88 replies to this topic

[Ogul]

When you can win a war on your own, then you can look down on us.

It's not our fault that we came into our own after the age of sail, and therefore other people wanted to tag along when we got our kick-ass on.

Hiding an oean away from the fighting until one side was winning?

You mean the Germans or the Japanese? Anyways, I meant that we had scrap drives and war bonds and all sorts of other measures designed to help offset the costs of the war in real time. We took on debt too, but if we were fighting WWII today using the modern financial approach to it we would have come out of it with tens of trillions in war debt.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

It's not our fault that we came into our own after the age of sail, and therefore other people wanted to tag along when we got our kick-ass on.

In fact, it is your fault. You, personally.

You mean the Germans or the Japanese? Anyways, I meant that we had scrap drives and war bonds and all sorts of other measures designed to help offset the costs of the war in real time. We took on debt too, but if we were fighting WWII today using the modern financial approach to it we would have come out of it with tens of trillions in war debt.

I know what you meant.

[Ogul]

But you're right though, we do tend to hold back until the war looks hopeless for our allies across the pond, then we can swoop in and look all cool pulling their asses out of the fire.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

I don't get it. What do you think putting more soldiers on the ground would have achieved that a bombing campaign didn't? Karadzic signed the Dayton agreement as a reaction to the bombing campaign, not because of any troops on the ground, so it achieved its purpose. Are you suggesting that a full on ground offensive to defeat the Serb forces would have caused less bloodshed? Because I don't believe that to be the case.

As to how an earlier, serious sustained bombing campaign might have prevented Srebrenica: it would have driven Karadzic to start peace negotiations earlier. The half hearted military efforts before that were laughable if the consequences weren't so tragic.

And how many died for that? Soldiers on the ground would have stopped the years of murder and violence that were so cleanly dubbed "ethnic cleansing". If you're busy having to watch out for an enemy able to match and defeat you, you can't around butchering people for having the wrong blood type.

I read your posts as wanting something more concrete done in Bosnia, something far more effective than what was done so pretty much sketched out what that'd likely entail, is that not the case?

[The Lorcan Nagle]

But you're right though, we do tend to hold back until the war looks hopeless for our allies across the pond, then we can swoop in and look all cool pulling their asses out of the fire.

Of course I'm right. I said something.

[garjones]

But you're right though, we do tend to hold back until the war looks hopeless for our allies across the pond, then we can swoop in and look all cool pulling their asses out of the fire.

WE do don't WE........

[Arjan Dirkse]

And how many died for that? Soldiers on the ground would have stopped the years of murder and violence that were so cleanly dubbed "ethnic cleansing". If you're busy having to watch out for an enemy able to match and defeat you, you can't around butchering people for having the wrong blood type.

I read your posts as wanting something more concrete done in Bosnia, something far more effective than what was done so pretty much sketched out what that'd likely entail, is that not the case?

Given that they were vital in ending the war, the bombing campaigns were effective. Can't think of anything more concrete.

At this point I don't have a clue what argument you are trying to make here, and we've been going round in circles. You seem to think the bombing campaigns were not justified, and something else should have been done. Can you say what should have been done instead?

[Christian U]

At this point I don't have a clue what argument you are trying to make here, and we've been going round in circles. You seem to think the bombing campaigns were not justified, and something else should have been done. Can you say what should have been done instead?

He did say. Putting troops on the ground, and with the numbers and mandate to actually do something and engage the fighting parties. With bombing campaigns, you're levelling a country and killing civilians in the hope that at some point their leaders will give in, which they may or may not do, but in the meantime they keep killing.

Edited by Christian U, 10 June 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

He did say. Putting troops on the ground, and with the numbers and mandate to actually do something and engage the fighting parties. With bombing campaigns, you're levelling a country and killing civilians in the hope that at some point their leaders will give in, which they may or may not do, but in the meantime they keep killing.

Fair enough. If you think a full on ground troop offensive would have been a bettter and cleaner option than a bombing campaign, then that's alright, but it is an opinion I don't share. As it is, the bombing in Bosnia stopped the bloodshed there very quickly, and from what it seems when i read the wiki article, with very little civilian casualties.

Although it doesn't change the point that Europe needs a powerful army to stop these kind of conflicts.

[garjones]

Although it doesn't change the point that Europe needs a powerful army to stop these kind of conflicts.

There is certainly a change in the way conflicts occur. The US is now running most of it's aggressive strikes via remote control and despite the claims of Europe needing an army that can defend itself, no European country has had to defend itself from outside attack in 60 years, the Yugoslavian issue was effectively a civil war. The Falklands conflict was an attack on a territory and once the hard task of sending everyone half way around the world was done was won convincingly in an extremely one sided fashion.

The UK alone has armed forces and tactical weapons enough to defend itself against any countries aside from the USA, Russia and China and that's one of 27 in the EU (albeit the one with the biggest armed forces). To try and better those 3 is frankly fruitless and impossible, there just aren't enough people or enough money so you just live with how things are.

[Christian U]

Fair enough. If you think a full on ground troop offensive would have been a bettter and cleaner option than a bombing campaign, then that's alright, but it is an opinion I don't share.

Hey, I'm not getting into this, I just thought it was weird that you asked Ben to say what he thinks should have been done when he had already done so.

[Arjan Dirkse]

no European country has had to defend itself from outside attack in 60 years, the Yugoslavian issue was effectively a civil war.

It was mostly a civil war, but it took an outside force - NATO - to stop it. It did not fizzle out of itself or because the participants had a sudden revelation that violence is bad.

Also I think Ogul has a point in saying we rely on the US to defend us since it's likely because of US military power that Europe wasn't invaded by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That is of course an arrangement made within the NATO, and the US agreed to it because their alliance with Europe was of vital interest for their economy, but I think the EU should be open to sharing the burden militarily. Especially now that we're all friends in Europe, to quote Basil Fawlty, and military build up should not feel threatening to anyone within the EU.

Hey, I'm not getting into this, I just thought it was weird that you asked Ben to say what he thinks should have been done when he had already done so.

Ha, well I plead total ignorance on military matters. I'm just quoting wikipedia.

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 10 June 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[garjones]

It was mostly a civil war, but it took an outside force - NATO - to stop it. It did not fizzle out of itself or because the participants had a sudden realization that violence is bad.

Agreed. My point is more about Ogul's continual assertation that the US alone defends Europe. The British or the French alone could have wiped the entire region off the map if they so wanted. That wasn't the best solution and the reason we have these joint forces, even if sometimes Singapore sends 30 soldiers to Afghanistan, is the political legitimacy.

It's why the US wanted the UK and Spain in Iraq or the Aussies in Vietnam.

[Stephen Galvin]

Agreed. My point is more about Ogul's continual assertation that the US alone defends Europe. The British or the French alone could have wiped the entire region off the map if they so wanted. That wasn't the best solution and the reason we have these joint forces, even if sometimes Singapore sends 30 soldiers to Afghanistan, is the political legitimacy.

It's why the US wanted the UK and Spain in Iraq or the Aussies in Vietnam.

Have to mention your avatar. He looks like he just wants to 'rassle' someone to the ground and show them his lovin' side.
Perhaps we could send him in to future conflicts. Although, many men would prefer to die than surrender to his attentions.

[garjones]

Have to mention your avatar. He looks like he just wants to 'rassle' someone to the ground and show them his lovin' side.
Perhaps we could send him in to future conflicts. Although, many men would prefer to die than surrender to his attentions.

He is a rassler, he's El Bandito (Orig Williams) who was a Welsh wrestler of the Big Daddy era that died a couple of years back.

His legacy is probably Barri Griffiths who currently fights as Mason Ryan in the WWE who he personally trained. I haven't watched wrestling for 20 years and have little interest, I just like El Bandito.

[Christian U]

Ha, well I plead total ignorance on military matters.

Same here, but I suspect Ben may know a bit more about this than I do... either way, generally speaking a ground invasion is the most effective tool to stop genocide and dispose of an aggressive regime. There's reasons we don't like to do it, though - it's more expensive in terms of money and lives of troops and, as Ben pointed out, the follow-through is even more complicated (since when you go in and take over a country, you're stuck with it for the time being, whereas you can just bomb the shit out of anyone without taking further responsibility).

[Ogul]

He did say. Putting troops on the ground, and with the numbers and mandate to actually do something and engage the fighting parties. With bombing campaigns, you're levelling a country and killing civilians in the hope that at some point their leaders will give in, which they may or may not do, but in the meantime they keep killing.

Yeah, but on the other hand, it's really hard to kill a bomb, and few people care if you do. If you put US troops on the ground, US troops will die, no matter how they try to prevent it. If it's a case that has absolutely no direct baring on US citizens, then they'd better have a damned good reason for being there if we're putting Us soldiers at risk. We can drop bombs though with very minimal chance of US loss of lives. Now, if both sides agreed to not shoot at US soldiers, then I guess we could get in there, but in places like Syria they're even shooting at those guys with the wussy blue hats!

To try and better those 3 is frankly fruitless and impossible, there just aren't enough people or enough money so you just live with how things are.

North Korean manages it.

That is of course an arrangement made within the NATO, and the US agreed to it because their alliance with Europe was of vital interest for their economy,

Keeping in mind that NATO is and always was essentially (to the tune of Gilligan's Island) "A-meeerica. . . and the rest," a diplomatic window dressing to allow American forces to adequately defend Europe from the commies while giving at least a fig leaf that Western Europe had some say in the matter.

My point is more about Ogul's continual assertation that the US alone defends Europe. The British or the French alone could have wiped the entire region off the map if they so wanted.

With nukes? Yes, but nobody really wants that. Using conventional means, both countries have their resources, but are still fairly limited in scope. Remember Libya? That was a situation in which the US had pretty much zero stake, it was a mostly France issue (outside of Libya itself, of course), and yet the US shouldered most of the costs in the form of drone attacks. Why couldn't France have used her own drones? If Europe were capable of handling issues that take place outside of the US's direct interest, we'd be happy to let them, but almost every time they've had the opportunity to step up without us, we get dragged into it anyways because they either can't, or won't.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

Thanks Christian.

I don't think we can talk about there being better or cleaner options in this area Arjan, it's always going to be damn nasty - frankly, the only difference between our positions is you're subscribing to the school of thought that says air power alone can win a war and I disagree with that.

As I say though, what I'm most interested in is, if a common European defence policy is required, how is it to be done? I don't see a way but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Ogul, never said the troops had to be US, at the time that was highly unlikely as Vietnam still lingered in the psyche despite the success of the 1991 Gulf War.

[Stephen Galvin]

He is a rassler, he's El Bandito (Orig Williams) who was a Welsh wrestler of the Big Daddy era that died a couple of years back.

His legacy is probably Barri Griffiths who currently fights as Mason Ryan in the WWE who he personally trained. I haven't watched wrestling for 20 years and have little interest, I just like El Bandito.

I think I like El Bandito too. Though he is a little bit scary.

[garjones]

With nukes? Yes, but nobody really wants that. Using conventional means, both countries have their resources, but are still fairly limited in scope. Remember Libya? That was a situation in which the US had pretty much zero stake, it was a mostly France issue (outside of Libya itself, of course), and yet the US shouldered most of the costs in the form of drone attacks. Why couldn't France have used her own drones? If Europe were capable of handling issues that take place outside of the US's direct interest, we'd be happy to let them, but almost every time they've had the opportunity to step up without us, we get dragged into it anyways because they either can't, or won't.

Not with nukes, no.

They want US involvement the same as you beg and ask for anyone else in any conflict, even under Bush Jnr. It's politics and legitimacy. Acting alone looks like invasion and imperial tendencies. Nobody in Europe ever asked for the defence shield and nobody in Asia now is asking for the Pacific deployment, it is US policy in search of US interests.

Do you seriously think Libya could take on France or the UK in a fight? Combined they had 600,000 troops to Libya's 70,000 and ridiculously advanced tech and training.