The End of the West: Good Bye Europe?

It will be over straight bananas and pink strawberries. But come on, be fair. In the mid 20’s nobody thought WW2 would ever happen.

Europe is a mis-match of countries with differing views, cultures and histories. There is no way on earth that you can force these countries together and make them agree across the board on any one subject.
Tempers will flair, arguments ensue and Europe will split.
Civil war is a very real possibilty, especially with Eastern European countries joining the queue.

Just because this is the 21st century it does not mean that a war is impossible. Europe was formed by wars, its history is made of wars and the possibility of it continuing cannot be discounted.

I am not so pessimistic in my assessments of a unified and coherent Europe. With the UK and Eastern Europe as a counterweight, I think the worst tendencies of the Germans, Belgians and French to statist government can be ameliorated and if these nations do not choose to act to ensure their own security and foreign-policy interests than they cannot blame anyone but themselves. If they continue to cater to the German, French and Belgian troika, they have only themselves to blame. Stand up for your rights. Shut down the process if need be. It is what the French would do. Why not emulate them as Poland and Spain did regarding the votes and weight each nation would get in the Constitution. Poland and Spain were given extra weight only to have it taken away. Why put up with that? Fight like the French? Fuck up the process to ensure that everyone else has to cater to your narrow provincial interests. Why not?

The point is that U.S. power and influence have declined during the Bush Administration because it’s squandered America’s greatest strength – its moral authority. Rather than isolating Europe, it’s the U.S. which is being isolated and diminished on the world stage and that process is accelerating as denial, self-delusion and a proclivity to character assassination in lieu of self-examination continue to grip the Bush Administration and its supporters.

The only real question is whether they’ll drag the U.S. down into second-class status as a nation before they’re vomited up by the American people.

That’s right Spook because Europe and the Middle East LOVED us until 911 when the whole Israeli-Jewish-CIA plot to take down the Twin Towers occurred. Since then our war on terrorism and liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq have turned these erstwhile allies into protesters. Hmmm except that most Middle Eastern governments except Israel are not democracies so how would we truly know and given that only the governments of Spain, France, Germany and Belgium are really against us with Ireland, Sweden, Greece and Austria neutral, what about all the rest? Seem to be standing pretty thick and solid. But then, somehow this must all be America’s and especially George W.'s fault. Just has to be.

The reason why the government in Britain wont stand up to the French or the Germans at the moment is because Lionel Blair wants to get into their club.
You see Blair and his cronies don’t actually stand for the British people at the moment - they are more concerned with getting themselves into a big constitution so they can run it themselves - hence not holding a referendum on the European constitution for the British people and a referendum for joining the Euro.

What Blair is too thick to realise is that France and Germany are more than willing to stab Blair in the back whille he is not looking. Blair will always suck up to France and Germany because his goal is Europe.

It’s a sad state of affairs for Britain at the moment. Blair will lose Europe and the US will probably lose Britain if this whole EU constitution rigmorole goes ahead.

I understand and sympathize with your predicament regarding the French but nothing is holding the British back from demanding just as much or proving just as intransigent as the French. Margaret Thatcher did not put up with it. Why should Blair?

As to French manipulation, how much longer do you think that

a. Germany will be led by the fuckwit Schroeder and his poodle Joscka Fischer?

b. Germany or France will matter in a bloc of 25.

c. Germany and France will continue to work so closely together

This won’t last long, but it iis these countrieswhich are liable to cause the most problems with any kind of Europe in the future.

Not long.

[quote]b. Germany or France will matter in a bloc of 25…
[/quote]

Not at all. But with a bloc of 25, everybody will be screaming for what they want, which is why it wont work unless European countries work as seperate soveriegn countries feeding in to a pool organisation which is not limited by boundaries instead of being member states of a block with no control over their future or welbeing.

Because Blair has less backbone than a jellyfish and a far less opressive hairstyle.

[quote=“spook”]The point is that U.S. power and influence have declined during the Bush Administration because it’s squandered America’s greatest strength – its moral authority. Rather than isolating Europe, it’s the U.S. which is being isolated and diminished on the world stage and that process is accelerating as denial, self-delusion and a proclivity to character assassination in lieu of self-examination continue to grip the Bush Administration and its supporters.

The only real question is whether they’ll drag the U.S. down into second-class status as a nation before they’re vomited up by the American people.[/quote]

a bit of revisionism here. clinton’s presidency was horrible for american influence and power.

the adventure in somalia(which i agreed with) ended in abject failure and was much closer to the vietnam analogy than anything bush has done.

kosovo(which i also agreed with) turned out better, but generated huge amounts of anti-american rage in europe. kosovo is the reason the greeks are the most anti-american people in europe today.

he went to china and agreed to the 3 no’s.

he caved in to the north koreans so they got aid from us AND had time to keep developing their nuclear weapons. as someone emphatically supporting military action against north korea i’m surprised you ignored this point.

he turned down obl when he was offered up. how did he respond to the bombing of the cole? a missile strike on a powdered milk plant!

and his own indiscretions in office and the republican response made america a joke to the rest of the world.

your bush-hate has blinded you to everything that has come before. trends that were decades in the making are now wholly blamed on bush.

in a few years people will start blaming the bali bombing on the iraq war.

Clinton diminished the office of the presidency but I think the reputation of the United States and its institutions remained intact during his years in office.

Bush though, whom I voted for his first term, has undeniably changed the image of the U.S. and its institutions themselves in the eyes of the world community in a way that anyone who spends much time outside the U.S. talking with people in any depth is well aware of:

[color=blue]"The much-touted American-style “town hall” meeting the White House has been planning with “normal Germans” of everyday walks of life will be missing during his visit to the Rhine River hamlet of Mainz this afternoon. A few weeks ago, the Bush administration had declared that the chat – which could have brought together tradesmen, butchers, bank employees, students and all other types to discuss trans-Atlantic relations – would be the cornerstone of President George W. Bush’s brief trip to Germany.

State Department diplomats said the meeting would help the president get in touch with the people who he most needs to convince of his policies. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and his diplomatic handling of the nuclear dispute with Iran has drawn widespread concern and criticism among the German public. And during a press conference two weeks ago, Bush said Washington is still terribly misunderstood in Europe. All the more reason, it would seem, for him to be pleased about talking to people here.

But on Wednesday, that town hall meeting will be nowhere on the agenda – it’s been cancelled. Neither the White House nor the German Foreign Ministry has offered any official explanation, but Foreign Ministry sources say the town hall meeting has been nixed for scheduling reasons – a typical development for a visit like this with many ideas but very little time. That, at least, is the diplomats’ line. Behind the scenes, there appears to be another explanation: the White House got cold feet. Bush’s strategists felt an uncontrolled encounter with the German public would be too unpredictable." [/color]

service.spiegel.de/cache/interna … 81,00.html

Gosh Spook:

No town meeting? Gosh. why not? Have you ever noticed how when conservative don’t like something, they write letters or vote or organize, but when it comes to leftists who don’t like something, they shout down people at speeches, burn tires, take to the streets, throw eggs, get naked and have mass photos of their bodies taken, etc. etc.

Now, given the mindless “Against War” attitude of many Germans who have somehow conveniently forgotten that Hitler left office only because Berlin was bombed to smithereens, why should we offer these fools a chance to come and scream, "No War!! Peace at all Costs. Bush is the No. 1 Terrorist!!! The same thing happened when Reagan visited and yet they all admit now that Reagan’s tough policies were instrumental to the defeat of the Soviets, the collapse of communism in Europe and German reunification. So here we are again with the same well-intentioned (bullshit) people protesting another heroic president who is saving their collective asses from becoming a rump state of an Islamofascist medieval caliphate. Christ. Don’t these people ever learn? I thought the Europeans were supposed to be the sophisticated, intellectual, nuanced world citizens with a deeper, more profound understanding of world history. Bullshit.

the reputation of the us took a tremendous blow during the clinton presidency. the us retreats(somalia) and cave in’s(north korea) only encouraged our enemies who expected some half-assed response like the bombing of the powdered milk factory.

in short, clinton’s presidency was a disaster in the foreign policy arena. i personally agreed with many of his domestic policies(welfare reform and nafta), but it’s folly to pretend that american influence and respect abroad did not suffer. our memories are not yet that short, spook.

there were lots of countries in support of usa after the attacks in 2001. i know for one thing Canada is still in afghanistan, even though the usa drops bombs on us. i know we arent much, but its something we beleive in and support. there was evidence of a problem in afghanistan so we supported the action, as well as other nations. if iam not mistaken france sent troops or equipment. so there were allies. only when usa decided to act unilaterally, sorry iam forgetting poland, did the rest of the world object especially since weapons inspectors were doing their job.

in dealing with americas influence, read The Paradox of American Power by Joseph S. Nye jr. talks about how there are two kinds of power, hard power (militray) and soft power (influence). americas soft power under bush has gone dramaticaly down. all over the world anti-american sentiment has grown. if some american politician were to stand up now and say some country has plans to attack the usa with wmd’s, the rest of the world would laugh at them.

if you remember history you will recall that in both world wars america stayed out in the begining and profited off sales of weapons. besides whats wrong with selling arms to china? why is china a threat, have they made attacks against usa? or is it that usa is afraid they will no longer be the top dog. they are upset at the prospects of having the #2 economy. having the #2 military would be just too much to handle so they should isolate them to maintain their status.

[quote=“troy_westpoint”]
if you remember history you will recall that in both world wars America stayed out in the begining and profited off sales of weapons. [/quote]

Isn’t your recess over yet?

Oh, they drop bombs on you too? I though the Brits were special in this respect.

I dont think they will climb 10 places to number two any thime soon. :smiling_imp:

Oh, they drop bombs on you too? I though the Brits were special in this respect.[/quote]

DM, I suggest that first you do alittle research on the Falklands. Tell us how many British troops and Falkland civilians were killed by British “friendly” fire. Then go and read up on WWII and tell us how many Canadians were killed in WWII by British “friendly” fire.

mackenzieinstitute.com/2002/terror040102.htm
static.highbeam.com/d/dailyteleg … landsnews/
britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sbs.htm

That’s all well and good, but you would have thought that with all “the best technology in the world” (or so they say) this kind of thing could be prevented in this day in age, especially with Friend or Foe identifiers commomly in use today.

How many have actually been killed in “friendly fire” incidents? Numbers please? And how do you know the troops on the ground even had them or if they did, they were working? After all, most of the British Army’s SA80 rifles have been found to be defective…that’s why so many British units now carry US-made M-16s…right? And let’s not even talk about your Clansman and Bowman radios. Radiation burns from a radio??? :laughing:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/656050.stm
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … xhome.html

Maybe your troops need more professional and realistic training? I suggest a few weeks out at the NTC at Ft Irwin, California.

irwin.army.mil/

[quote]
Friendly fire kills two UK tank crew

Two members of a British tank crew were killed and two critically injured after their Challenger 2 tank was fired on by another Challenger tank in southern Iraq. A single tank round took the turret off the tank in the misdirected attack, which happened on Monday in pitch darkness.

The two dead men were members of the Queen’s Royal Lancers, part of the First Royal Regiment of Fusiliers battle group. They were named as Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, from Stoke-on-Trent, and Trooper David Clarke, 19, from Littleworth, Staffordshire.

“The soldiers were tragically killed in a ‘friendly fire’ incident during a period of multiple engagements from enemy forces on the outskirts of Basra,” Colonel Chris Vernon, a British military spokesman, said.

“Regardless of the careful planning and measures taken in the type of operations in which we are engaged and in the heat of battle there is always a risk that incidents such as this might happen.”[/quote]

guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 41,00.html

My point was not to make comparisons about technology, however since you bought the subject up:

Let’s not talk about the Thousands of US made Mototrola radios currently used by the Police in the UK which give radiation burns, which is why we are currently converting to a different system.
Many officers now have cancer and skin rashes from these radios.

Lets not talk about the delayed deployment of US made Apache helicopters into the Army Air Corps because of problems with Engines, avionics and general safety issues. The Lynx, a 1960’s aircraft, still performs better than the Apache Longbow without the modifications currently being installed to the Apache.

Lets not talk about the order of umpteen F111’s for the Royal Air Force (which was rightly cancelled) which despite American assurances, did not pertform as advertised.
At the height of the cold war, this was a very dangerous position for the UK because it left the UK with a limited air defence and attack capability. Not only this, a British project was cancelled in part due to the fact that the F111 was seen as a better aircraft when in reality, it was crap.

But we are going off topic.

(Granted about the SA80 though. It’s a bag of shite :laughing: ).

But you [i]did[/i] bring up technology…

:laughing: