man-hours in every country.
It's not just EU members that we can do this with. WQe can set up business in many countries all over the world. And have and do every day. Likewise People from outside the EU may also come to England and set up businesses and work here. They can use our free hospitals and social services if they ike too, they can even vote.
Whaaaat? People can just come in and vote? No. People can come in, live there for a long period of time, and vote. Also social services are being provided in every country in varying degrees, only now you can fly your sick butt down here to Finland where medical research is top quality, and check yourself into a specialized ward where you'll be catered to your every need.
What is so special about this?
What's so special about being a xenophobe?
We haven't quit the EU, but also we haven't signed up to all the laws either. We can pick and choose. We have our own agenda in the EU and we are pursuing it.
All members of all parties in all countries are pursuing their own agendas, and trust me, their agendas are not necessarily your agendas.
Lithuania doesn't get one vote per person. All the poor people in Eastern Europe combined can't outvote the French and Germans. Never going to happen.
For my sake I hope the Germans and French make smart decision. I come from a land of 5 million. Not much difference our euro parliament members make, but they do bring home some bacon from time to time nonetheless.
If people piss us off enough, we are perfectly capable of getting facist with them. Count on it.
Yes. And the other country perfectly capable of getting fascist with you and possibly irradiating and blowing up everyone you love. Count on it.
And yes our nuke wielding military do tend to be mindless racist xenophobes, but then again tree hugging social workers don't make very effective killers in my opinion.
And why did we need killers again. Please elaborate.
As for the nationalist movment not affecting anything yet? As long as national elections and preventing of the federalisation of Europe doesn't count as anything, I'm in agreement with you.
The federalisation of Europe is not necessarily the way to go. If it's done, it has to be done very well, and the proposals thus far have not been up to par. IMO the more micro you go the better. In politics and everything. But you also do need to macro to take care of the micro.
Actually not so many other countries are perfectly capable of getting facist with us. Yours isn't for example. And if any country does blow us all up, we shall go to our graves with the smug satisfaction, that we took them all with us.
And yes any foreign resident gets to vote here. All you need is an address to register. EU, U.S. Campuchean. You live here you get to vote. I know, I know, it's so xenophobic of us.
And no, Europeans cannot travel freely without beurocracy and papers. Have you tried it recently? Go to an airport see how far you get.
Yes all countries in the EU are pursuing their own agendas. And yes they aren't necessarily my agendas. Now you are starting to understand. We are rivals. Not one great big unified supernation of mutual love. Now if all those countries agenda's that weren't my aganda's turned out to be very detrimental to our own agenda's, or worse dangerous to our populous, we might bomb you. Or drive tanks through your houses. We'd like you to bear that in mind during any diplomatic negotiation with us.
Obviously being the nice Eurofriendly information age people you are, all you agenda's will actually be highly beneficial to us anyway, so that's not something we really have to dwell on too much, I shouldn't think.
Why do we need killers? At the risk of stating the obvious we need killers to kill people we want dead.
The length of that border?
What is it? four roads in?
How many roads on that border are capable of supporting the weight of a tank.
How many bridges can I blow that will not only totally stop that advance but trap an entire army in the base of a valley to be picked of by snipers in the mountains.
How many of those roads go past mountains and hills. How many supply trucks can one man ambush in that kind of terrain.
Have a look at the casualty rates for the fighting in Italy. See what the Germans did to the allies at Monte Casino. See the kill ratio there. That's a similar kind of fight, except the allies had a veteran army and the ability to manouvre up and down the coast with marine landings while the Russians in Finland had no such option.
Nonsense. They never held off the Russians at all. The Russians captured and held far more of Afghanistan than Nato has managed. Not suprising really since they had an army 10 times the size and a short land linked logistical train enabling them to bring in their heavy equipment en masse.
It's no more factually correct to say the Taleban held the Russians off than it is to say they held NATO off. Far less in fact.
Bin Laden came from Saudi. He operated on the borders of Afghanistan during the Russian occupation where he was a fund raiser. I have no idea why they were so pissed with the U.S. I suspect it has more to do with the U.S. military presence in Saudi and it's support of the Saudi king than it does with the mutual funding of common allies.
After Russia pulled out, Afghanistan continued to be run by a local tribal warlords. Just as it had been all the way through. Only the capital cities were run by Russia and it's puppet government; just as only (some of) the local capital's are run by NATO and it's puppet government. It's a feudal society. There is no effective central government. No "one" runs it.
And the Coaliton has by no means captured the majority of Afghanistan. Just a few key towns. There is only 40,000 troops there. They don't have the manpower to capture the place. Just little bits.
Last year was the first time Coalition forces had even entered the provinces. Up until last year the Coalition's tactics have not been to capture anything at all. They predominately used special forces to reinforce local warlords. Pitting indigineous troops against other indigineous troops. They didn't capture anything. They manipulated tribal rivalries to overthrow the Taleban alliance. And mounted search and destroy missions against suspected Al Quaida bases.
The Lebanese held off the Israeli's with anti-tank and artillery missiles, not M16's. Soviet tech that rendered Abrams based designs dead and the Isreali populous in range of retaliation.
For what it's worth, Germany, Austria, Japan were all independant nations before before we captured them too.
In Cuba, the Russians simply countereds your deployment of medium ranged missiles in Turkey. The called your bluff. You backed down and removed the missiles in Turkey were removed. You threatended them and they were prepared to go all the way.
Lol "Kruschev blinked!" LMAO. Kennedy didn;t like a taste of his own medicine. He didn't like where what he had started was going to end.
Another defeat sold to the masses as victory.
With every sentence. All I'm getting from you is how inferior and evil Russia is in everyway and how Superior America is. All the "facts" of their failures in the face of America. A long detailed list of examples of this with no point or relavence to any subject other than this end.I am sorry man. You have some real issues. I'm refering to the statement at the end of your post. Debating with you is pointless as you demonstrate an to ability imagine things. I never said Russia was inferior or evil, nor did I ever make a comment about how great the US is.
You have serious issues discussing this topic in any form that is remotely mature, or civil. You are turning a discussion about Brittian rewing thier nuclear arsenal into a debate over wich country can pwn wich in war; one that you stear in wichever direction you wish to stear it by accusing others of implying ideas or beliefs.
Thank you for ruining this thread, I was having fun till I read this and the last post you made.
Edit: I just wanted to point out as well that debating a topic with soemone that makes crap up is pointless. Also, the Hamas (?) soldiers were carrying M16's and wearing Kevlar body armor; Kevlar was invented by Dupont, a company right down the road from me. This was broadcast on televisions around the world man, you can't argue a proven FACT.
Gah, why the hell am I even trying. Can't convince a crazy man he's crazy.
hehe oh yer. Forgot what this thread was originally about. Hope i Didnt come across nasty babuun. The world you see would be great to live in but I'm just a scinic I really cant see it
. Hopefull I'm wrong.
But as to the op I Give thumbs up to replacing trident not adding to it.
The purpose of nuclear weapons is to pwn other countries in a war. That's what they are for. The critical importance of the the nuclear bomb is which countries it enables you to pwn.
Sorry if I ruined your fun. I've been enjoying the thread too. (And others you've taken the time to post in also).
The implication from all your words that I have been taking is American Pwns All. America = Good. Russia = Evil. Sorry but that really is a bit too comic book mentality for me not to take you up on it.
You view of history is American centric. I have attempted to offer you something of an alternative that is also true. I do not think it is possible to gain a balanced perspective of events without looking at all the angles.
I'm really not trying to dispute that Hamas used American Made Kevlar or M16's. I'm totally willing to take your word for it.