EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militaries

[Machjo]

RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

I'm not for appeasement. Certainly terrrorism is terrorism. But here's teh point. If someone is trying to kill me and all he's got is fists, and I've got a pistol, I think that's more than enough. That's how Europe thinks. The US on the other hand would insist on a rocket launcher!

Effectively, a well trained and equipped army of 100,000 men would be more than enough! Does that mean every nation ought to have that? Heck no, way too expensive. But if a few nations pool their resourses together, such a force is more than feasible with costs shared by all partner nations. So why would the US insist on having its own military force of perhaps double or triple that amount on its own, I have no idea! Could it not share a force with other nations? Or does it have another plan up its sleeves? Any nation which needs such a force unto itself is worthy of suspision.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK mili

I'm not for appeasement. Certainly terrrorism is terrorism. But here's teh point. If someone is trying to kill me and all he's got is fists, and I've got a pistol, I think that's more than enough. That's how Europe thinks. The US on the other hand would insist on a rocket launcher!

Effectively, a well trained and equipped army of 100,000 men would be more than enough! Does that mean every nation ought to have that? Heck no, way too expensive. But if a few nations pool their resourses together, such a force is more than feasible with costs shared by all partner nations. So why would the US insist on having its own military force of perhaps double or triple that amount on its own, I have no idea! Could it not share a force with other nations? Or does it have another plan up its sleeves? Any nation which needs such a force unto itself is worthy of suspision.

excellent points... :thumbleft:

 

[Machjo]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Actually appeasement is a nuisance word for the leftists,

appeasement is a nuisance word . Period.

Because it applies to inactive superior morality. As long as "they" are over "there" doing what "they" do as far away from "us" as possible, its acceptable and tolerable. Meanwhile "we" can sit comfy behind a monitor passing judgements on "those" who do more than criticise.

Bummer I tell ya

Well, I see obedience to law a virtue. Imorally oppose SSM, but it is the law, and so will abide by it. Now what do you expect me to do? According to your logic, I ought to take the moral high ground and fight for what is right. Maybe I can bomb parliament?

Same applies to international law. Had the UN approved, I would have wholeheartedly supported ousting Saddam. But the UN opposed it. Why, maybe the reasons were good, maybe not. But that's not the point. that's international law. If the US is allowed to flaunt it because it disagrees with it, then I suppose the canadian government ought to be allowed to suddenly decide on its own that because opposition to SSm is against human rights in its opinion, and that the US refuses to grant SSM, it therefore has the right, of its own accord, to attack the US to free gays.

Immagine that! I'd be blowing up parliament, Canda would be hunting me down and launching attacks against the US, France would invade the US because of the US stance on capital punishment, the US would be invading Canada and France for not having the moral backbone to punish murderers as they ought to be punished.

How did the song go again...

What a beautiful world!...

You get the picture. Violating a law, even one one disagrees with, is immoral in my book. The law is there for a reason, and the US has created a dangerous precedent for the world, where we now all have the right to ignore whatever laws based on moral claims (i.e., just because we disagree with them).

Heck, maybe I should go out and bomb an abortion clinic this evening, just to save a baby, so that I can show that I have some moral backbone. What do you think?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK mili

I'm not for appeasement. Certainly terrrorism is terrorism. But here's teh point. If someone is trying to kill me and all he's got is fists, and I've got a pistol, I think that's more than enough. That's how Europe thinks. The US on the other hand would insist on a rocket launcher!

Effectively, a well trained and equipped army of 100,000 men would be more than enough! Does that mean every nation ought to have that? Heck no, way too expensive. But if a few nations pool their resourses together, such a force is more than feasible with costs shared by all partner nations. So why would the US insist on having its own military force of perhaps double or triple that amount on its own, I have no idea! Could it not share a force with other nations? Or does it have another plan up its sleeves? Any nation which needs such a force unto itself is worthy of suspision.

Does your logic also apply to China? Or will that be used as an excuse for defense? When I speak of appeasement it goes alot further than terrorism. Europe allowed a genocide in their own back yard to take place for years. Thats appeasement.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Violating a law, even one one disagrees with, is immoral in my book. The law is there for a reason, and the US has created a dangerous precedent for the world, where we now all have the right to ignore whatever laws based on moral claims (i.e., just because we disagree with them).

absolultely. What the US has done is the extreme in arrogance , ie, defining itself above the laws. Hopefully no other nation will follow this precident as there is no wisdom in doing that. Just more horror. In its haste to invade, the US ignored all the possible consequences. Mind you...... removing SH was not the initial objective. ( WMD and that "threat" they posed to the WORLD at large was the first lie ) Regime change in another nation is also illegal. (particularly the way the US has done) All the US had to do is be a lot more patient and smart about how they went about putting pressure on SH ......and eventually the collective nations would have assisted in removing him . Amazing how many of the US population support illegal actions. (just because their leader in his infinite lack of wisdom changes the reasons to make them palatable to them)

Can one just imagine the USG reaction if another nation had done the same thing in the same way??? One could probably hear them scream on Mars.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Europe allowed a genocide in their own back yard to take place for years. Thats appeasement

is THAT how you define "appeasement"???? :roll:

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK mili

I'm not for appeasement. Certainly terrrorism is terrorism. But here's teh point. If someone is trying to kill me and all he's got is fists, and I've got a pistol, I think that's more than enough. That's how Europe thinks. The US on the other hand would insist on a rocket launcher!

Effectively, a well trained and equipped army of 100,000 men would be more than enough! Does that mean every nation ought to have that? Heck no, way too expensive. But if a few nations pool their resourses together, such a force is more than feasible with costs shared by all partner nations. So why would the US insist on having its own military force of perhaps double or triple that amount on its own, I have no idea! Could it not share a force with other nations? Or does it have another plan up its sleeves? Any nation which needs such a force unto itself is worthy of suspision.

Does your logic also apply to China? Or will that be used as an excuse for defense? When I speak of appeasement it goes alot further than terrorism. Europe allowed a genocide in their own back yard to take place for years. Thats appeasement.

As for genocide in Europe's own back yard, fair enough. But back to the original post, what would increased military spending have to do with it. Their military forces combined would have been more than capable of dealing with the situation. So if they had decided not to use their foces, that is another issue for anotehr thread. The issue in this thread was about military spending, not use of the forces themselves. One doesn;t need a force powerful enough for all out world war like the US has. Just enough to deal with national defence and UN mandates ought to suffice.

As for China, yes, absolutely. China's military is too big too. And if China tried to build better relations with other nations, it likewise could share its military resourses with other nations. And yes, as long as China maintains a force the size it has, other nations will naturally remain apprehensive.

Perhaps other nations could engage China in dialogue over this issue. But I don't think the US could do that sinse it would be paramount to the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[I think not]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Well, I see obedience to law a virtue. Imorally oppose SSM, but it is the law, and so will abide by it. Now what do you expect me to do? According to your logic, I ought to take the moral high ground and fight for what is right. Maybe I can bomb parliament?

Your analogy has no logic, SSM has not killed anyone. You are mixing social issues with genocide and terrorism.

Same applies to international law. Had the UN approved, I would have wholeheartedly supported ousting Saddam. But the UN opposed it. Why, maybe the reasons were good, maybe not. But that's not the point. that's international law. If the US is allowed to flaunt it because it disagrees with it, then I suppose the canadian government ought to be allowed to suddenly decide on its own that because opposition to SSm is against human rights in its opinion, and that the US refuses to grant SSM, it therefore has the right, of its own accord, to attack the US to free gays.

Interesting, so then I suppose you didn't agree with the Serbia intervention since the UN sat on its ass doing nothing about it. So you are now appeasing a genocide.

Immagine that! I'd be blowing up parliament, Canda would be hunting me down and launching attacks against the US, France would invade the US because of the US stance on capital punishment, the US would be invading Canada and France for not having the moral backbone to punish murderers as they ought to be punished.

How did the song go again...

What a beautiful world!...

You get the picture. Violating a law, even one one disagrees with, is immoral in my book. The law is there for a reason, and the US has created a dangerous precedent for the world, where we now all have the right to ignore whatever laws based on moral claims (i.e., just because we disagree with them).

Heck, maybe I should go out and bomb an abortion clinic this evening, just to save a baby, so that I can show that I have some moral backbone. What do you think?

I think you need to distinguish between Dictators and abortion clinics.

 

[stratochief]

RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

I was in the Canadian military as an infantry officer for 9 years. I served in Egypyt and Cyprus. I've since had close contact with many members of our military who were in Bosnia, etc. No one has any scenario where we need submarines and fighter aircraft. We don't need advanced tanks.

The problem isn't our level of military spending. We don't need to spend more resulting in a closet full of rusting hardware. We need ( at a fraction of the cost) better tools to do on-the-ground policing...survelilance, etc.

There's an international industry of 'big toys' that the Americans have enough of to run amock around the world. If they are so gung ho to invade countries then that's not a road we should follow. The only nation that's potentially a threat to Canada is the USA and that's nlikely scenario and not one that buying expensive toys would be of no benefit

 

[I think not]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Europe allowed a genocide in their own back yard to take place for years. Thats appeasement

is THAT how you define "appeasement"???? :roll:

Sure, that could be one aspect of it, do you prefer ignoring?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK mili

I was in the Canadian military as an infantry officer for 9 years. I served in Egypyt and Cyprus. I've since had close contact with many members of our military who were in Bosnia, etc. No one has any scenario where we need submarines and fighter aircraft. We don't need advanced tanks.

The problem isn't our level of military spending. We don't need to spend more resulting in a closet full of rusting hardware. We need ( at a fraction of the cost) better tools to do on-the-ground policing...survelilance, etc.

There's an international industry of 'big toys' that the Americans have enough of to run amock around the world. If they are so gung ho to invade countries then that's not a road we should follow. The only nation that's potentially a threat to Canada is the USA and that's nlikely scenario and not one that buying expensive toys would be of no benefit

And during those 9 years of military service how many times have you participated in excercises facing off the Southern threat?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Europe allowed a genocide in their own back yard to take place for years. Thats appeasement

is THAT how you define "appeasement"???? :roll:

Following that kind of thought pattern........one could say that the world is "appeasing" the US at the moment, while it kills and destroys two nations.--with plans for who know how many more.
What is the world supposed to do? , (apart from voicing its opposition to US military tactics) REACT militarily to the US and cause a major world disaster??? One could say that the US is the most provocative /aggressive nation on this planet and will not stop at warring. One can bet his/her last buck that the rest of the world is watching this process. But intervene militarily??? Might not be smart.

 

[I think not]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Following that kind of thought pattern........one could say that the world is "appeasing" the US at the moment, while it kills and destroys two nations.--with plans for who know how many more.
What is the world supposed to do? , (apart from voicing its opposition to US military tactics) REACT militarily to the US and cause a major world disaster??? One could say that the US is the most provocative /aggressive nation on this planet and will not stop at warring. One can bet his/her last buck that the rest of the world is watching this process. But intervene militarily??? Might not be smart.

Yup, thats also appeasement.

 

[Machjo]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Following that kind of thought pattern........one could say that the world is "appeasing" the US at the moment, while it kills and destroys two nations.--with plans for who know how many more.
What is the world supposed to do? , (apart from voicing its opposition to US military tactics) REACT militarily to the US and cause a major world disaster??? One could say that the US is the most provocative /aggressive nation on this planet and will not stop at warring. One can bet his/her last buck that the rest of the world is watching this process. But intervene militarily??? Might not be smart.

Yup, thats also appeasement.

But I do believe in consistency. Until the UN approves actions against the US, we have no right to take action unless allowed to do so in full accordance with international law.

As for Bosnia, if it was in fact in violation of international law, then yes, I do oppose it. In the same manner, if a person should steal my money, I catch him, but he poses no immediate danger to me, I have no right to take the law into my own hands and bash his head in. The most I could do is make a citizen's arrest. Unless he poses an immediate threat of course, in which case I then have the right to do what I must to stay alive.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Following that kind of thought pattern........one could say that the world is "appeasing" the US at the moment, while it kills and destroys two nations.--with plans for who know how many more.
What is the world supposed to do? , (apart from voicing its opposition to US military tactics) REACT militarily to the US and cause a major world disaster??? One could say that the US is the most provocative /aggressive nation on this planet and will not stop at warring. One can bet his/her last buck that the rest of the world is watching this process. But intervene militarily??? Might not be smart.

Yup, thats also appeasement.

yes it is ........as in "maintaining a calm " as anything else (aggressive ) is far too disastrous for everyone. The thing is that usually , the aggressor over stretches their abilities and actions .lies, manipulations,arrogance to the point that it starts to melt down from within. Think about the US national debt now. One could consider the fact that the US does not even own itself anymore. With each debt , the US is beholding to the "investor" or loaner. and that decreases the real power the US has.

How much have these wars cost the US in money??? Where did the funds come from??? Money is the US achilles heel. The US has over extended itself now.

 

[I think not]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

But I do believe in consistency. Until the UN approves actions against the US, we have no right to take action unless allowed to do so in full accordance with international law.

As for Bosnia, if it was in fact in violation of international law, then yes, I do oppose it. In the same manner, if a person should steal my money, I catch him, but he poses no immediate danger to me, I have no right to take the law into my own hands and bash his head in. The most I could do is make a citizen's arrest. Unless he poses an immediate threat of course, in which case I then have the right to do what I must to stay alive.

Well I have read most of your posts over the past couple of months and I admit you are consistent and appear to be fair across the board, so I tip my hat to you in that regard, that isn't common lately.

But I have a hypothetical question for you. Lets say for example, China has enough reason to believe Taiwan poses a threat to China. Asks for UN approval for a pre-emptive strike against Taiwan. The UN says, nuh uh. What do you believe China should do? Wait to be attacked or attack and save Chinese lives?

 

[I think not]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

yes it is ........as in "maintaining a calm " as anything else (aggressive ) is far too disastrous for everyone. The thing is that usually , the aggressor over stretches their abilities and actions .lies, manipulations,arrogance to the point that it starts to melt down from within. Think about the US national debt now. One could consider the fact that the US does not even own itself anymore. With each debt , the US is beholding to the "investor" or loaner. and that decreases the real power the US has.

How much have these wars cost the US in money??? Where did the funds come from??? Money is the US achilles heel. The US has over extended itself now.

Well I know you are hoping that the demise of the US is imminent, but I assure you it won't happen in your lifetime.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Until the UN approves actions against the US, we have no right to take action unless allowed to do so in full accordance with international law.

absolutely. This principle applies to the US too......although we have seen how little regard the US has for international law. some even go so far as to say , there is no such thing. Beyond arrogance. and into stupidity.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

yes it is ........as in "maintaining a calm " as anything else (aggressive ) is far too disastrous for everyone. The thing is that usually , the aggressor over stretches their abilities and actions .lies, manipulations,arrogance to the point that it starts to melt down from within. Think about the US national debt now. One could consider the fact that the US does not even own itself anymore. With each debt , the US is beholding to the "investor" or loaner. and that decreases the real power the US has.

How much have these wars cost the US in money??? Where did the funds come from??? Money is the US achilles heel. The US has over extended itself now.

Well I know you are hoping that the demise of the US is imminent, but I assure you it won't happen in your lifetime.

no, wrong again. No one wants to see the demise of the US. The US has so much positive to contribute to the world at large. The US has simply lost its focus and path at the moment. A start might be NOT to dwell on the military prowess and change focus into something constructive like international COOPERATION.....as opposed to trying to dominate the world. The whole tone would change. The US can demostrate willingness by compromizing too. It does NOT have to Have ITS way all the time. In other words MATURE a lot from their infantile thinking. .....or needing to be the bully on the planet. No percentage in that. ....and yet they don't realize this.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: EU and Canadian militaries lag behind US and UK militari

Well I know you are hoping that the demise of the US is imminent, but I assure you it won't happen in your lifetime.

I don't know that anyone here wishes that ITN...

I will say though that your next president is going to have a hell of a lot of work to do to correct the missteps of this one...unless it's Jeb...then you're going to have to wait another 8 years for political declination... :?