the reality of the war on Iraq: US vs. Old Europe

[BaliBabyDoc]

I guess we may need to define superpower. There military is behind ours b/c they choose to spend their money investing in their population . . . as opposed to say North Korea or the Bush administration. China has unmatched human capital. India is a close second but Pakistan is stunting their growth. The incredible links between China to HK (still not really China), Taiwan, and Singapore only strengthens China's position as the future of the Pac Rim. It matters b/c if you checked the label on every product in your computer room I bet 85% were sourced in the Pacific . . . all the way down to your clothing.

Assuming Three Gorges works . . . China will greatly expand its capacity for productivity/commerce within the country and abroad. Every company with a clue will establish/expand operations on mainland China. As America continues to waste hundreds of billions annually to guarantee the right to drive 3-ton vehicles to the grocery store, China is building an empire which may actually be sustainable.

Sure, no country can match our ability to blow stuff up . . . but that power only has credibility amongst like minded people. The majority of the world isn't interested in blowing stuff up . . . they want to build a better present towards a prosperous sustainable future. Aircraft carriers, Ospreys, and NMD (hmm, haven't heard that in a while) are wastes which do not make us safer . . . they actually make us weaker.

We've got a great head start but the current adminstration is piddling it away. The EU will tolerate US hegemony b/c 1) they don't really have a choice and 2) it will not matter. Ultimately, Iraqis will reject US "occupation" b/c the only thing people hate more than their kindred bastard despot is a foreign despot. We will not profit from invading Iraq . . . it will only cost . . . 1) moral standing (note our only real ally is backing farther and farther away from Bush admin decrees), 2) more blood in Iraqi resistance and US troops, 3) financially to fund the military presence/ economic costs to the homeland, and 4) time (invested in trying to prevail when the cause is futile).

 

[Alistar7]

There military is behind ours b/c they choose to spend their money investing in their population

Thats a laugher there pal, I will take my american standard of living over the chineese, including what my Govt can and does provide for me and my country.

The people making the decisions regarding IRaq are IRaqi right now, they are holding meetings without US presence and are hoping to instill an Iraqi interm govt within 4 weeks, sounds like occupation to me.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Newest US appointment
The United States picked a new head of Iraq's Health Ministry on Saturday ? a Baath Party (search) member whose appointment was so critical that U.S. officials designated the announcement "Public Notice No. 1."


Normally, I would not use info from the garbage news network but I visit daily just to see the current spin.

Have you ever been to China? Do you have any idea about the differential in wealth between the high-mighty in Beijing versus the typical farmer in the rural provinces? Curiously, it closely resembles America. You are quite right that being on the lowest rung in China sux but I'm not sure comparing such a person to the typical homeless person in say Houston, TX would be in our favor.

If you are talking about the average standard of living well sure America is the hands down winner in a direct comparison. Unfortunately, if you put it on a continuum with other 1st tier nations we are middle of the pack at best.

The Three Gorges damn is an incredible project. It will dramatically expand the navigability of the rivers AND produce a great amount of relatively clean energy. What China is spending on this project is probably comparable to the subsidy our government currently gives to the coal industry. To me that means China is investing in a sustainable future.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So let's say the interim Iraqi government says they desire:

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors


Do you think the Bush administration would allow ANY of that to happen?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Thats a laugher there pal, I will take my american standard of living over the chineese, including what my Govt can and does provide for me and my country.

They'll take your standard of living over theirs too, literally, when your job is exported over there

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Newest US appointment
The United States picked a new head of Iraq's Health Ministry on Saturday ? a Baath Party (search) member whose appointment was so critical that U.S. officials designated the announcement "Public Notice No. 1."


Normally, I would not use info from the garbage news network but I visit daily just to see the current spin.

Have you ever been to China? Do you have any idea about the differential in wealth between the high-mighty in Beijing versus the typical farmer in the rural provinces? Curiously, it closely resembles America. You are quite right that being on the lowest rung in China sux but I'm not sure comparing such a person to the typical homeless person in say Houston, TX would be in our favor.

If you are talking about the average standard of living well sure America is the hands down winner in a direct comparison. Unfortunately, if you put it on a continuum with other 1st tier nations we are middle of the pack at best.

The Three Gorges damn is an incredible project. It will dramatically expand the navigability of the rivers AND produce a great amount of relatively clean energy. What China is spending on this project is probably comparable to the subsidy our government currently gives to the coal industry. To me that means China is investing in a sustainable future.

It's a pretty impressive project, but I must say communist governments are known to cover up shoddy construction (like Chernobyl) or other safety problems, so I am a little concerned it could be a recipe for a disaster.

 

[freegeeks]

You're forgetting about economies of scale. For example, suppose the U.S. had an annual defense budget of say around $55 billion. After the money is allocated to the various military branches, there's no way the U.S. Navy could afford even one carrier battlegroup with that kind of budget. When you decide to deploy carriers, you have to remember that's not all you need to invest in. You're investing in the air wing, the escort vessels, the support ships, and the infrastructure to construct ships the size of aircraft carriers as well as support them in operations. This is no small task. The fact of the matter is that just the creating the infrastructure to construct a military vessel of that size alone is a major hurdle and would require an enormous investment up front.

not entirely true. What I'm saying that basically the capacity and the technology is already in Europe to support a bigger army. Now we just need the political will to invest in defense. This is going to take years to build up.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let's say the interim Iraqi government says they desire:

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors


Do you think the Bush administration would allow ANY of that to happen?

You are also assuming the new Iraqi goverment would want any of these things to happen.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let's say the interim Iraqi government says they desire:

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors


Do you think the Bush administration would allow ANY of that to happen?

You are also assuming the new Iraqi goverment would want any of these things to happen.

Why would a US puppet government want something that Washington doesn't?

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You're forgetting about economies of scale. For example, suppose the U.S. had an annual defense budget of say around $55 billion. After the money is allocated to the various military branches, there's no way the U.S. Navy could afford even one carrier battlegroup with that kind of budget. When you decide to deploy carriers, you have to remember that's not all you need to invest in. You're investing in the air wing, the escort vessels, the support ships, and the infrastructure to construct ships the size of aircraft carriers as well as support them in operations. This is no small task. The fact of the matter is that just the creating the infrastructure to construct a military vessel of that size alone is a major hurdle and would require an enormous investment up front.

not entirely true. What I'm saying that basically the capacity and the technology is already in Europe to support a bigger army. Now we just need the political will to invest in defense. This is going to take years to build up.

Europe doesn't need bigger armies, it needs better armies. Belguim, France and Germany alone have around 570,000 troops which is a little bit under 40% of total U.S. troop strength. However, when combined do these countries have anywhere near 40% of the military capability of the U.S.? The answer is clearly no. There is enormous redundancy and not nearly enough coordination between these countries which prevents them from making the really big investments necessary to field the latest weapons systems on any kind of scale. That was bascially my whole point with your aircraft carrier example. It's far too expensive for Europe to try to match the capability of a U.S. supercarrier battlegroup, but they have enough resources to field a few smaller carriers with less capability at a lower cost. The U.K. is already pursuing this option by themselves. Finally, I agree that it will take the political will to increase defense spending and increase defense cooperation in Europe to truly yield a better European armed forces, but Europe doesn't need more manpower to achieve that objective.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You're forgetting about economies of scale. For example, suppose the U.S. had an annual defense budget of say around $55 billion. After the money is allocated to the various military branches, there's no way the U.S. Navy could afford even one carrier battlegroup with that kind of budget. When you decide to deploy carriers, you have to remember that's not all you need to invest in. You're investing in the air wing, the escort vessels, the support ships, and the infrastructure to construct ships the size of aircraft carriers as well as support them in operations. This is no small task. The fact of the matter is that just the creating the infrastructure to construct a military vessel of that size alone is a major hurdle and would require an enormous investment up front.

not entirely true. What I'm saying that basically the capacity and the technology is already in Europe to support a bigger army. Now we just need the political will to invest in defense. This is going to take years to build up.

Europe doesn't need bigger armies, it needs better armies. Belguim, France and Germany alone have around 570,000 troops which is a little bit under 40% of total U.S. troop strength. However, when combined do these countries have anywhere near 40% of the military capability of the U.S.? The answer is clearly no. There is enormous redundancy and not nearly enough coordination between these countries which prevents them from making the really big investments necessary to field the latest weapons systems on any kind of scale. That was bascially my whole point with your aircraft carrier example. It's far too expensive for Europe to try to match the capability of a U.S. supercarrier battlegroup, but they have enough resources to field a few smaller carriers with less capability at a lower cost. The U.K. is already pursuing this option by themselves. Finally, I agree that it will take the political will to increase defense spending and increase defense cooperation in Europe to truly yield a better European armed forces, but Europe doesn't need more manpower to achieve that objective.

EU has Nukes, any nation attacking a european nation would be fried if it came close to winning... the balance of terror does work as you do not need the amount that the US have, you just need enough to blow up half a nation, that works as a deterrant...

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
And so the vicious cycle continues.
A unified EU, 'Armed to the Teeth', isn't that what Hiltlers dream was for Europe - with him in charge?

China IS a superpower, it just is not armed militarily as intensly as ours - dosen't need to.
If China was to loose a population total equal to the population total of the USA - around 280 million,
they could write that off as a form of birth control, they number in the Billions.
A war kill ratio Vs China of 25:1 would eliminate the US while leaving a heavily populated China.

Most likely thing is that we will further retrach from the World community, and Fortress America will become isolationist.
It's part of the Neo-Conservitive doctrine.

The 'Coalition of the Willing' in reality was the "Coalition of the Bribed, or Looking for a Hand-out"
Crack-Ho's have more credibility than some members of the 'Alledged' Coalition.

What he said.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let's say the interim Iraqi government says they desire:

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors


Do you think the Bush administration would allow ANY of that to happen?

The answer is obvious. Alistair, we have debated about just how free the Iraqi people are and just how "happy" they may or may not be to see us, but you have to admit that what BBD pointed out are decisions that a truely free country could and should make on its own. Now no one is saying that that is what they want, I think the point is that even if they wanted it, they would not get it as they are not truely free. Besides, it's naive to think that the interim gov. is not a puppet one.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's a pretty impressive project, but I must say communist governments are known to cover up shoddy construction (like Chernobyl) or other safety problems, so I am a little concerned it could be a recipe for a disaster.

For the sake of argument, I was assuming success. But your point is well taken . . . you would hope the Chinese government would realize the country's future is at stake if Three Gorges fails (with an afterthought to the thousands if not millions of people who might die if the dam collapses). Then again . . . a few thousand civilian casualties were perfectly OK for our war in Iraq (granted, we don't really care enough to count) . . . and we are the most compassionate country in the world

so wouldn't you expect China to have even less regard for human life?!

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors

1) The majority of sanctions against Iraq are a product of WMD production/use or capacity for production. Once Iraq is proven free of WMD then virtually all sanctions would be lifted allowing Iraq to rejoin the world community. Contrary to popular belief in America, the US does not control the evaluation/implementation of all UN resolutions.

2) While many Iraqis may consider Franco-Russo-Sino firms as partners with Saddam, they would certainly acknowledge that those countries assistance helped keep Iraq afloat while it was under an economic barrage orchestrated by the US. And of course anyone with an institutional memory will remember how crooked US oil firms were in Iran.

3) The majority of schoolchildren are still at home b/c of chaos in the streets and the occasional US battalion staging ops from elementary schools.

4) Rumsfeld has made it clear that US forces are not a police force and when anything bad happens to civilians either by commission or omission of US forces his retort is usually a derivation of . . . "poo happens". In addition, a US troop presence could have the same corrupting influence on Iraqi politics as the previous militant regime which ruled by force not consent.

5) The power and water being restored is primarily a function of committed Iraqis returning to work NOT the efforts of the Army Corps or UK engineers. The extra food rations provided by Saddam are approaching exhaustion. The food aid delivered by US forces is a fraction of the aid provided thus far by the UN/NGOs. The UN/NGOs consider Iraq the primary concern. The US considers Iraq part of a war on terror and has shown inadequate concern for any country it has liberated.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

It's a pretty impressive project, but I must say communist governments are known to cover up shoddy construction (like Chernobyl) or other safety problems, so I am a little concerned it could be a recipe for a disaster.

For the sake of argument, I was assuming success. But your point is well taken . . . you would hope the Chinese government would realize the country's future is at stake if Three Gorges fails (with an afterthought to the thousands if not millions of people who might die if the dam collapses). Then again . . . a few thousand civilian casualties were perfectly OK for our war in Iraq (granted, we don't really care enough to count) . . . and we are the most compassionate country in the world

so wouldn't you expect China to have even less regard for human life?!

1) UN inspectors to come and expedite the certification that the country is free of WMD

2) French/Russian/Chinese companies to honor previous contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields

3) UN security force to be deployed throughout the country

4) US troop withdrawal as UN security forces arrive

5) UN to organize the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure with a bias towards Arab contractors

1) The majority of sanctions against Iraq are a product of WMD production/use or capacity for production. Once Iraq is proven free of WMD then virtually all sanctions would be lifted allowing Iraq to rejoin the world community. Contrary to popular belief in America, the US does not control the evaluation/implementation of all UN resolutions.

2) While many Iraqis may consider Franco-Russo-Sino firms as partners with Saddam, they would certainly acknowledge that those countries assistance helped keep Iraq afloat while it was under an economic barrage orchestrated by the US. And of course anyone with an institutional memory will remember how crooked US oil firms were in Iran.

3) The majority of schoolchildren are still at home b/c of chaos in the streets and the occasional US battalion staging ops from elementary schools.

4) Rumsfeld has made it clear that US forces are not a police force and when anything bad happens to civilians either by commission or omission of US forces his retort is usually a derivation of . . . "poo happens". In addition, a US troop presence could have the same corrupting influence on Iraqi politics as the previous militant regime which ruled by force not consent.

5) The power and water being restored is primarily a function of committed Iraqis returning to work NOT the efforts of the Army Corps or UK engineers. The extra food rations provided by Saddam are approaching exhaustion. The food aid delivered by US forces is a fraction of the aid provided thus far by the UN/NGOs. The UN/NGOs consider Iraq the primary concern. The US considers Iraq part of a war on terror and has shown inadequate concern for any country it has liberated.

What he said.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: freegeeks

You're forgetting about economies of scale. For example, suppose the U.S. had an annual defense budget of say around $55 billion. After the money is allocated to the various military branches, there's no way the U.S. Navy could afford even one carrier battlegroup with that kind of budget. When you decide to deploy carriers, you have to remember that's not all you need to invest in. You're investing in the air wing, the escort vessels, the support ships, and the infrastructure to construct ships the size of aircraft carriers as well as support them in operations. This is no small task. The fact of the matter is that just the creating the infrastructure to construct a military vessel of that size alone is a major hurdle and would require an enormous investment up front.

not entirely true. What I'm saying that basically the capacity and the technology is already in Europe to support a bigger army. Now we just need the political will to invest in defense. This is going to take years to build up.

Europe doesn't need bigger armies, it needs better armies. Belguim, France and Germany alone have around 570,000 troops which is a little bit under 40% of total U.S. troop strength. However, when combined do these countries have anywhere near 40% of the military capability of the U.S.? The answer is clearly no. There is enormous redundancy and not nearly enough coordination between these countries which prevents them from making the really big investments necessary to field the latest weapons systems on any kind of scale. That was bascially my whole point with your aircraft carrier example. It's far too expensive for Europe to try to match the capability of a U.S. supercarrier battlegroup, but they have enough resources to field a few smaller carriers with less capability at a lower cost. The U.K. is already pursuing this option by themselves. Finally, I agree that it will take the political will to increase defense spending and increase defense cooperation in Europe to truly yield a better European armed forces, but Europe doesn't need more manpower to achieve that objective.

As long as the EU expends massive budget amounts on socialized medicine, welfare and other social programs (constituting 60-80% of their budgets) with tax rates in excess of 40% and unemployment in excess of 10% they will never have the economic ability to pursue a millitary strength on par with the US. The EU and Russia moving forward will never have equivalent conventional strength to the US forces due to this simple economic reality. They will rely on thier nuclear last resort defense.

 

[mboy]

MOst European countries are not even allowed to have their airforce even operate with the US airforce as their systems are too old to be compatible with the US.

Their will neve be an EU military force able to compete with the US no matter if Germany, France, Poland or any other euro country joins. They are SOO far behind the US military, they would NEVEr be able to catch up. Kind of like the cop parked with his radar gun pointed at a Lambo doing 190 past him. He would have to go 260mph just to catch up with the Lambo unless it comes to a stop or slowdown along the way. The US military aint hitting a brick wall anytime son.

 

[freegeeks]

MOst European countries are not even allowed to have their airforce even operate with the US airforce as their systems are too old to be compatible with the US.

[cough]bullsh*t[/cough]

that's why each year European NATO F-16, Tornado's, ... are training together with their american collegues in Europe and the USA.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: mboy
MOst European countries are not even allowed to have their airforce even operate with the US airforce as their systems are too old to be compatible with the US.

Their will neve be an EU military force able to compete with the US no matter if Germany, France, Poland or any other euro country joins. They are SOO far behind the US military, they would NEVEr be able to catch up. Kind of like the cop parked with his radar gun pointed at a Lambo doing 190 past him. He would have to go 260mph just to catch up with the Lambo unless it comes to a stop or slowdown along the way. The US military aint hitting a brick wall anytime son.

speaking of blind american patriotism
once upon a time the British has the most powerful navy in the world, and that's not too long ago
once upon a time Roman has the strongest army in the world, well what happened? I guess they hit a brick wall called the barbarian...
...etc etc

 

[mboy]

During the 1st gulf war, I beleive the French airforce was asked to sit out becasue they were using the same old dated radar tech the Iraqi's were using. They showed up as enemy aircraft on our newer systems atthe time. All those plane sat out. (could have been the german's, altho I believe it was the French.

Their is a big problem with NATO now, most o fht ecountries systems are NOT compatible with US systems. DO some research on it.

What modern country has the economy to keep up with US military spending?
NOt blind American Patriotism, just fact.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: mboy
MOst European countries are not even allowed to have their airforce even operate with the US airforce as their systems are too old to be compatible with the US.

Their will neve be an EU military force able to compete with the US no matter if Germany, France, Poland or any other euro country joins. They are SOO far behind the US military, they would NEVEr be able to catch up. Kind of like the cop parked with his radar gun pointed at a Lambo doing 190 past him. He would have to go 260mph just to catch up with the Lambo unless it comes to a stop or slowdown along the way. The US military aint hitting a brick wall anytime son.

There is no need for EU to compete with the US. As you can see North Korea's possibly fictional nuclear deterrent is sufficient against the US.
Having a large standing army that is not utilized is a drain on the economy. If you are not intervening in other places, a standing army is just acting as a deterrent to enemies. But a few Nukes are a much better deterrent than a standing army, and much more cost effective. If there is ever a need to mobilize and build arms, as long as economy is strong, procurement of weapons is not a problem. The main reason the European arms industry is behind is because there is just not enough interest from the governments in arms purchases. Why are you going to spend billions on R&D if noone is buying?

 

[freegeeks]

During the 1st gulf war, I beleive the French airforce was asked to sit out becasue they were using the same old dated radar tech the Iraqi's were using. They showed up as enemy aircraft on our newer systems atthe time. All those plane sat out. (could have been the german's, altho I believe it was the French.

Yeah, the USA has such advanced technology that they took out a British tornado (with a modern IFF).
As i recall, the French did a lot of missions with their Jaguars during the 1st gulf war. Maybe you have a link that shows me that the French did not participate in the first gulf war because of their outdated technology (and it's certainly not the germans because they hadn't fighter planes in the region in both gulf wars). All NATO countries are obliged to have IFF that works on all common radar systems. Your next statement is probably that the French Rafale is a rebuild MIG-15.

 

[sandorski]

If the US military and Europes military met at an agreed upon battlefield, say Africa, sure, the US would likely win. If Europe tried to invade the US, US would win. US try to invade Europe, Europe would most likely win. All they need is enough military to defend themselves, anything more leads to Imperialism, something they've already done and have lost interest in doing again(I hope).

 

[cpumaster]

currently as no country would be able to keep up with US air superiority in conventional warfare, most will probably concentrate on spending for thei air defense, ie SAM, radar, communication system, etc.

 

[SnapIT]

Don't kid yourselves, most european countries have top notch military equipment, us Swedes would know, we sold the stuff to them, as well as to the US...

Bofors and Saab are alive and well, selling guns and jets to just about every civilised country in the world... and probably a few more...