Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Europe's Security and Geopolitics?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Europe's Security and Geopolitics?
    Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 19:09
Originally posted by Spartakus

No offense, but i highly doubt the capacity, nowadays, of the US to defend an entire continent from any external threat, since they cannot win a war in rocky Afghanistan and had to deploy an entire army in a freaking desert (Iraq that is ) in order to keep the order........
Plus, Russia is not a threat to Europe.  Russia needs the European market and European cash. Only an imbecile would do otherwise. Just look how many Russians do their business or live in the UK....


I think you might be missing the point behind the alliance or any other? It's not and never has been the sole intention of the US in being the sole guarantor of the European continental security. The emphasis has always been on partnership in security with other European states by a treaty of collective security synonymous within the structure of  Nato.

The campaigns in Afghanistan have nothing what-so-ever to do with US military capabilities and more to do with the constantly evolving strategy, squabbling between allies and starting from scratch with a multitude of countries in trying too help the peoples in that country put together a functioning government that will work best for them and no other country!

Iraq is turning out to be quite different. With the US it seems to have blundered it's way through when it had a somewhat semi-state that was barely functioned to start with. Opting to go with disbanding everything ba'athist related and starting over again from scratch. Especially when it seems more apparent that the US didn't need to go that route.

Time will tell if Obama can form a bit more of a coherent strategy which seems to have been lacking in the waning days of the Bush administration?
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 01:03
The campaigns in Afghanistan never had much to do with anything other than as a visible response to 9/11.  What went wrong there was the usual misreading of reality by US policymakers.  There was hardly any real intention to "nation build" or put Afghanistan on some road to modernity.  Afghanistan means nothing to the US; it means very, very much to Pakistan.  It could mean much to Iran in future.
 
The Afghan Islamists, who seem so powerful to the Western media, will surely make a comeback, but that will not be until the US is gone.  That will happen as the chasm between the two cultures is far too great.  Once they are back, the CIA can return to running US policy in Afghanistan.  The Pakistanis can deal with their cultural bretheren on an official level.
 
Really, what does it matter who is "in power" in Afghanistan?  The Taliban will have to share it with all the local warlords and the tribal interests.  The only support the Taliban can ever count on is that of Pakistan (one major reason all the expatriot Islamist factions are attempting to influence internal Pakistani politics by assassinating politicians and blowing up Mosques).   
 
So...the US inevitably leaves; the Pakis give support to the Taliban - or to whomever - so they are controllable, and no more Russian/American forces are on their flank while Pakistan and India continue to face one another down for the rest of time.
 
Now, to the important war - the one that has placed US military forces in Mesopotamia.  As the world is running out of oil, there was only one reason why that adventure was launched.  It was to make sure no one else got the access to that oil.  Well, "mission accomplished."  Anyone who thinks US forces will be out of Iraq in the next 50 years, raise your hand.  Wink  Iraq is not in any way able to defend itself.
 
Whatever the media play (and those people are quite gullible), whatever the politics and the propaganda, the Iraq war has achieved an immensely important long term goal by placing US power in the heart of Mesopotamia, and probably for as long as any of us is alive.  Whatever the domestic bluster; whatever the protestations of Iraqis, they don't have a choice unless they want to face Iran alone.
 
The outline of all this seems to date from after the 1991 Gulf War.  An aquaintance of mine who is close to retirement from the State Dept. has said to me that US foreign policy has been run out of the Pentagon since the Gulf War.  I would agree as our last four Secretaries of State have been (or have been treated like) trick ponies.
 
I am not justifying any of this.  It is as it is....reason of state; Realpolitik, etc.  Call it anything you want.  It doesn't matter what you call it.
 
 
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 01:42
pikeshot, I really enjoy your very intersting posts, but my impression is that you ignore a very important factor: Turkey. You put so much emphasis on Iran, but you forget Turkey, a power admitedlly greater than Iran (sinilar -if not greater- population, better industry, similar nuclear ambitions, greater interests inside Iraq)

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 08:30
Originally posted by Panther



I think you might be missing the point behind the alliance or any other?


Rather  a cowboy in a horse, shooting here and there, and trying to drug to his shooting the old cowboys of the city (NATO), which incidentally are now merchants.....

Originally posted by Panther


It's not and never has been the sole intention of the US in being the sole guarantor of the European continental security.


It acts like one...

Originally posted by panther


The emphasis has always been on partnership in security with other European states by a treaty of collective security synonymous within the structure of  Nato.


........

Originally posted by panther


The campaigns in Afghanistan have nothing what-so-ever to do with US military capabilities and more to do with the constantly evolving strategy, squabbling between allies and starting from scratch with a multitude of countries in trying too help the peoples in that country put together a functioning government that will work best for them and no other country!


It has to do with military capabilities. The US were stretched in 2 small (from a "continental" perspective) fronts , against ill-equipped and ill-trained enemies. In order to prevail it had to deploy a massive force in Iraq, which is , let's face it, nothing more than a flat desert country with 2 rivers.... While, at the same time, it cannot prevail in rocky Afghanistan. I think it was Barack Obama who declared of sending more troops there.....And do not be mistaken. We are not talking about forces/troops with a rifle and a pair of boots. We are talking about a massive military machine, a machine which, theoretically, can crash any enemy. You do not have to be an expert to understand it. Look at the figures: how many dollars were spent in order to support the historical joke called "the war against terrorism"??  It cannot crash a bunch of bearded fanatics in a country who has not seen any kind of "Western civilization" in the past, what, 30-40 years???? Of course, Afghanistan is unique in terms of geomorphology. Everybody recognizes that. But it's not as if the US forces are a gang of "rednecks" coming from their "shitholes" in Aiowa....

Originally posted by panther


Iraq is turning out to be quite different. With the US it seems to have blundered it's way through when it had a somewhat semi-state that was barely functioned to start with.


Can you tell me how the British could hold half of the country under some control with only 1 base back in WWII???

I honestly believe that the US capabilities are not as they are portrayed. It just couldn't attack Iran, while being in 2 neighbouring countries, even if it wanted to.

( Forgive me for me being so blatant, it's that i  woke up from a wild night....)




"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 09:50
Military efficiency has nothing to do with anti-guerilla wars. Anti-querilla wars are won on the political level (by winning the people's hearts)and not on the battlefield. THat's why the Soviets and now the NATO couldn't win in Afghanistan.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 12:08
I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 14:21
Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents.
 
Beheading people and whipping children in the street betrays the primitive, violent nature of the culture in which such behavior can pass for "order" and "morality."
 
However, that is not our problem as it is unlikely to change.  You need to overlook such realities in order to address more vital interests.  Unpleasant, but a fact.
 
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 15:48
Originally posted by xristar

pikeshot, I really enjoy your very intersting posts, but my impression is that you ignore a very important factor: Turkey. You put so much emphasis on Iran, but you forget Turkey, a power admitedlly greater than Iran (sinilar -if not greater- population, better industry, similar nuclear ambitions, greater interests inside Iraq)
 
I am hardly an expert on Turkey, but if there is one NATO member that is likely to leave the alliance at some time I imagine it would be Turkey.  However, the Turks are realists above all, and they know the historic adversary has been the "Rus."  A NATO umbrella with the US still involved does retain utility for Turkey.  The Turks cannot go it alone, and why would they if they don't have to?  Why give up military assistance paid for by US taxes?
 
By retaining a connection to NATO (however tenuous it may become), Turkey has a reserve of military and political support that might be used in case of a crisis.  The Turks are no less vulnerable to the declining oil available to the global economy than anyone else without their own sources of it, and Turkey could also be a player in central Asia - on whose "side" will depend on their reading of vital interests.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 16:07
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents.
 
Beheading people and whipping children in the street betrays the primitive, violent nature of the culture in which such behavior can pass for "order" and "morality."
 
However, that is not our problem as it is unlikely to change.  You need to overlook such realities in order to address more vital interests.  Unpleasant, but a fact.
 
That people believe there are more vital interests is what saddens me.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 23:34
Originally posted by Spartakus

Originally posted by Panther


It's not and never has been the sole intention of the US in being the sole guarantor of the European continental security.


It acts like one...


Fair enough. However, i would like to point out that atleast since the Eisenhower administration there had been a continuous effort on the part of the US to get allied European states too spend more on their defense, thereby decreasing the burden on the US. The results had always seemed to be very lackluster at best!



Originally posted by panther


The emphasis has always been on partnership in security with other European states by a treaty of collective security synonymous within the structure of  Nato.


Opps...Embarrassed I guess many posters here might not care for it, but as far as i am concerned, Nato in my eyes remains valid enough for atleast another 30-40 years. After that, then maybe...who knows?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It has to do with military capabilities. The US were stretched in 2 small (from a "continental" perspective) fronts , against ill-equipped and ill-trained enemies. In order to prevail it had to deploy a massive force in Iraq, which is , let's face it, nothing more than a flat desert country with 2 rivers.... While, at the same time, it cannot prevail in rocky Afghanistan. I think it was Barack Obama who declared of sending more troops there.....And do not be mistaken. We are not talking about forces/troops with a rifle and a pair of boots. We are talking about a massive military machine, a machine which, theoretically, can crash any enemy. You do not have to be an expert to understand it. Look at the figures: how many dollars were spent in order to support the historical joke called "the war against terrorism"??  It cannot crash a bunch of bearded fanatics in a country who has not seen any kind of "Western civilization" in the past, what, 30-40 years???? Of course, Afghanistan is unique in terms of geomorphology. Everybody recognizes that. But it's not as if the US forces are a gang of "rednecks" coming from their "shitholes" in Aiowa....

Can you tell me how the British could hold half of the country under some control with only 1 base back in WWII???

I honestly believe that the US capabilities are not as they are portrayed. It just couldn't attack Iran, while being in 2 neighbouring countries, even if it wanted to.


If you wish to... we can discuss this further in a different thread i had started about a week or two ago:

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26771

I'll post my response to you there in just a little while.


( Forgive me for me being so blatant, it's that i  woke up from a wild night....)


It's quite alright, i do understand. I'm not offended in the least. Just take care of any hangover you might have and i'll talk with you later.




Edited by Panther - 04-Apr-2009 at 23:38
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 23:40
Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents.


I thought it was "politically incorrect" to do so? Rolling Eyes
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2009 at 19:35
Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents.


Their "evil" is way too small compared to others.....


Edited by Spartakus - 05-Apr-2009 at 19:36
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 17:52
It's a small country, yes, but the evil is the same - the subordination of humanity to ideological/religious dogmatism.
 
As a moral stance it is worse than the sheer kleptocracy of regimes like Mugabe's or Hussein's.
 
If there are only a few cases of bubonic plague in a country, do you do nothing about it because the country is small?
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 20:24
Are you sure the Taliban are "evil"? I thought you were kidding actually.
It seems to me that since NATO can't bring stability to Afghanistan, a Taliban regime may be better for the afghani people.
Terrorism has obviously nothing to do with a nation, and Al Qaeda is but an international organization.


Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 21:09
Originally posted by xristar

Are you sure the Taliban are "evil"?
Absolutely.
I thought you were kidding actually.
It seems to me that since NATO can't bring stability to Afghanistan, a Taliban regime may be better for the afghani people.
It's been tried. It was on a level with Pol Pot in Cambodia, with the added danger that it threatened being infectious, unlike the Pol Pot regime.

Terrorism has obviously nothing to do with a nation, and Al Qaeda is but an international organization.
I don't think I mentioned al-Qaeda, did I? I was talking about the Taliban, a much more serious matter.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.