Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?

[Beowolf]

Europeans Are From Venus (Published 2008)

Footnotes:

~America isn’t as war-like as many would believe
~Europeans no longer fight wars because of past devastation
~Europeans aren’t as united as they appear
~The ability to wage war is no longer an essential part of the European state

I’m actually pretty interested in this book. However, I’m still a bit confused as to what it’s overall theme is. I figured one of you guys would be able to figure it out and explain it clearly.

The description, at least, makes for good discussion.

Why is Europe so anti-war these days? Do Americans really deserve to be as war weary as we come off? Are the sacrifices of today even comparable to Europe’s past?

[tGunslinger]

I think the theme of the book was described in the final paragraph of the story:

One can talk about European soft power against American hard power, but the point is made better by Sheehan in the peroration to this excellent book. The birth of the Bolshevik regime �?? and then of Fascist and National Socialist regimes �?? was a direct consequence of the �??intense violence�?? then poisoning Europe. The astonishingly peaceful collapse of Communism rather more than 70 years later reflected in turn �??the decline of violence that, by the 1980s, had transformed international and domestic politics throughout Europe�??: a change for the better if ever there was one. To put it another way, soccer is not only England�??s and Europe�??s gift to all mankind. It really is a better game.

It seems that the book ignores the simple fact that Europe has become a “fat but impotent” Union because they too are sleeping behind the protection of the U.S. military.

Less violence is usually a good thing, but not always. There will always be wolves in the night, and the U.S. is now one of the last states capable of repelling them.

Europe solving problems peaceably is a good thing. Europeans cooperating with each other is a good thing. Europe voluntarily disarming itself is a stupid thing.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that a strong military will be needed at some point in time. Europe is currently not ready to answer the bell should they be needed. That is not a fact worthy of celebration, IMO.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Europeans Are From Venus (Published 2008)

Why is Europe so anti-war these days? Do Americans really deserve to be as war weary as we come off? Are the sacrifices of today even comparable to Europe’s past?[/quote]

I could not follow the review…it seems that 248 pages is a bit light for such a topic.

Try instead, Tony Judt, Postwar.

Lots of room for discussion with that one.

[lixy]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
It seems that the book ignores the simple fact that Europe has become a “fat but impotent” Union because they too are sleeping behind the protection of the U.S. military.[/quote]

Impotent? Go near them and they’ll be nuking your ass before you know what hit you.

There will always be wolves in the night, and the U.S. is now one of the last states capable of repelling them.

That’s one way to look at it. Most South Americans, Africans or Asians will tell you that the U.S. is the wolf in the night.

Europe solving problems peaceably is a good thing. Europeans cooperating with each other is a good thing. Europe voluntarily disarming itself is a stupid thing.

“Stupid” yourself! Simply because they don’t have an oversized and bloated military doesn’t mean they’re doing a stupid thing. That way, they’re not tempted to start wars of aggression as they’ve been doing for centuries. Plus, the money actually goes to something constructive around here.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that a strong military will be needed at some point in time. Europe is currently not ready to answer the bell should they be needed. That is not a fact worthy of celebration, IMO.

Once again, Europe is nuclear, and the first suicidal country that messes with them will find out just how much it hurts.

[Ken_Kaniff]

Thats what im saying since a long time. After ww2 the european countries abolished nationalism and militarism and developed a hypersensitivity towards human rights. The USA didnt. Thats why gitmo and various other human rights violations that happen every day in america would never be possible in todays europe.

One only needs to look at a message board like this one to tell the difference. In europe u dont find torture apologizer and bs like “their oil belongs to us”.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Impotent? Go near them and they’ll be nuking your ass before you know what hit you.[/quote]

“Fat but impotent” was a line from the article. Notice the quotation marks.

I do find it amusing that you of all people seem to have no problem at all with Europe sending in a preemptive nuclear strike on a potential aggressor.

Keep in mind that it would have to preemptive, otherwise you’d just be nuking yourself.

[quote]“Stupid” yourself! Simply because they don’t have an oversized and bloated military doesn’t mean they’re doing a stupid thing. That way, they’re not tempted to start wars of aggression as they’ve been doing for centuries. Plus, the money actually goes to something constructive around here.
…
Once again, Europe is nuclear, and the first suicidal country that messes with them will find out just how much it hurts.[/quote]

Gigantic explosive devices do not make ideal “defensive” mechanisms for obvious reasons. Europe, and yourself it seems, is making the logical error that the mere threat of nukes will end all wars. Either that, or they are banking on the assumption that the U.S. will come save them if they need a military.

Nukes are not perfect, they are not infallible, and they are useless unless you’ve got the guts to actually use them. If a country was bound and determined to attack Europe, they could get around the nukes.

Technology is nifty, but wars are won by bold men with rifles. The article is implying that Europe is happily running low on both. I am saying that that is not something to be proud of.

There will be another war someday, and nukes by themselves cannot protect a nation.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

I found one.

Anti-Recruitment Ad #2: Runner

“So I said, fuck that, I’m going AWOL…”

[lixy]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
“Fat but impotent” was a line from the article. Notice the quotation marks. [/quote]

So…?

I do find it amusing that you of all people seem to have no problem at all with Europe sending in a preemptive nuclear strike on a potential aggressor.

Where do you get the nerve to twist my words in such vile fashion? I wrote “go near them”, as in station military ships on their shores or fly fighter jets over their airspace.

I’m talking about just war here. A concept that seems alien to you.

Keep in mind that it would have to preemptive, otherwise you’d just be nuking yourself.

That didn’t make the least bit of sense.

Gigantic explosive devices do not make ideal “defensive” mechanisms for obvious reasons.

Nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon. Having them makes any rogue state think twice and twice more before considering an invasion of any kind.

Europe, and yourself it seems, is making the logical error that the mere threat of nukes will end all wars.

So now “Europe” is collectively making a logical error that only your mighty brains can detect?

Color me unimpressed.

Either that, or they are banking on the assumption that the U.S. will come save them if they need a military.

I see. It’s a plot by those evil Europeans who are busy spending money on education and healthcare for all, while they are bleeding you.

Genius!

Nukes are not perfect, they are not infallible, and they are useless unless you’ve got the guts to actually use them. If a country was bound and determined to attack Europe, they could get around the nukes.

How does one “get around the nukes”? Does this involve getting the globe to zero degrees Kelvin?

Technology is nifty, but wars are won by bold men with rifles.

You need bold men with rifles if you are planning to attack others (whom, obviously don’t have nukes). Why bother carrying knives, baseball bats and shooting for a black belt in some martial art when you are already proudly displaying a gun with hollow-point bullets.

There will be another war someday, and nukes by themselves cannot protect a nation.

Nukes can’t protect you per se. They deter.

[tGunslinger]

lixy, the book focused on how Europe is becoming extremely de-militarized. I then said that the book is missing two key points:

1.) Europe will need an army at some point.

2.) The reason Europeans are able to dismantle their armed forces without dire consequences is because they know the U.S. military will bail them out of any potential trouble.

You then said, “Nuh-uh, Europe has nukes!”

I then commented that nukes are merely really big bombs, not a magical Invader-B-Gone. A motivated aggressor could neutralize nukes just like any other bomb. They make invasion more difficult, not impossible.

There are other drawbacks to nukes, and they cannot simply replicate a defense force.

And again, since there will be war in the future (and nukes alone will neither protect Europe nor deter all invaders forever), it is flat stupid for Europe to do away with their armed forces.

The book suggests they are doing, and praising them for it. I disagreed.

If you are still confused or offended by any of this, well tough shit.

[orion]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy, the book focused on how Europe is becoming extremely de-militarized. I then said that the book is missing two key points:

1.) Europe will need an army at some point.

2.) The reason Europeans are able to dismantle their armed forces without dire consequences is because they know the U.S. military will bail them out of any potential trouble.

You then said, “Nuh-uh, Europe has nukes!”

I then commented that nukes are merely really big bombs, not a magical Invader-B-Gone. A motivated aggressor could neutralize nukes just like any other bomb. They make invasion more difficult, not impossible.

There are other drawbacks to nukes, and they cannot simply replicate a defense force.

And again, since there will be war in the future (and nukes alone will neither protect Europe nor deter all invaders forever), it is flat stupid for Europe to do away with their armed forces.

The book suggests they are doing, and praising them for it. I disagreed.

If you are still confused or offended by any of this, well tough shit.[/quote]

What you all fail to realize is that we have too much soldiers, way more than the US.

What we do not have is an integrated European professional force.

So, our future rather lies in far less, far better equipped soldiers. Since that involves the end of the draft that should even be relatively easy and cheaper than the current system, including a few aircraft carriers, surveillance satellites and all the high tech stuff.

Meanwhile, everyone pondering on invading Europe had to deal with around 200-300 million men with at least a rudimentary idea of how to work an assault rifle.

Plus, I do know for a fact that the Lord himself could not lead troops trough my country if we do not want him too unless he gives them wings.

So, in conclusion, invading us is unthinkable, we need to reduce forces even further and train those people better.

However, unless aliens attack, we have plenty of time to do that.

[rainjack]

Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off.

[Beowolf]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off. [/quote]

Who, exactly, would make it rubble?

[rainjack]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off.

Who, exactly, would make it rubble?[/quote]

Ruble. Ruble. Ruble. Do the math. Here’s a hint: Ruble = Russian currency.

The light bulb will come on in just a minute. I hope.

[orion]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off.

Who, exactly, would make it rubble?

Ruble. Ruble. Ruble. Do the math. Here’s a hint: Ruble = Russian currency.

The light bulb will come on in just a minute. I hope.[/quote]

Na, it just does not want to come on.

So we would use the the currency of a country with one tenth of the European GDP um, why exactly?

The same country that, were it not for the EU, would not have a leg to stand on economically?

[orion]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off. [/quote]

Calling us weak does not really ruffle feathers. It just displays ignorance.

There is no one that could defeat us militarily, so why spend more on defense?

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off.

Calling us weak does not really ruffle feathers. It just displays ignorance.

There is no one that could defeat us militarily, so why spend more on defense?

[/quote]

Except the Girl Scouts…

[Gkhan]

The Taliban seems to be doing a good job.

[zephead4747]

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Geez. Call the Euros weak, and it ruffles feathers.

Pull the US out of NATO, and see how long the bravado lasts. I’ll bet you a coke that if the US pulled out of NATO, the Euro would be replace with the ruble in less than 5 years.

And I would laugh my ass off.

Calling us weak does not really ruffle feathers. It just displays ignorance.

There is no one that could defeat us militarily, so why spend more on defense?

[/quote]

thems eer foighten words.