The European Intrusion --an article (rant)

Originally posted by LastLegionary
Oh well, just my opinion. In short, lets bomb everything around Israel to hell, and take out Sadam, possibly throw a few bombs into Iran, then get rid of Kadaffi. And FUCK the EU on the way there, I have no use for their idioticy.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Luis G
I will make it more short this time, when the US stops putting their nose in other countries, those countries will stop "bringing" terror to the US.

Payback is what they want.
Click to expand...
 
i have noticed that most americans defend their bill of fights and constitution as core to their nation, and don't like people attacking it.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised how far the government has really strayed away from the Constitution's definition of the federal government. They were basically supposed to do nothing more than organize and train an army in order to defend our borders, and everything else was left up to each of the 50 states. A bit oversimplified, but you get the idea

Defending the Constitution and defending the U.S. government today are two different things, because that government and the government it is intended to be as outlined in the Constitution are two different things.
 
Soo easy to see who's the nazi here. Adolf wannabe, "I hate you because in my opinion you hate me, altough I know absolutely nothing about you, lets start a war !"
 
Originally posted by LastLegionary
hate, HATE the anti-semitism that is on the rise in Europe. Anyone that is an enemy of the Jews (such as the EU) is my enemy
Click to expand...
:confuse3: :confuse3: :confuse3: eh?
 
i don't know about anti-semitism [to be openly anti-semitic in europe still carries a lot of baggage and it clamped on hard] but there has been a move to the right in many countries, largely as a result of issues with immigration.

but this rise has not gone unnoticed or unchallenged. when right-wing candidate le pen did well in the recent french elections there was a mass swing away from him and derision from the press.
 
Hopefully the British will support us a bit, if not, we technically don't need their military's assistance.
Click to expand...


is that why our marines went into the mountains of afghanistan because yours don't do hills or cold ;)
 
Originally posted by ris
the war on terror isn't seen so clear cut for everyone, it's a term used rather than a genuine conflict for many. i think it's because the enemy is so fluid and accusations are easily levelled and acted upon without evidence.
Click to expand...

The state department has identified those countries which actively support terrorist groups. Those are the countries that we need to declare war on. It's not really all that complicated.

there is no set coalition document that sets a common treatment of prisoners, like the geneva convention statutes, and that has been agreed by all.
Click to expand...

You want to ask people who kill civilians to sign the Geneva Convention?

i'm pretty sure that under the 'rules of war' [if you will] you cannot execute combatants for being on the other side. they merely become prisoners of war. i think that until a common agreement is set many allies will be hesistant.
Click to expand...

Only uniformed combatants are protected by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was written as an agreement between countries for the conduct of war between two armies in the field. It does not cover terrorists, or the kind of war they fight.
 
is that why our marines went into the mountains of afghanistan because yours don't do hills or cold ;)
Click to expand...

Our Marines do wherever and whenever they feel like it, We just wanted to make you feel like you had done SOMETHING!!! ;)
 
the us state department can say anything they want, it only means that the us are at war with them, other countries can remain neutral until they decide the evidence is compelling enough to agree. the us does not speak for the world, not should it.

i am not asking for terrorists to sign the geneva convention, but when you declare 'war' there are certain statutes that are agreed. what i was inferring was that terrorist conflicts are dirty, underhand affairs, currently there are is no common agreement between nations on the treatment of those captured in such activites. if this new kind of conflict is to be fought and unilaterally supported then i think such things need to be done so that countries and nations cannot opt out or decide individually what is right or wrong.
 
Originally posted by ris
the us state department can say anything they want, it only means that the us are at war with them, other countries can remain neutral until they decide the evidence is compelling enough to agree. the us does not speak for the world, not should it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I quite agree. I don't give a fig for what the rest of the world thinks, says or does. The US was bloodily attacked, and they should declare war unilaterally and let the rest of the world hide behind our skirts, if they're too cowardly to fight for their own survival. It won't be the first time we've stood between the world and those who would drag it back down into the dark ages.

i am not asking for terrorists to sign the geneva convention, but when you declare 'war' there are certain statutes that are agreed.
Click to expand...

Umm... no, there are no agreements in war unless you negotiate them with your enemies. If the US unilaterally sets itself a certain standards in dealing with prisoners, that's our business. If we decide to execute them on the spot, that's our business too.

what i was inferring was that terrorist conflicts are dirty, underhand affairs, currently there are is no common agreement between nations on the treatment of those captured in such activites. if this new kind of conflict is to be fought and unilaterally supported then i think such things need to be done so that countries and nations cannot opt out or decide individually what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Unilaterally supported? I don't think that means what you think it means. It sounds like you're saying that if the US wants support from a coalition of countries, then we should let them tell us how to treat our prisoners. I guess Europeans invented the concept of war as a gentleman's game, but war isn't a game. It's not a police action either. We didn't arrest the terrorists, we captured them, and they don't deserve a trial. If there is any reason to think that after the war is over they will go back home and fight no more, then I say keep them in internment until we've won, otherwise pump them for information and then execute them. Under no circumstances should they be released while there is any terrorist organization remaining that can use them, or any government left standing that supports such terrorist organizations.
 
sorry, i didn't mean unilateral, i meant a world-wide agreement and war. what i mean is that if the us want help, information and support then it may do better to agree a common policy of treatment and approach with its allies so that no-one can back out and complain.
as a new form of war i think it needs a new set of 'rules', if you will. as terrorism often goes beyond borders and even continets global agreements are vital so that a seamless approach can be made. that way there are no havens and countries are clear on their responsibilities.

europe has been dealing with terrorism for many decades and sadly has a great deal of experience with counter-terrorism and breaking up organisations. terrorism is not a war that you can win by simply militarily defeating the opposition.
it is much more complex than that, military strength goes hand in hand with political groundwork, discussion, pressure, negotiation and understanding.
ultimately you have to diffuse the hatred and distrust, not easily done with troops.

i hope that you are serious when you mean all terrorists, the us government and public have funded terrorist activities in the past and didn't seem too fussed.
 
i meant a world-wide agreement and war
Click to expand...

Sadly the EU is in the world, and I don't see anything happening if they can't even agree on a telelphone numbering standard or on which side of the road they are going to drive.

europe has been dealing with terrorism for many decades and sadly has a great deal of experience with counter-terrorism and breaking up organisations.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do. yep yep, they don't even have an army. If the United States wasn't in NATO, Europe would be down the shitter. I honestly wish that the United States would withdraw from NATO and perhaps even the UN, and then we will see how fast the rest of the world [excluding Canada of course] come whining "plz help us".
 
Originally posted by LastLegionary
Sadly the EU is in the world Sadly, and I don't see anything happening if they can't even agree on a telelphone numbering standard or on which side of the road they are going to drive.
Click to expand...

BTW, *cough* who still uses Imperial measuring system, instead of metric?
who says that football is soccer?


Originally posted by LastLegionary
they don't even have an army. If the United States wasn't in NATO, Europe would be down the shitter. I honestly wish that the United States would withdraw from NATO and perhaps even the UN, and then we will see how fast the rest of the world [excluding Canada of course] come whining "plz help us".
Click to expand...

So Europe don't have an army, huh?. ROFLMAO
You know, you're right, the US should leave NATO, that way the other countries would not waste their troops in US problems.
 
Not really, my hard feelings don't last over a day.

Any other things you have to say about my post?
 
not having a common eu army is not an issue as don't believe that mere military action will solve terrorist issues. it is only part of a solution.

there are standing armies in all eu countries and they all contribute, the french, greek and i think italy still have national service so no shortage there.

i want the us to remain part of the un and nato because we should be working toward common goals not dividing ourselves up.
 
Luis I'm not going to bother replying to your thread since I don't quite know what you mean by what you are saying. If you present some facts and an argument I'm willing to take you on :D

Ris, I don't particularly feel like joining the EU. In fact, I feel quite separable from them. Just like a differential equation in fact. Very separable.
 
K, there were NATO troops in the gulf war.

Recent stories, the US asked Pakistan support in order to invade Afghanistan. Also, british, french, canadians and don't know how many other countries sent troops to Afghanistan to support a "US-only" conflict.

You could show at least a little gratitude to those that sent troops to fight your cause.

If you don't want their armys, fine, fight alone, and don't ask for international support, which was the reason of this thread (the EU not being cooperative with the US).
 
a war on terrorism is global by its very nature, no one country can do it alone, militarily or at a diplomtic level. if this is to be seriously treated as a long term goal. as it should, then it will most likely take years, if not decades, to achieve.

ll, i never invited you the eu, i'm not sure you'd like the stoooopid rules they pass out, some of it is pretty dumb. ;)
 
Militarily, the US is quite capable of fighting the war against terrorism alone. Whether our leaders have the moral courage to do so is quite another matter.

As for this being "our" problem, that's BS. Yes, we were the ones attacked, but if you think that the rest of the world is safe, you're dreaming. The terrorists don't hate us because of our foreign policy or any particular thing we've done overseas, they hate us because we are a secular, individualistic society oriented towards achieving personal happiness in this life, not the next. We are the penultimate symbol of that philosophy, and therefore, the first target for those who hate it. If you value that lifestyle, then this is your war.

The Islamic fundamentalists are Jerry Falwell times Gary Bauer cubed. They want to drag us back into the dark ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top