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

[alphatarget1]

The more i read about this war and international politics, the more it becomes clear to me that this war is way more than getting rid of Saddam. A handful of Eastern European countries are lining up behind the US in this war and the ultimate outcome would be a weakened EU. This is targeted at France and Germany who wants to be super power again with the power of EU.

EU will be a threat to the US eventually if we don't take action to weaken them... any comments?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine, et al would be foolish to align themselves with the US as opposed to their Western brethren. These countries need to develop the talents of their populations . . . instead their leaders are falling over themselves for DOD subsidies in hardware and new military bases. The US doesn't need to move troops from Germany to Bulgaria . . . we need to move them from Germany to home.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The "old Europe" is a Rumsfeld construct put forward to denigrate those in Europe who did not support his position. As BBDoc said, countries in Europe would be foolish to align with us. What the "new Europe wants is money, and hoped to get it from the US. Well, Rummy is attached to, and respects those nations as much as he might a ten dollar hooker in search of crack. He used them because it was convient to and will discard them as soon as they have performed their function. What then? Where to get the next cash fix? The EU. Yes, eventually the Europeans will become united and as they do I believe they will form a military power to be independent of, or offset the US military. Fifty years tops, and the EU and Russians will be pretty much firmly aligned, Japan will be a distant third, and who knows with China.

 

[charrison]

It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's be honest . . . China will become a superpower. I see a tri-lateral world with the US, EU (Germany/France/Russia), and China.

Eventually the leadership in the former Eastern bloc will come to realize that the US doesn't have allies b/c we don't NEED allies. Bulgaria and Poland are still dealing with a myriad of Soviet-era hangover issues . . . particularly pollution/industry modernization. Where do they think the money/resources will come from . . . the US? We don't even fund pollution control in America. The US government is subsidizing only one activity in most of these countries . . . military. It's a poor investment for them and for us.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's be honest . . . China will become a superpower. I see a tri-lateral world with the US, EU (Germany/France/Russia), and China.

Eventually the leadership in the former Eastern bloc will come to realize that the US doesn't have allies b/c we don't NEED allies. Bulgaria and Poland are still dealing with a myriad of Soviet-era hangover issues . . . particularly pollution/industry modernization. Where do they think the money/resources will come from . . . the US? We don't even fund pollution control in America. The US government is subsidizing only one activity in most of these countries . . . military. It's a poor investment for them and for us.

Actually lets be honest, China could become a super power. China could also become a friendly nation given the amount of trade we do with them. Right now China military is aging faster than it is advancing.

I see the EU developing a common military, but to go with this they are going to have to refine their federal goverment. Member states will not allow France to make all the decisions.

Does the US need a military footprint in Europe? Given the past history of Europe, I would have to say yes. Until the EU can develope forces that can take care of problems in their back yard, we will need to be there.

 

[Martin]

As others have mentioned the alligning of the 'new' europe is a temporary matter. Let's not forget that most of them will be joining the EU next year, with Romania and Bulgaria joining in 2007. The EU is gradually move towards a tigher union, and (my guess) 20 years from now they will have a Euro amry and a common foreign policy.

But where will the army spending come from? Remember charrison that the EU has a much bigger population than the US and that the economies of Easter Europe (and Russia) are growing at a brisk pace, so they may be able to get away with paying less as a percentage, while still matching the US dollar-wise.

But do they even need their army to be better than the US'? No, since the EU and US will never actually fight one another, an army that projects power would be good enough.

 

[Rastus]

I've heard speculation that our western European forces are going to move into east Europe to be closer to the action in the middle east, yet still close enough to west Europe to still be a factor in that region. Big base in Bulgaria.

 

[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.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

China likes our money . . . everybody likes our money but they are not as quick to sellout like France or Russia. It's not like US forces are cruising the Taiwan Strait. If Taiwan pissed China off and China sent them a 'message' the US would not come to rescue talking about peace, freedom, and democracy. Last time I checked "Free Tibet" was still a cause for those who care about such things as peace, freedom, and democracy.

Given a choice between a military subsidy and sustainable infrastructure support, former Easter bloc countries will choose the EU. Accordingly, the expense of developing new bases in say Bulgaria/Poland will have been wasted. Even if we negotiate limited use of said resources it does not justify the expense. If you really think a European presence is such a necessity it makes a lot more sense to kiss and make up with Germany than to embrace Europe's stepchildren.

 

[cpumaster]

alphatarget1
The more i read about this war and international politics, the more it becomes clear to me that this war is way more than getting rid of Saddam. A handful of Eastern European countries are lining up behind the US in this war and the ultimate outcome would be a weakened EU. This is targeted at France and Germany who wants to be super power again with the power of EU.

EU will be a threat to the US eventually if we don't take action to weaken them... any comments?

Congratulation, you just used the Nazi/Hitler logic. That's exactly the same reason Hitler used for Germany to go to war against the Allied: Germany need room to grow, if we don't attack the France and British now, they will threatened us in the future.

Thus begin WWII, and now you want US to use the same logic to start WWIII (or WWIV, depending on how you count it )

 

[SuperTool]

Looks like Poland is taking a brief break from being occupied in order to occupy Iraq.

 

[freegeeks]

It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

Charrison.

The EU has no desire to become the no1 military superpower. All we need is our own capability to project our power globally. You don't need 12 supercarriers to do that. Like I said in another thread, the new France - Germany - Belgium - Luxembourg alliance have together a defense budget of $55 billion. If we can invest that money as "efficient" like the US, that money buys you 2-3 carriers (just an ex.). That is enough to project power anywhere in the world and confront any possible nation (with exception of the USA). That is only with the 4 countries I mentioned before so I'm not even talking about other countries who are maybe interested (Russia already made a statement that they liked the idea very much). Rumsfeld can laugh with the "old europe" all he wants but it's still the France - German axis that is the leading power in europe. Chiraq made it clear that the eastern-europe countries better watch out with the unconditional support for the US and since his (rude) statement, poland, bulgaria, .... etc. are less vocal about their US support. They realize that it's mostly France and Germany that are investing billions into their economies. Joining the EU is VITAL for these countries and France-Germany made it clear that they would block their EU membership if necessary.

 

[sandorski]

Rumsfeld suffers from, to quote Bob Dylan, the disease of conceit. His position and that of PNAC suffers from a serious deficiency, that is the lack of leading by example.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

Charrison.

The EU has no desire to become the no1 military superpower. All we need is our own capability to project our power globally. You don't need 12 supercarriers to do that. Like I said in another thread, the new France - Germany - Belgium - Luxembourg alliance have together a defense budget of $55 billion. If we can invest that money as "efficient" like the US, that money buys you 2-3 carriers (just an ex.). That is enough to project power anywhere in the world and confront any possible nation (with exception of the USA). That is only with the 4 countries I mentioned before so I'm not even talking about other countries who are maybe interested (Russia already made a statement that they liked the idea very much). Rumsfeld can laugh with the "old europe" all he wants but it's still the France - German axis that is the leading power in europe. Chiraq made it clear that the eastern-europe countries better watch out with the unconditional support for the US and since his (rude) statement, poland, bulgaria, .... etc. are less vocal about their US support. They realize that it's mostly France and Germany that are investing billions into their economies. Joining the EU is VITAL for these countries and France-Germany made it clear that they would block their EU membership if necessary.

The "new Europe" is still in rebound from their relation with the USSR, so they will jump into the arms of anyone aside from Russia just to feel like they belong. So the cold war mentality in our defense establishment and the cold war fears of the "new Europe" are a perfect fit for each other. "New Europe" doesn't have much to contribute to our defense aside from maybe new cusine in the mess hall.

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

Charrison.

The EU has no desire to become the no1 military superpower. All we need is our own capability to project our power globally. You don't need 12 supercarriers to do that. Like I said in another thread, the new France - Germany - Belgium - Luxembourg alliance have together a defense budget of $55 billion. If we can invest that money as "efficient" like the US, that money buys you 2-3 carriers (just an ex.). That is enough to project power anywhere in the world and confront any possible nation (with exception of the USA). That is only with the 4 countries I mentioned before so I'm not even talking about other countries who are maybe interested (Russia already made a statement that they liked the idea very much). Rumsfeld can laugh with the "old europe" all he wants but it's still the France - German axis that is the leading power in europe. Chiraq made it clear that the eastern-europe countries better watch out with the unconditional support for the US and since his (rude) statement, poland, bulgaria, .... etc. are less vocal about their US support. They realize that it's mostly France and Germany that are investing billions into their economies. Joining the EU is VITAL for these countries and France-Germany made it clear that they would block their EU membership if necessary.

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.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

I think the EU eventually will be forced to become a military union as well. Face it, as the EU grows it will have to project military strength to protect its interests. The old reliance upon NATO, I think, will be in severe decline and as the US has to grapple with the growing economics in Europe, it certainly will be looking out for its own interests rather than those of the EU. As far as I know, every lasting economic power in history has had the military might to back it up.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

I think the EU eventually will be forced to become a military union as well. Face it, as the EU grows it will have to project military strength to protect its interests. The old reliance upon NATO, I think, will be in severe decline and as the US has to grapple with the growing economics in Europe, it certainly will be looking out for its own interests rather than those of the EU. As far as I know, every lasting economic power in history has had the military might to back it up.

Why would it have to have a united military strenght to protect it's interests? Which nation poses a threat to Europe today or in the forseeable future?

NATO is crippled mostly because the opposing power from the Warsaw-pact is gone, so there is no longer a need for NATO...

 

[cpumaster]

how about US interest might threatened EU interest? someday we might have to go to war with them, especially if the neo-con keep gaining influence and power in the US govt.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
how about US interest might threatened EU interest? someday we might have to go to war with them, especially if the neo-con keep gaining influence and power in the US govt.

Let's not feed the paranoia, if we do, someday we might have to start attacking far away countries because they might have weapons that they might sell to someone that might use them against us...

 

[Bigdude]

A united Europe would never be a challenge to the USA, the entire World would be no match for the USA!

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

I think the EU eventually will be forced to become a military union as well. Face it, as the EU grows it will have to project military strength to protect its interests. The old reliance upon NATO, I think, will be in severe decline and as the US has to grapple with the growing economics in Europe, it certainly will be looking out for its own interests rather than those of the EU. As far as I know, every lasting economic power in history has had the military might to back it up.

Why would it have to have a united military strenght to protect it's interests? Which nation poses a threat to Europe today or in the forseeable future?

NATO is crippled mostly because the opposing power from the Warsaw-pact is gone, so there is no longer a need for NATO...

Because without a military force to back it up, EU diplomacy is just so much gas. As has just been witnessed worldwide, the US didn't give more than a second thought to what certain members of the EU wanted. The EU had certain interests in keeping Saddam in power and without a viable military, those interests get easily brushed to the wayside.

I'm not saying the EU would ever fight with the US but if it did have a military force backing a unified foreign policy, you can bet the US would have not taken actions without a great deal more consideration.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

Ok then let me rephrase. The EU is more socialist and less capilistic than the US. In order to have a bigger military, the EU must tax more or spend less on social programs. I hope this clears up any confusion.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison
It is without doubt that the France/Germany wants the EU to be a power. But this will not happen just because they say they are. This will take significant spending to create a force to rival ours. I dont know that the socialist EU can afford such a force.

First of all, the EU isn't socialistic, its a mixed-economy wich is more capitalistic than socialistic (goes more or less for all countries in the "old-europe")...

Secondly, the EU is mostly a trade and economy Union, very few countries in the EU would be willing to be a part of a defence union...

I think the EU eventually will be forced to become a military union as well. Face it, as the EU grows it will have to project military strength to protect its interests. The old reliance upon NATO, I think, will be in severe decline and as the US has to grapple with the growing economics in Europe, it certainly will be looking out for its own interests rather than those of the EU. As far as I know, every lasting economic power in history has had the military might to back it up.

Why would it have to have a united military strenght to protect it's interests? Which nation poses a threat to Europe today or in the forseeable future?

NATO is crippled mostly because the opposing power from the Warsaw-pact is gone, so there is no longer a need for NATO...

Because without a military force to back it up, EU diplomacy is just so much gas. As has just been witnessed worldwide, the US didn't give more than a second thought to what certain members of the EU wanted. The EU had certain interests in keeping Saddam in power and without a viable military, those interests get easily brushed to the wayside.

I'm not saying the EU would ever fight with the US but if it did have a military force backing a unified foreign policy, you can bet the US would have not taken actions without a great deal more consideration.

Like in this instance, when Britian, Spain, and Italy supported our position? This issue has divided the Eu pretty deeply, what was supposed to be a show of unified support and demonstrate the collective weight of a Unified Europe as a viable and equally powerfull possible counterposition to US international policy did exactly the opposite. It did not help the major dissenters were knee deep in illegal and profitable activity with Iraq, their duplicity has been noted by their fellow members.

What would have happened in this case? We would have gotten British, Italian, Polish and Spanish forces, probably more of the little countries, the French would have surrenedered Paris to the Germans, who couldn't take advantage because they have no military, and Russia would have had to borrow money from us to send theirs. You do realize 40% of foreign capital going into France is American? We could cause a flat out recession right there with barely a blip on our economy, Italian, British, Polish, Aussie and Spanish markets can help pick up the difference on our end, we can give them some abatements on import taxes.....

BabyBaliDoc, China will not become a true superpower for DECADES, by which time they will probably fall to democracy hopefully. Their military is so far behind ours it's not even funny, let me give you one example to clear this up.

The chineese do not even have the air or boat lift capability to re-enact our Normandy landing in ww2.

During ww2 one of Japans most important factories (airplane engines ) was attempted to be destroyed by the US, we flew almost 800 sorties on that target alone, we lost 1 in 3 bombers back then when we had to fly right over the target. It never was destroyed, prolonging the war immensely.

A single stealth bomber can take 6 factories that size out on ONE mission from 2,000 miles away today. Get the picture, they are at our pre ww2 levels, and you see the advancements we have made since then.

The EU should be gratefull we have not followed the examples they have laid out in history, maybe that is the cause of their fear, their past inability to NOT use their status of being a superpower to colonize and expand their empires.