U.S. aircraft carrier sunk by French submarine

[mrswdk]

Europe is our bitch

Correction: Europe is the American government's bitch.

[patches70]

Europe is our bitch

Correction: Europe is the American government's bitch.

That's what I meant. Sorry about the confusion.

[waauw]

Europe should be strong enough to beat back at a minimum the Russians without need of the US having to get involved. Russia wouldn't have a chance of beating the US in a conventional war, that is Russia could never take over the US and occupy her militarily. And the US doesn't need any help at all from Europe in this regard. The same cannot be said of the Europeans though. Russia would roll right through Europe if it weren't for the fact that the US would get into the fight and beat the Russians back. Until the day comes when Europe can stand on her own without help from anyone else, she'll always just be a satellite of the US.

Europe is our bitch and she fetches when we say fetch because you are too weak to even defend yourselves against a real enemy and lack the power to take the fight to your enemies if ever the need arises.

You quite exagerate here. Russia can't just roll through europe(even without US aid), I don't think I have to explain why. It could cause trouble on european border-nations, but it could not march an army all the way the to France for instance. Even though europeans invest too little in their military, many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians. Not to mention that there are multiple nuclear weapon holders in europe and europeans vastly outnumber the russians in terms of demographics.

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

[warmonger1981]

Corporations run American politics whether it be domestic or foreign.

[patches70]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

If you don't get it, you don't get it. S'all right. I'm well aware of the negative public opinion towards the US, its equaled by our own citizens. But that doesn't matter because the justification the US uses and makes the Europeans contribute to doesn't need to worry about public opinion. We're not talking about the platitudes and the understanding of politicians towards their voters, we're talking about policy which US dictates to the European nations.

The US couldn't do what it does and claim legal justification if the Europeans didn't go lock step with the US and have resolution remove this leader and remove that leader. The insanity of the US string pulling is apparent in the handling of the Ukraine, and the EU has a vested interest to go along with it even if it is poking a bear with a stick. The US would rather the EU be dependent on Qatar than on Russia. Either way, the Europeans are going to be paying the Russians or the Qatari, that is on the wrong side of the equation either way.

No matter what the Eu is dependent, like a suckling babe. You bite mamma's tit and she pulls the nipple away. Is that how the Europeans want to live life? I dunno. Maybe so, or they just don't think about it too much. The sad thing is how the US is using the EU like a worn out hooker. Its not right. Especially the Qatar angle where the US corporations have invested 10's of billions on the promise that Qatar gas will be flowing into Europe. We pretend to be looking out for Europe but we are really only looking out for ourselves, or that is specific energy corporations who are looking to hedge into Russia's energy market and if it means a few thousand Ukrainians or a few hundred thousand Syrians have to die, so be it. And the EU is lock step in line with what the US tells them to do in these regards. Nobody gives a shit about negative US public opinion but if it makes people feel better to yell about it so much the better. Just so long as Europe keeps on using the petrodollar and voting like we want them in the UN then nothing else matters.

But don't kid yourself just because one's nation might on the one hand denounce the US actions or complain about them and on the other hand vote to give the US the legal justification to commit those actions that one's nation has clean hands in the mess that comes out afterward. Ya'll's hands are just as bloody as ours.

[mrswdk]

You quite exagerate here. Russia can't just roll through europe(even without US aid), I don't think I have to explain why. It could cause trouble on european border-nations, but it could not march an army all the way the to France for instance. Even though europeans invest too little in their military, many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians. Not to mention that there are multiple nuclear weapon holders in europe and europeans vastly outnumber the russians in terms of demographics.

That doesn't really work as a deterrent when the enemy is already on your soil. What're the French going to do, nuke Putin's tank columns as they trundle through Poland? Good luck convincing the Polish that that one was all for their own good.

Even leaving aside the fact that Russia has infinitely more nukes than both the UK and France combined, I have a hard time believing any modern power would use nuclear weapons in a conflict. If Germany invaded France, would there really be any chance of France nuking Berlin? It seems wildly unlikely.

[mrswdk]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

Except in the case of Iraq, which was completely illegal and which the US went ahead with anyway.

[patches70]

You quite exagerate here. Russia can't just roll through europe(even without US aid), I don't think I have to explain why. It could cause trouble on european border-nations, but it could not march an army all the way the to France for instance. Even though europeans invest too little in their military, many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians. Not to mention that there are multiple nuclear weapon holders in europe and europeans vastly outnumber the russians in terms of demographics.

That doesn't really work as a deterrent when the enemy is already on your soil. What're the French going to do, nuke Putin's tank columns as they trundle through Poland? Good luck convincing the Polish that that one was all for their own good.

Even leaving aside the fact that Russia has infinitely more nukes than both the UK and France combined, I have a hard time believing any modern power would use nuclear weapons in a conflict. If Germany invaded France, would there really be any chance of France nuking Berlin? It seems wildly unlikely.

And it's also not like the Europeans are battle tested with their

many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians

since the Europeans haven't fought on their own anyone of any power in the last sixty years. The US on the other hand are battle veterans and the Russians not so long ago showed just how quick they can batter any of their neighbors if they choose to and crush any of them in short order.

This is what pisses me off the most about the US' meddling in the Ukraine. It is immoral and unethical to egg someone on into a conflict she cannot win, as in the Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia no matter how many "advanced technologies" either the US or the EU gives the Ukraine, yet here we are the war hawks in the US are doing just that. Its sickening and so far the Eu has gone right on along with the dangerous game with the sole exception of Germany, sort of. Germany at least seems aware of how insane this is but I don't hold out much hope of them withstanding US pressure. We'll see I guess. Its just none of the US' business and the whole mess could be sorted out in short order if only we'd stay out of it all together. But that won't happen.

[patches70]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

Except in the case of Iraq, which was completely illegal and which the US went ahead with anyway.

Which just goes to show the US doesn't need European military help, ever. And as far as the US is concerned it was legal, Congress voted to authorize military action to enforce a UN resolution that the EU also voted lock step and barrel as the US told them. Yeah, in a perverted way it was certainly "legal". It wasn't right, it wasn't moral and it wasn't for the reasons stated but that ain't got nothing to do with legalities. But none of that matters because its all rubber stamped by the US Congress, the UN and the EU parliament. Thus its legal.

This is also why the US doesn't want anyone to be independent of them. Russia and China don't give a rat's ass about US threats and posturing and they show it in the UN as they are often the only ones who are actually standing against the US and the US' lackey the EU.
China and Russia are independent because even though neither of them can beat the US in a stand up fight, the US can't beat them either. Thus, Russia, the US and China are the only real nations left on the planet, in the sense that Machiavelli sees a nation because these are the only nations (maybe India to, I dunno) that can actually defend themselves against any and all possible aggressors. Sadly, the EU cannot say the same.

[mrswdk]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

Except in the case of Iraq, which was completely illegal and which the US went ahead with anyway.

Which just goes to show the US doesn't need European military help, ever.

Well, they had the British military for company during that particular campaign.

And as far as the US is concerned it was legal

As far as the UN is concerned it was not, which I thought was the point you were making about justifying wars internationally.

Thus, Russia, the US and China are the only real nations left on the planet, in the sense that Machiavelli sees a nation because these are the only nations (maybe India to, I dunno) that can actually defend themselves against any and all possible aggressors. Sadly, the EU cannot say the same.

Don't forget North Korea. Everyone seems piss scared of the idea of trying to invade them

[patches70]

As far as the UN is concerned it was not, which I thought was the point you were making about justifying wars internationally.

O'rly? If that's so then why did the UN pass resolution 1483 stating that the US and the UK were recognized as occupying powers under international law (making their occupation legal) and stating that the US and UK were the legitimate authority in Iraq? This was passed unanimously. Find a single UN resolution condemning the US invasion or any UN resolution stating that the invasion was illegal. Oh there are opinions, even Kofi's said as much, but there was no move at all of any legal proceedings as one would typically find when someone does something illegal.

There is no UN legislation stating the US invasion was illegal. Individual countries bitched and moaned especially because domestic politics required them to do so, no one took a stand against the US in the UN at all or moved to sanction or punish the US in any way. Why? Because the US could kick the crap out of anyone who tried. Not militarily per say, but in many other ways, economically, socially and such. Not to mention the coercion that went on by the US to get the so called "coalition of the willing" (Ha!) with plenty of documented coercion methods ranging from bribery to outright threats. Yemen went and voted against the US, were told that it was the most expensive vote they'd ever cast and when the next aid package for Yemen came up Yemen got completely cut off from all US aid. Which by the way, helped give rise to certain terrorist groups in Yemen that the US ended up later having to come in and drone bomb all to hell. Kinda ironic in a way.

It would almost be comical if so many lives had not been lost over this insanity.

Even China didn't oppose the US in the UN as far as the Iraq war goes because the US promised to renew certain economic aid packages. In essence, the US had to bribe China. Hell the first Iraq war was outright bribery by the US to China by renewing long term economic development aid.

That's how the US operates, by stick or carrot, anyone weaker than her gets the stick, anyone strong enough to stand up to her gets the carrot.

That shit is starting to end though. which goes all the way back to Duka's point that the Europeans should not be relying on the US backing them forever. The day is going to come when Europe is going to have to stand up on her own two little feet all by herself. The question is, do the Europeans want to prepare for that or simply find themselves one day stuck up a river without a paddle? I would prefer that they do the former as the latter would be quite tragic.

Don't forget North Korea. Everyone seems piss scared of the idea of trying to invade them

Yeah, I forgot about the Norks. Go ahead and add them to the list. They don't have to worry about anyone invading them because they are so piss poor anyway that its not worth the effort.

Well, they had the British military for company during that particular campaign.

The US can always count on the UK to hold our dick. That goes without saying. Haha. Doesn't mean we won't ever f*ck them over though. I think it was Eisenhower, the British were having a bit of a tiff with Egypt and/or Israel and the British wanted the US' help. Eisenhower told the British to go f*ck themselves. I a more diplomatic sort of way I'd imagine.

That is the nature of the relationship between the US and the European nations. If they ask us for something we don't want to do, we tell them to piss off. When we "ask" them to do something they don't want to do, they just piss, moan, hold their nose and swallow quick followed by mouthwash and a shower. That ain't a partnership between equals, its closer to the relationship between a pimp and his whores. No one wants to see the US have to choke a bitch.

[Dukasaur]

Always spot on. Christ, I hate coming into a discussion after patches. 90% of the time all I can say is, "Right on!" I hate feeling like a drooling sycophant, but sometimes I just can't help it when you lay it out like that.

[betiko]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

If you don't get it, you don't get it. S'all right. I'm well aware of the negative public opinion towards the US, its equaled by our own citizens. But that doesn't matter because the justification the US uses and makes the Europeans contribute to doesn't need to worry about public opinion. We're not talking about the platitudes and the understanding of politicians towards their voters, we're talking about policy which US dictates to the European nations.

The US couldn't do what it does and claim legal justification if the Europeans didn't go lock step with the US and have resolution remove this leader and remove that leader. The insanity of the US string pulling is apparent in the handling of the Ukraine, and the EU has a vested interest to go along with it even if it is poking a bear with a stick. The US would rather the EU be dependent on Qatar than on Russia. Either way, the Europeans are going to be paying the Russians or the Qatari, that is on the wrong side of the equation either way.

No matter what the Eu is dependent, like a suckling babe. You bite mamma's tit and she pulls the nipple away. Is that how the Europeans want to live life? I dunno. Maybe so, or they just don't think about it too much. The sad thing is how the US is using the EU like a worn out hooker. Its not right. Especially the Qatar angle where the US corporations have invested 10's of billions on the promise that Qatar gas will be flowing into Europe. We pretend to be looking out for Europe but we are really only looking out for ourselves, or that is specific energy corporations who are looking to hedge into Russia's energy market and if it means a few thousand Ukrainians or a few hundred thousand Syrians have to die, so be it. And the EU is lock step in line with what the US tells them to do in these regards. Nobody gives a shit about negative US public opinion but if it makes people feel better to yell about it so much the better. Just so long as Europe keeps on using the petrodollar and voting like we want them in the UN then nothing else matters.

But don't kid yourself just because one's nation might on the one hand denounce the US actions or complain about them and on the other hand vote to give the US the legal justification to commit those actions that one's nation has clean hands in the mess that comes out afterward. Ya'll's hands are just as bloody as ours.

sorry but your vision is a bit biaised here. When the US gave the excuse of weapons of mass destruction to invade irak, Chirac gave Bush a little middle finger to stick right up his ass. The american people took it as a huge disrespect from france not to follow their lead. There was nothing personal there, we just thought it was not justified. Also, you say a lot of horseshit concerning most UN resolutions. Of course the weight of the US is very important in our decisions, doesn't mean we follow blindly every single position taken by you guys. We go where our interests are, and I don't see a problem if most of the times our interests coincide.
Each european nation is really different, and the current problems the EU is facing shows that we can't get much closer than we already are. Are we putting ourselves in a difficult situation? I don't think so. We pass on the lead. No need for it. This is like playing risk, dropping a smaller bonus and not attacking, just stacking while others are stacking more. You're still droping enough to make it uninteresting to be attacked if other guys are smart.
We just have a very conservative vision of borders here, we just want nothing to change. Of course things changes as the world evolves...
You guys as individuals are way too obsessed with military forces. If you knew how much we give a shit about military powers in europe... It's just not our problem. We don't need to live with guns and we're better without them. We have significantly less violence here and don't have that cocky testosterone attitude. I wouldn't change the health protection we have here for big guns and all those things tat make me yawn. I just see the world as a much safer place than you describe. I don't feel threatened because of my nationality and I don't fear being ever invaded by anyone.
In france, people had to make a year of military service until the guys born in 1976, so I didn't get to do it (I'm from 1980) and I'm happy I didn't get to do it.

And yes... being a nuclear power does make one think of it twice before attacking. This is like a hornet or something... even if it's small you are not going to f*ck around with a hornet nest with your bare hands. Sure you'll win the fight but what you will look like won't be pretty.

[waauw]

To say that europeans fetch whenever the US asks for it is completely ridiculous. Not every european nation is the UK, joining hands in every damn war. If you really believe what you just said, you have no idea of how negative public opinion over here is about american foreign policy.

The US doesn't need Europeans to contribute to our fights. The US can do it alone. What the US uses the Europeans for is we tell them how to vote in the UN. Those votes then give the US the "legal" justification to wage the wars that your European people are out protesting or having negative public opinion. The public opinion doesn't matter because the Europeans cast the UN votes that allowed the US to pursue its agenda and call it "legal".

If you don't get it, you don't get it. S'all right. I'm well aware of the negative public opinion towards the US, its equaled by our own citizens. But that doesn't matter because the justification the US uses and makes the Europeans contribute to doesn't need to worry about public opinion. We're not talking about the platitudes and the understanding of politicians towards their voters, we're talking about policy which US dictates to the European nations.

The US couldn't do what it does and claim legal justification if the Europeans didn't go lock step with the US and have resolution remove this leader and remove that leader. The insanity of the US string pulling is apparent in the handling of the Ukraine, and the EU has a vested interest to go along with it even if it is poking a bear with a stick. The US would rather the EU be dependent on Qatar than on Russia. Either way, the Europeans are going to be paying the Russians or the Qatari, that is on the wrong side of the equation either way.

No matter what the Eu is dependent, like a suckling babe. You bite mamma's tit and she pulls the nipple away. Is that how the Europeans want to live life? I dunno. Maybe so, or they just don't think about it too much. The sad thing is how the US is using the EU like a worn out hooker. Its not right. Especially the Qatar angle where the US corporations have invested 10's of billions on the promise that Qatar gas will be flowing into Europe. We pretend to be looking out for Europe but we are really only looking out for ourselves, or that is specific energy corporations who are looking to hedge into Russia's energy market and if it means a few thousand Ukrainians or a few hundred thousand Syrians have to die, so be it. And the EU is lock step in line with what the US tells them to do in these regards. Nobody gives a shit about negative US public opinion but if it makes people feel better to yell about it so much the better. Just so long as Europe keeps on using the petrodollar and voting like we want them in the UN then nothing else matters.

But don't kid yourself just because one's nation might on the one hand denounce the US actions or complain about them and on the other hand vote to give the US the legal justification to commit those actions that one's nation has clean hands in the mess that comes out afterward. Ya'll's hands are just as bloody as ours.

You surely are exagerating.

1. Europeans matter to the US a lot more than mere voting on UN resolutions. Without the support of the EU the US-hegemony would crumble a lot faster than it already is. One of the ways the US holds other nations in its grip is by controlling the busy sea trading routes. Without EU support it would have a hell of a difficult time of doing so in the mediterranean for instance. The same principle counts for foreign military bases to exert control over areas. The US simply doesn't have the necessary military demographics, hence why it constantly tries to convince EU-nations to send troops everywhere. The US doesn't need the EU to help defend itself, but it does to help defend its interests abroad.
2. The US isn't the only nation to support Israel. Without the EU the US would have a much thougher time supporting them and in consequence trouble in holding on to its strong power exertion in the middle-east.
3. The EU is not making deals with the Qatari. That deal has already been shoved off the table. A pipeline Qatar-Europe is unfeasable at the moment.
4. If the US has such vast control over the EU, then explain to me why so many EU nations have refused to agree with the US over Ukraine, Syria and Iraq. This proves that the EU doesn't just listen to the whims of the US.
5. The reason the EU uses the petrodollar for buying resources is because other countries demand either dollars or their own currency as payment.
6. Negative public opinion does have vaster consequences than you realize. It is because of this that europeans in multiple countries, with Germany at their head, have turned increasingly anti-interventionist. This creates a precedent for the future and the present.

[waauw]

You quite exagerate here. Russia can't just roll through europe(even without US aid), I don't think I have to explain why. It could cause trouble on european border-nations, but it could not march an army all the way the to France for instance. Even though europeans invest too little in their military, many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians. Not to mention that there are multiple nuclear weapon holders in europe and europeans vastly outnumber the russians in terms of demographics.

That doesn't really work as a deterrent when the enemy is already on your soil. What're the French going to do, nuke Putin's tank columns as they trundle through Poland? Good luck convincing the Polish that that one was all for their own good.

Even leaving aside the fact that Russia has infinitely more nukes than both the UK and France combined, I have a hard time believing any modern power would use nuclear weapons in a conflict. If Germany invaded France, would there really be any chance of France nuking Berlin? It seems wildly unlikely.

As I said, the EU has many high-tech weapons. The famous P90 for instance was designed in Belgium and the german Leopard tanks are among the most advanced tanks in the world.

[waauw]

many european weapontechnologies do surpass the Russians

since the Europeans haven't fought on their own anyone of any power in the last sixty years. The US on the other hand are battle veterans and the Russians not so long ago showed just how quick they can batter any of their neighbors if they choose to and crush any of them in short order.

This is what pisses me off the most about the US' meddling in the Ukraine. It is immoral and unethical to egg someone on into a conflict she cannot win, as in the Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against Russia no matter how many "advanced technologies" either the US or the EU gives the Ukraine, yet here we are the war hawks in the US are doing just that. Its sickening and so far the Eu has gone right on along with the dangerous game with the sole exception of Germany, sort of. Germany at least seems aware of how insane this is but I don't hold out much hope of them withstanding US pressure. We'll see I guess. Its just none of the US' business and the whole mess could be sorted out in short order if only we'd stay out of it all together. But that won't happen.

What the hell are you talking about, Germany sole exception? Germany is far from the only country refusing to send weapons to Ukraine. In fact MOST EU-nations have either refused or not expressed intentions in the direction of arms supply. Don't bullshit if you don't know what's going on.

And in a conflict EU-Russia, the small numbers of troops in the Russian armed forces that are war-hardened veterans would dim in light of the immense scale of such a war, if it ever were to come to that.

[mrswdk]

That is the nature of the relationship between the US and the European nations. If they ask us for something we don't want to do, we tell them to piss off. When we "ask" them to do something they don't want to do, they just piss, moan, hold their nose and swallow quick followed by mouthwash and a shower. That ain't a partnership between equals, its closer to the relationship between a pimp and his whores. No one wants to see the US have to choke a bitch.

You're jingoism is getting the better of you. European countries are permanently bending to the will of the US? France refused to join in with the invasion of Iraq and the UK voted not to have anything to do with Syria - there's two exceptions that disprove the rule. I'm sure there are plenty more to be found by anyone with more than 2 minutes to spend addressing your post.

[saxitoxin]

I have to agree with patches.

1 - Whether "X" or "Y" nation didn't publicly support Iraq is not proof said nation is not totally prostrate to the U.S. For years people believed Canada had taken a principled stand against Iraq. During the Manning Wikileaks release we learned that, in fact, Canada had secretly offered to help the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. said Canada was too weak and would get in the way. It was not until then that Canada took its "principled stand." So, in the case of NATO, examples can't be used to disprove the pattern. There's too much we don't know.

2 - Among NATO states only the U.S. has an (almost) completely indigenous-equipped military. Other NATO states are largely equipped with off-the-shelf weapons that have to meet the requirements of the NATO Standardization Agreements. These agreements are all but dictated by SACEUR, who is always a U.S. general. For the most part it locks NATO states into buying weapons that are either produced by the U.S. or can only be produced with U.S.-licensed technology. The result is that European states can't war without U.S. approval, or face the sudden loss of spare parts, ammunition, etc., grinding its operations to a premature halt. Though it doesn't involve NATO, the case of the UK's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is an extreme example - British SLBMs are U.S. owned (loaned to Britain), U.S. serviced, U.S. manufactured, U.S. tested, and run on U.S. software. "Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation."

[waauw]

I have to agree with patches.

1 - Whether "X" or "Y" nation didn't publicly support Iraq is not proof said nation is not totally prostrate to the U.S. For years people believed Canada had taken a principled stand against Iraq. During the Manning Wikileaks release we learned that, in fact, Canada had secretly offered to help the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. said Canada was too weak and would get in the way. It was not until then that Canada took its "principled stand." So, in the case of NATO, examples can't be used to disprove the pattern. There's too much we don't know.

If one is to think in generalizing terms of "what if...", you could make endless spins of theories. This is a useless stance on the subject imo as you either pick and choose what to believe and what to assume, or you remain in a position of not knowing anything and not judging anything. In this case it would be completely useless to discuss anything.

So I believe it's more rational to just continue on what you know, rather than start basing yourself on assumptions. And the fact is, France wasn't the only country against the Iraq war for instance. I know that Germany and my own country, Belgium, were against it too. The US even threatened my country's politicians at the time to move NATO headquarters out of Brussels.

2 - Among NATO states only the U.S. has an (almost) completely indigenous-equipped military. Other NATO states are largely equipped with off-the-shelf weapons that have to meet the requirements of the NATO Standardization Agreements. These agreements are all but dictated by SACEUR, who is always a U.S. general. For the most part it locks NATO states into buying weapons that are either produced by the U.S. or can only be produced with U.S.-licensed technology. The result is that European states can't war without U.S. approval, or face the sudden loss of spare parts, ammunition, etc., grinding its operations to a premature halt. Though it doesn't involve NATO, the case of the UK's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is an extreme example - British SLBMs are U.S. owned (loaned to Britain), U.S. serviced, U.S. manufactured, U.S. tested, and run on U.S. software. "Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation."
[/list]

Other NATO-members might have incomplete armies, that I agree upon and I do think they should work on it, however europeans have the technology to build their own ammunition, spareparts, etc. for most of their weapon arsenal. European states largely use their own technologies and equipment, we aren't entirely dependent on the US. You should also not forget that once the Galileo-sattelite system is fully operational(something the washington has strongly opposed since the very beginning), europe will once again have made another step away from US-dependence.

[saxitoxin]

I have to agree with patches.

1 - Whether "X" or "Y" nation didn't publicly support Iraq is not proof said nation is not totally prostrate to the U.S. For years people believed Canada had taken a principled stand against Iraq. During the Manning Wikileaks release we learned that, in fact, Canada had secretly offered to help the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. said Canada was too weak and would get in the way. It was not until then that Canada took its "principled stand." So, in the case of NATO, examples can't be used to disprove the pattern. There's too much we don't know.

If one is to think in generalizing terms of "what if...", you could make endless spins of theories. This is a useless stance on the subject imo as you either pick and choose what to believe and what to assume, or you remain in a position of not knowing anything and not judging anything. In this case it would be completely useless to discuss anything.

So I believe it's more rational to just continue on what you know, rather than start basing yourself on assumptions. And the fact is, France wasn't the only country against the Iraq war for instance. I know that Germany and my own country, Belgium, were against it too. The US even threatened my country's politicians at the time to move NATO headquarters out of Brussels.

2 - Among NATO states only the U.S. has an (almost) completely indigenous-equipped military. Other NATO states are largely equipped with off-the-shelf weapons that have to meet the requirements of the NATO Standardization Agreements. These agreements are all but dictated by SACEUR, who is always a U.S. general. For the most part it locks NATO states into buying weapons that are either produced by the U.S. or can only be produced with U.S.-licensed technology. The result is that European states can't war without U.S. approval, or face the sudden loss of spare parts, ammunition, etc., grinding its operations to a premature halt. Though it doesn't involve NATO, the case of the UK's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is an extreme example - British SLBMs are U.S. owned (loaned to Britain), U.S. serviced, U.S. manufactured, U.S. tested, and run on U.S. software. "Given the complexities of the US designed electronics and computer programmes embedded in every aspect of the Trident system it seems unlikely that a British prime minister could launch them – unless the US President gives his own authorisation."
[/list]

Other NATO-members might have incomplete armies, that I agree upon and I do think they should work on it, however europeans have the technology to build their own ammunition, spareparts, etc. for most of their weapon arsenal. European states largely use their own technologies and equipment, we aren't entirely dependent on the US. You should also not forget that once the Galileo-sattelite system is fully operational(something the washington has strongly opposed since the very beginning), europe will once again have made another step away from US-dependence.

Ultimately, this is the problem with Europe. For decades, European independence has been a dream expressed in future tense scenarios that never materialize in the way they were imagined ... "Once the Soviet Union collapses, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once Blue Streak enters service, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once the euro is established, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once ICANN is independent of the U.S. Commerce Department we will be free." ... "Once Galileo is online, we will be free of the U.S." ...

For every plan Europe, painstakingly in a committee of dozens of nations, can come up with, the U.S. - as a single entity - can produce a dozen counter-plans. The case of Galileo is a prime example. This is not an action Europe is taking, it is a (very delayed) reaction to the extension of U.S. dominance to another sector (satellite navigation). The U.S. is an entity that acts, Europe is an entity that reacts. Unless Europe is able to reverse this fundamental dynamic, its future looks dim.

[patches70]

That is the nature of the relationship between the US and the European nations. If they ask us for something we don't want to do, we tell them to piss off. When we "ask" them to do something they don't want to do, they just piss, moan, hold their nose and swallow quick followed by mouthwash and a shower. That ain't a partnership between equals, its closer to the relationship between a pimp and his whores. No one wants to see the US have to choke a bitch.

You're jingoism is getting the better of you. European countries are permanently bending to the will of the US? France refused to join in with the invasion of Iraq and the UK voted not to have anything to do with Syria - there's two exceptions that disprove the rule. I'm sure there are plenty more to be found by anyone with more than 2 minutes to spend addressing your post.

We didn't need France to send troops to Iraq to help us. We can do that all on our own. What we need France for in that case is to not block the US' legal basis for the invasion, which France didn't do.

These are win/win situations because the European nations can pretend to their own citizens they didn't cave to the US and at the same time give the US a happy ending.

We don't need the European nations to send weapons or support to the Ukraine, we'll do that all on our own. What we need the European nations for there is to not stop us, which they won't. We don't need European forces to fight Assad, we need Europe to not stop us from doing the job. We'll need the European bases to fly our bombing missions, we'll need European infrastructure to move materials and we'll get all those things when the time comes because Europe does what the US tells it.

Europe could shut down the US efforts in all these things tomorrow if they are willing or able to pay the price. Its not like Europe has to worry about the US attacking her, but she does have to worry about US economic weapons and US protection. Europe has no choice but to be a lap dog because she lacks the fortitude, the insight and the will to defend herself.

Its not jingoism on my part, its the opposite. Its not right how we treat the Europeans and I readily acknowledge my own nation's immoral and unethical treatment but the European nations share an equal amount of the blame because they refuse to do what they should have long since done.

The EU worked for twenty five years to cultivate and re-craft a relationship with Russia that was mutually beneficial to both but in less than a year the US has destroyed all that over the Ukraine. Its insanity. The US lost her moral high ground a long time ago and no one believes anything she says now, with good reason I'd add. The EU is also equally morally bankrupt as well, she has the US to thank for that so you're welcome I guess.
The only thing left is political scheming and saber rattling and poor old Europe is all out of sabers because apparently they don't need guns. Ha!

A hundred years from now I'd like there to still be a France, or a Germany, or an Italy, or a Greece. A hundred years from now I want the European nations to still exist and be prosperous, happy and alive. A hundred years from now I want a Europe that is still free to determine her own way without cow towing to other powers out of necessity, free from US meddling.

I want to see my own nation become how we were always meant to be and once were. Staying out of the affairs of other nations, trading with everyone and threatening no one. I want my nation to lead by example, not making examples out of other nations. We are not the policemen of the world, we aren't equipped to perform that task and we don't have the moral authority to dictate.

Alas, I know I am living in a dream world, but as Saxi points out the reality is looking grim. One needs only open their eyes to see it coming. The saddest thing is that it is so plain yet too many just ignore the storm clouds rising. I suppose its human nature.

The US' position on Europe was best summed up by Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs at the US Department of State)

f*ck the EU

Nuland is who decided who would take over the Ukraine after Yanukovych was ousted. If Europe wants the Ukraine problem solved all she has to do is tell the US to piss off and stay out of it completely. Its as simple as that.

But hey, none has to believe me if they don't want to. The US learned a long time ago that she doesn't fight wars on her own territory. We'll fight our wars in Europe and from Europe, of course, that puts the Europeans in the cross hairs but from the US point of view, it keeps our nation safe. Europe, not so much. If Europe doesn't want to be a target then they should be telling the US to get the f*ck out. But they can't because they don't have the military power to truly discourage anyone without the US backing her. And that is the crux of the problem as I see it.

[betiko]

Seriously... You should stop reading tom clancy patches.

[waauw]

Ultimately, this is the problem with Europe. For decades, European independence has been a dream expressed in future tense scenarios that never materialize in the way they were imagined ... "Once the Soviet Union collapses, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once Blue Streak enters service, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once the euro is established, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once ICANN is independent of the U.S. Commerce Department we will be free." ... "Once Galileo is online, we will be free of the U.S." ...

For every plan Europe, painstakingly in a committee of dozens of nations, can come up with, the U.S. - as a single entity - can produce a dozen counter-plans. The case of Galileo is a prime example. This is not an action Europe is taking, it is a (very delayed) reaction to the extension of U.S. dominance to another sector (satellite navigation). The U.S. is an entity that acts, Europe is an entity that reacts. Unless Europe is able to reverse this fundamental dynamic, its future looks dim.

That I can agree with, I just don't agree with some of the statements that have been made about europe on this topic. They seem to have gone into exageration.

[betiko]

Ultimately, this is the problem with Europe. For decades, European independence has been a dream expressed in future tense scenarios that never materialize in the way they were imagined ... "Once the Soviet Union collapses, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once Blue Streak enters service, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once the euro is established, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once ICANN is independent of the U.S. Commerce Department we will be free." ... "Once Galileo is online, we will be free of the U.S." ...

For every plan Europe, painstakingly in a committee of dozens of nations, can come up with, the U.S. - as a single entity - can produce a dozen counter-plans. The case of Galileo is a prime example. This is not an action Europe is taking, it is a (very delayed) reaction to the extension of U.S. dominance to another sector (satellite navigation). The U.S. is an entity that acts, Europe is an entity that reacts. Unless Europe is able to reverse this fundamental dynamic, its future looks dim.

That I can agree with, I just don't agree with some of the statements that have been made about europe on this topic. They seem to have gone into exageration.

What i don t get here is that some people seem to think we have some sort of repression from the US or Russia in Europe... No, i never felt like my country had to do something it absolutely didn t want to do by force. You guys are talking about europe as an entity..
Waauw is from belgium that is a rather small country within europe. Do Blegians feel the same way as french or germans regarding any geopolitical issue? No. So why don t you ask belgiumto be europe s bitch?
Then you have flemish and wallons... Maybe some people can say that wallons are flemish bitches.
Then I guess you can go on a regional level, on a borough level, on an appartment building level.

I dont really look at what drives us appart with the US or Russia or China... But common interests.
Not here to play a world domination game. If that s what you guys and russians are all about well knock yourselves out and have fun. There are definitely other priorities with tax money.

[saxitoxin]

Ultimately, this is the problem with Europe. For decades, European independence has been a dream expressed in future tense scenarios that never materialize in the way they were imagined ... "Once the Soviet Union collapses, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once Blue Streak enters service, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once the euro is established, we will be free of the U.S." ... "Once ICANN is independent of the U.S. Commerce Department we will be free." ... "Once Galileo is online, we will be free of the U.S." ...

For every plan Europe, painstakingly in a committee of dozens of nations, can come up with, the U.S. - as a single entity - can produce a dozen counter-plans. The case of Galileo is a prime example. This is not an action Europe is taking, it is a (very delayed) reaction to the extension of U.S. dominance to another sector (satellite navigation). The U.S. is an entity that acts, Europe is an entity that reacts. Unless Europe is able to reverse this fundamental dynamic, its future looks dim.

That I can agree with, I just don't agree with some of the statements that have been made about europe on this topic. They seem to have gone into exageration.

What i don t get here is that some people seem to think we have some sort of repression from the US or Russia in Europe... No, i never felt like my country had to do something it absolutely didn t want to do by force.

Those of us who subscribe to the Neo-Gramscian approach do not believe the US acts through force toward other first world nations. It is different from previous empires because it seeks to manufacture consent. It does this through the integration of culture, commerce, and government. This triumvirate of power is known as the "transnational historic bloc."