Connections

Reasonable_Link.jpg
 
israel is not under the specifc protection of the us as far as i know. it does buy a lot of arms and get significant amounts of aid and good rates on loans.

there is no standing army or other military support of that type for israel from the us government.

israel does experience a great deal of support at international bodies, such as the un, from the us.
 
i'm not sure that western europe is under the protection of the us in the same way as say japan is, where constitutionally japan's standing army is there in a home defense role only.
germany may be subject to the same rule but not western europe as a whole.

in the above chart bosnia and kosovo i believe are both un mandated forces.

the us has a fairly major deployment across western europe that is a reduction of the cold-war set up that allowed the us to run forward bases. it is part of a cooperative nato set up.

the eu has been attempting to form an eu defence force but this has largely been seen by the us as a threat to nato and frowned upon. negotiation last year saw the prospect of a standing eu army removed to allay those fears.

be under no illusion that the us presence in europe is done against the wishes of the states. they want to be there and need those forward bases for actions in places like iraq. this is less protection of a friend and more undertaken in the interests of the us.
 
Ok.

So the whole of Europe is, Iraq is, Egypt is, Djibouti is, S korea and the Phillippines are and so is Egypt.

Anywhere else? Or are they the only places where we can be safe from terrorist attack because of Bush?

Edit - Sorry ris you beat me to it. That makes a lot more sense. I was having trouble working out how this "protection" stopped terrorist attacks...
 
There is only one way to stop terrorism.

Kill the terrorists. Until that is done, nobody is safe. Because several former Presidents wanted to avoid war we made them think we're soft. Bush 2 says fuck that & I agree. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill the terrorists.
 
Gonz said:
There is only one way to stop terrorism.

Kill the terrorists. Until that is done, nobody is safe. Because several former Presidents wanted to avoid war we made them think we're soft. Bush 2 says fuck that & I agree. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who else gets killed in the exchange? I guess we just kill all the muslims then?
 
As long as there are societies with opposing viewpoints, you will have conflict. As long as you have conflict, you will have terrorism. The only way to wipe out all terrorism is to wipe out all those who don't share your beliefs. A final solution, no?
 
chcr said:
Regardless of who else gets killed in the exchange? I guess we just kill all the muslims then?
Click to expand...

again, stop it.

there have been fewer casualties from our actions that can be reasonably expected from a war scenario.

and yes, sometimes, for the greater good, there will be too many civilian casualties. (see Nagasaki & Hiroshima)
 
Ms Ann Thrope said:
As long as there are societies with opposing viewpoints, you will have conflict. As long as you have conflict, you will have terrorism. The only way to wipe out all terrorism is to wipe out all those who don't share your beliefs. A final solution, no?
Click to expand...


Why are we not at war with N Korea or Saudi Arabia? Because we have diplomatic ties. Diplomacy can & sometimes works. We only kill them after they refuse to agree with us. (us included great Britain)

Those who say war never solved anything have never looked through a history book.
 
oh absolutely, we-unlike GB-do that every few years anyway. Your Kings took & took & took & took... finally dying of obesity ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top