Time Europe defended itself-Finnish General

[Nizark]

Time Europe defended itself -EU military official

SALEN, Sweden, Jan 18 (*******) - The European Union's top military official suggested on Sunday that American and European forces should be responsible for their own territorial defence and only cooperate on major crises outside their regions.
Finnish general, Gustav Hagglund, who is chairman of the EU's military committee, told a defence conference it was time Europe shouldered the defence of the continent itself.
"The American and the European pillars (of NATO) would be responsible for their respective territorial defences, and would together engage in crisis management outside their own territories," Hagglund told the conference in Salen, 450 km (280 miles) northwest of Stockholm.
"My prediction is that this will happen within the next decade," he told a news conference later.


U.S. forces would handle high-intensity operations involving terrorism and weapons of mass destruction while Europeans would concentrate on sustained low-intensity crisis management such as conflict prevention, he said.


"That arrangement would divide tasks distinctly between Europe and the United States. The division would be well in line with existing ambitions and capabilities and the different threat scenarios embraced by both sides," he added.


EU leaders agreed in December on arrangements to create a military planning cell that could, under tightly limited circumstances, run military operations when NATO was not involved.


The EU's fledgling rapid reaction force made its debut in peacekeeping operations last April, sending a tiny force to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, followed by a mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.


Hagglund, who will be replaced in April by Italian general, Rolando Mosca Moschini, said there was no threat in Europe that the EU now could not handle itself, especially after the bloc takes in 10 new members in May, mainly former communist states from central and eastern Europe.


"We don't know if the United States will have forever the resources, or the interest, to defend Europe," he said.






And just how the fuuuuuuuuuuuck is this even management? The US deals with real and important stuff, and the Europeans deal with smaller stuff after the US deals with the problem when it arrises.

[Dalleer]

The US deals with real and important stuff, and the Europeans deal with smaller stuff after the US deals with the problem when it arrises.

Well, I suppose that the powers that be wish to change this matter, at least on the European continent.

[Pojo]

I think that its somewhat unfair that US carries such a big burden. Europe should be able to defend itself on its own, of course that would demand huge spending which they rather not do. That brings me to why I am unhappy with the current situation where US has to spend huge amounts of money while Europe gets by with very little hiding under the US protection. I dont think Europes economy would be as peachy as it is now if they had to spend money on keeping themselves safe.

[Antepilani]

The EU's collective defense budget is 150 billion dollars, the US is 400 billion.

[cut]

The EU's collective defense budget is 150 billion dollars, the US is 400 billion.

that doesn't include the 10 countries bringing the number up to 25 in may 2004 does it?

[mustamato]

Curriculum Vitae

Johan Edvin Birger Gustav Hägglund

http://www2.mil.fi/perustietoa/esittely/henkiloita/images/gustav_hagglund.jpg

General Gustav Hägglund has been Chief of Defence, Finland, since 1 November 1994.

He was born on 6 September 1938. General Hägglund was commissioned in 1960 and served thereafter successively as platoon and company commander in infantry units, as instructor at the Finnish Military Academy, as instructor in Strategy at the Finnish War College, and as Secretary to the Finnish National Defence Council and to the Second and Third Parliamentary Defence Committees. He served as Chief of the Defence Staff in 1990-1994.

General Hägglund has commanded:
1978 - 1979 the Finnish Contingent in the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) in the Sinai
1984 - 1985 Nyland Brigade in Finland
1985 - 1986 United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights
1986 - 1988 United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
1988 - 1990 South-East Military Area in Finland

General Hägglund's educational background is as follows:
1957-1958 National military service
1958 - 1960 Finnish Military Academy
1965 - 1969 MA (Political Science) at University of Helsinki
1969 - 1971 Finnish War College
1972 - 1973 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
1981 - 1982 Fellow at Harvard University Center for International Affairs

Promotions:
Second Lieutenant in reserve 10.5.1958
Second Lieutenant 1.6.1958
Lieutenant 4.6.1961
Senior Lieutenant 4.6.1964
Captain 4.6.1967
Major 17.3.1972
yleisesikuntaupseeri 23.10.1972
Lieutenant Colonel 1.9.1977
Colonel 1.2.1984
Major General 3.5.1985
Lieutenant General 4.6.1988
General 1.11.1994

Publications and research papers include the following:
Peace-making in the Finnish Winter War 1969
Northern Europe in Strategic Perspective 1974
U.S. Strategy for Europe 1974
Parliamentary Defence Committees in Finland 1981
Modern U.S. Cruise Missiles, an Evaluation 1982
Peacekeeping in a Modern War Zone 1990

________________________________

Atleast the man talking is a experienced soldier, we can agree with that aight?

[Dalleer]

I think that its somewhat unfair that US carries such a big burden. Europe should be able to defend itself on its own, of course that would demand huge spending which they rather not do. That brings me to why I am unhappy with the current situation where US has to spend huge amounts of money while Europe gets by with very little hiding under the US protection. I dont think Europes economy would be as peachy as it is now if they had to spend money on keeping themselves safe.

I have to agree with you on the matter that if the EU truly begins to take even bigger steps as a "one nation" then some sort of a military should be created for the task of defending European interests.

However, I am personally against the formation of a single government for the EU as I am against a position of presidency for the EU, but nevertheless us Europeans do need a "offensive-defensive" military force in case conflicts (and if the unfortunate matter of a single nation EU happens).

[Antepilani]

that doesn't include the 10 countries bringing the number up to 25 in may 2004 does it?[/quote]

The ten new EU countries are poorer Eastern European countries with small defense budgets.

[martinexsquaddie]

sssso exactly how does the US defend Europe from who?
russias bankrupt and isn't playing anymore
china would have to go through russia to get to europe?
WMDs well if they exsist there more likely to be pointed at the USA or israel than Europe apart from the US bases here.
Iraq Afganistan well Iraq was'nt a trhreat to europe and afganistan maybe
europe possibly needs to look at its defence spending but hardly needs US levels of spending (though the french would love that )
with no plausable external threats and few internal theats defence spending will stay low as those no real good reason for it to rise

[Shadow]

The EU's collective defense budget is 150 billion dollars, the US is 400 billion.

This is because we use our money for the more important stuff.

[Sabre]

I think that its somewhat unfair that US carries such a big burden. Europe should be able to defend itself on its own, of course that would demand huge spending which they rather not do. That brings me to why I am unhappy with the current situation where US has to spend huge amounts of money while Europe gets by with very little hiding under the US protection. I dont think Europes economy would be as peachy as it is now if they had to spend money on keeping themselves safe.

Well, as Europe is capable of doing what the US seems uncapable of doing (ie: getting along with the rest of the world) there is no imediate threat to Europe. Therefore, there is no real need for large armies. There is certainly no need for massed field armies a la Cold War.

I think the US should withdraw its troops remaining in Europe as there is no longer any need for them to remain. Of course, they are never going to give up their air bases here, they're far too convenient in case they need to bomb some arabs. That said, we would never let them go because we have already prostituted ourselves for 50 years to get nukes (UK) and other benefits from the US using our soil.

Mate, do you honestly think the US would spend all that money on defence if it didn't want to? You chose to sacrifice health care and social support so you could be the big boy. If you think it's that bad then tell the President, the bosses of the oil companies and the chairmen of the Military Industrial Complex companies and see what they think. I bet they love the $400 billion defence budget! I bet it gets them a decent health plan.

I have lived in the US, Canada and the UK and visited Mexico and several European countries. Do you know which I think is the best? Sweden is. They haven't had a war since 1814, before then they were extremely war-like. But now they have no enemies and have spent the whole of their time improving their society. They have an extremely well run state system and have some of the lowest infant death rates and the highest average life expectancy in the world, despite spending the least in Europe in terms of GDP on it. (no, before you say it, the US does not have the best mortality rates, 3.4/1,000 live births in Sweden; 6.9/1,000 in USA) Their transport runs smoothly and is cheap, they are environmentally friendly, inovative and world leaders in research and development in various fields. What has sweden to fear and why aren't they allowed to have a "peachy" economy. Why would this be a bad example to follow?

As for the US defending us, all I have to say is PARANOID! What are you lads so scared of? I think we should all collectively shut off the power to the US and start running around in the dark making noises, then see how many **** themselves. Of course, we'd probably get pasted by some dude's M16 with a 'Family-Size" magazine.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

Well, it is not a matter of the US "not getting along with the world" and the Europeans do. We get along with most of the world and when we do not, Americans stand up for what they believe to tell who ever disagrees with us to **** off. Sometimes its for the worst, but most of the times it is for the best. When France was faced with Islamic terrorism, they gave into terrorist demands and became the Islamic radical's European bitch. When we are faced with Islamic terrorism, we deal with it and do not run away. Europeans are typically pacifists and will give into others demands. Americans are to a certain degree pacifists, but after WW2 the doctrine of isolationism was thrown out the window and standing up when **** is going wrong was in.

Yes, we do need European bases "to bomb Arabs", but I would much rather say to, well, bomb everyone. We've bombed Arabs, Serbs, Afghans, Bosnians, etc.

Not going to war since 1814 does not make a country great, it means either they are pacifists and do not care what is going on around them. In WW2, I am sure that in its darkest hours, Britian and what was left of the allies could have really used a helping hand and on that note I believe that the US was wrong in not stopping that asshole Hitler way before he seized the Rhineland.

What are we Americans scared of you ask...what's not to be scared of?!?!?! We've got crazy Arabs with dirty bombs wanting to blow up New York, we've got psyco "eco-terrorists" that catch our factories on fire, a portion of Western Europe that is becoming increasingly hostile, nearly all the Muslims in the world (including their countries) that HATE us, Estonians afraid of Russian invasion, crazy Russians jailing businessmen and media tycoons, Catholic Priets touching boys, Dean placing 3rd in the Iowa Caucuses, and half of the US is estimated to be over- weight from eating too much McDonald's!!!! Its a scary world out there for an American...especially a fat one!

[OldRecon]

I think that its somewhat unfair that US carries such a big burden. Europe should be able to defend itself on its own, of course that would demand huge spending which they rather not do. That brings me to why I am unhappy with the current situation where US has to spend huge amounts of money while Europe gets by with very little hiding under the US protection. I dont think Europes economy would be as peachy as it is now if they had to spend money on keeping themselves safe.

Well, as Europe is capable of doing what the US seems uncapable of doing (ie: getting along with the rest of the world) there is no imediate threat to Europe. Therefore, there is no real need for large armies. There is certainly no need for massed field armies a la Cold War.

I think the US should withdraw its troops remaining in Europe as there is no longer any need for them to remain. Of course, they are never going to give up their air bases here, they're far too convenient in case they need to bomb some arabs. That said, we would never let them go because we have already prostituted ourselves for 50 years to get nukes (UK) and other benefits from the US using our soil.

Mate, do you honestly think the US would spend all that money on defence if it didn't want to? You chose to sacrifice health care and social support so you could be the big boy. ... (and so on)

Got a good point there Sabre.
During the 50's had some worries about keeping defence spending in check. Citing as an example that one "could build 3 grammar schools for 1 B-52" or something of that order.
If anything worries me these days it's definitely the HUGE budget deficit of the US government at present and it's consequences (some calculations predict US economy will crash in 3 years if deficit contiune to grow at present rate).
Maybe no more money to the US "military industrial complex" for new fancy weaponry for a while, and soup ques for the rest of us.
Which again could mean more fertile ground for the Al Qaida to operate in... :roll:
Like many Europeans I've had my doubts about Bush Jr., and they haven't lessened. Both he and some of his associates (particularly those involved with Enron) have toppled corporations before.
Let's hope he don't topple the biggest one he'll ever get his hands on. :(

[Sabre]

Well, it is not a matter of the US "not getting along with the world" and the Europeans do. We get along with most of the world and when we do not, Americans stand up for what they believe to tell who ever disagrees with us to f*** off. Sometimes its for the worst, but most of the times it is for the best.

OK, I over-generallised. But more often than not the US does not consider the complex social and political issues involved in a situation concerning countries with vastly different cultures and histories. They prefer to use the great leveller (literaly) in the form of the 'Big Stick'.


When France was faced with Islamic terrorism, they gave into terrorist demands and became the Islamic radical's European bitch.

When has France given in to terrorist demands?


Europeans are typically pacifists and will give into others demands.

Yeah! You're right! Remember that nice chap Hitler? He was always bending over backwards to do things other peoples' ways! Why can't we all be like him?


Americans are to a certain degree pacifists, but after WW2 the doctrine of isolationism was thrown out the window and standing up when **** is going wrong was in.

After you realised you had made so much money out of both world wars it was unreal, then you realised everyone else was in **** state and couldn't stop you doing what you wanted if they tried; so you thought, why not have some fun?


Yes, we do need European bases "to bomb Arabs", but I would much rather say to, well, bomb everyone. We've bombed Arabs, Serbs, Afghans, Bosnians, etc.

'Every man is bombed equal' what a noble concept.


Not going to war since 1814 does not make a country great, it means either they are pacifists and do not care what is going on around them. In WW2, I am sure that in its darkest hours, Britian and what was left of the allies could have really used a helping hand and on that note I believe that the US was wrong in not stopping that asshole Hitler way before he seized the Rhineland.

It means they didn't participate in the stupid 'power block peace' concept that came out of the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian War, with Britain, France and Russia on one side and Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. Such brinkmanship, after all, was the reason for WWI. The fall-out of which lead to WWII. Germany's restationing of troops in the Rhineland (not seized, as it is part of Germany) broke the terms of the treaty of Versailles, and nobody acted on that (don't feel bad). The treaty, however, was very strict and crippled Germany with the aim that it could never pose a threat again. The problem with that being the desperate situation forced Hitler into power....OOPS!

The mutually assured destruction idea obviously didn't work, there were 7 million dead in WWI followed by 60 million dead in WWII to prove that. So thankfully nobody decided to use the 'Power-Block' concept again...

...hang on a minute!?


What are we Americans scared of you ask...what's not to be scared of?!?!?! We've got crazy Arabs with dirty bombs wanting to blow up New York, we've got psyco "eco-terrorists" that catch our factories on fire, a portion of Western Europe that is becoming increasingly hostile, nearly all the Muslims in the world (including their countries) that HATE us, Estonians afraid of Russian invasion, crazy Russians jailing businessmen and media tycoons, Catholic Priets touching boys, Dean placing 3rd in the Iowa Caucuses, and half of the US is estimated to be over- weight from eating too much McDonald's!!!! Its a scary world out there for an American...especially a fat one!

Somebody's got a complex! Somebody's got a complex! Nah-nah, nah-nah, nah!

Mate, we in Europe have had terrorism for nearly 40 years. We in the UK have been dealing with terrorists since the fall of the empire! The only effect it has had on our society is the fact that there are no bins in our train stations! Now that's bloody annoying!

[Sabre]

Fair point OldRecon, let us hope that the 'NeoCon Fundimentalists' don't cut off their nose to spite their face interms of pursuing their ideology. Then we'd all be in a world of ****.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

We in the UK The only effect it has had on our society is the fact that there are no bins in our train stations! Now that's bloody annoying!

And they put a bomb sniffing probe into your luggage before you can deposit it in a left luggage locker at Glasow Central :) Aye no littering signs everywhere and not a bin in sight.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

When has France given in to terrorist demands?

France has listed such terrorists organizations like Hizbollah, Hamas, and others as "official charitable organizations". They can raise money in France from donations from the kind French people to blow up Israeli school children. The French turn their head when money is being raised to kill Americans and Jews, they turn their head when hundreds are leaving their country and volunteering for terrorism in Israel, Chechnya, and Iraq. They endorse Syria's control of Lebanon (which Hizbollah uses to launch guerilla attacks against Israel). They support the Palestinian Authority which loans its weapons to terrorists to use against the Israelis and issue fatwahs.


Yeah! You're right! Remember that nice chap Hitler? He was always bending over backwards to do things other peoples' ways! Why can't we all be like him?

Europeans dragged their feet with Hitler (alhtough he was a European of coarse, all the nations of Europe stood by and did nothing). Europeans debated whether or not to go into Bosnia and Kosovo, while tens of thousands were being murdered.


After you realised you had made so much money out of both world wars it was unreal, then you realised everyone else was in **** state and couldn't stop you doing what you wanted if they tried; so you thought, why not have some fun?


Hahaha, what a joke, even before WW1 the US was the richest nation in the world. So you think that the US is just hell bent on being rich so we have to control the world's economy? That is a joke, that is why we have helped countless countries develop into world economic powers, when many of them to this day should probobly still be in an economic depression. Yes Americans love money and buying ****...but who doesn't??? I would dare say that the world's current economy and awesome standards of living are due to the US. We have done alot for this world, more than any other nation can currently say. From our billions of dollars of loans that we give out to poor countries to our little Southern Baptists Mission trips to 3rd World Countries...the US and Americans have done quite a bit.


'Every man is bombed equal' what a noble concept.

Well, you know we have always been about the equality and "every man created equally stuff" It is better than just killing every Jew we come in contact with or hating a white African because he is white.

As for the other stuff you typed...well, I will meet a typical European's stereotype of being a lazy and dumb American

[Antepilani]

some calculations predict US economy will crash in 3 years if deficit contiune to grow at present rate).


You do relise this is not the bigest deficit as percentage of GDP we have ever had?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Curriculum Vitae

Johan Edvin Birger Gustav Hägglund

http://www2.mil.fi/perustietoa/esittely/henkiloita/images/gustav_hagglund.jpg

General Gustav Hägglund has been Chief of Defence, Finland, since 1 November 1994.

He was born on 6 September 1938. General Hägglund was commissioned in 1960 and served thereafter successively as platoon and company commander in infantry units, as instructor at the Finnish Military Academy, as instructor in Strategy at the Finnish War College, and as Secretary to the Finnish National Defence Council and to the Second and Third Parliamentary Defence Committees. He served as Chief of the Defence Staff in 1990-1994.

General Hägglund has commanded:
1978 - 1979 the Finnish Contingent in the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) in the Sinai
1984 - 1985 Nyland Brigade in Finland
1985 - 1986 United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights
1986 - 1988 United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
1988 - 1990 South-East Military Area in Finland

General Hägglund's educational background is as follows:
1957-1958 National military service
1958 - 1960 Finnish Military Academy
1965 - 1969 MA (Political Science) at University of Helsinki
1969 - 1971 Finnish War College
1972 - 1973 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
1981 - 1982 Fellow at Harvard University Center for International Affairs

Promotions:
Second Lieutenant in reserve 10.5.1958
Second Lieutenant 1.6.1958
Lieutenant 4.6.1961
Senior Lieutenant 4.6.1964
Captain 4.6.1967
Major 17.3.1972
yleisesikuntaupseeri 23.10.1972
Lieutenant Colonel 1.9.1977
Colonel 1.2.1984
Major General 3.5.1985
Lieutenant General 4.6.1988
General 1.11.1994

Publications and research papers include the following:
Peace-making in the Finnish Winter War 1969
Northern Europe in Strategic Perspective 1974
U.S. Strategy for Europe 1974
Parliamentary Defence Committees in Finland 1981
Modern U.S. Cruise Missiles, an Evaluation 1982
Peacekeeping in a Modern War Zone 1990

________________________________

Atleast the man talking is a experienced soldier, we can agree with that aight?

I assume you're being facetious. Looks like he's got hisself lots of fancy book learnin - but what has he done? Seems to be more of a bureacrat or administrator. Not that I disagree with his conclusions, but his background is typical of generals who've never been in harms way (unless he left the interesting stuff off of his CV)

[usa320]

THis pisses me the **** off.

When we asked them to help us deal with terrorists and WMD, they told us to **** off.

Now they are saying we should deal with terrorism and WMD, while they sit around and look important.

Until someone blows up something in Finland or France, then of course they come crying to us for help.

This is rubish. The EU blows, probably the reason the UK has distanced itself from it.

[cut]

Until someone blows up something in Finland or France, then of course they come crying to us for help.



hmm.. just like the US prior to 9/11 then?

[OnTheRocks]

EU needs to become a federal state before we'll be able to do anything properly.

[WARPIG]

Don't get all bent out of shape. It makes a little sense. For leadership and jusisdiction purposes.. it simplifies things. It would streamline the decision making and contingency process. Logistically it will create inequalities but, as long as those kinds of crisis are common... then it may not be too bad. Our forces can concentrate it's technology, training, and unit structure towards that kind of operation. Those assets we have doing the less volitile conflicts and peace keeping can be moved to help us with the other ops. Dividing the responsiblity doesn't mean that it takes us out of the picture of those peacekeeping missions or Europe out of the bigger conflicts. If NATO was an actually usefull or competant entity.. it would work. Until NATO gains some kind of credibility though. It could lead to some political "outs". Jurisdiction arguements will be endless. And each side would still want to be kept "in the loop" of the other's operations.

[wholagun]

Americans are fighting the war on terror - good for them. I just think that you guys that it all wrong. You should focus on what actually spans US hatered. And not its not necessarily our values of freedom and democracy there is more to anti US sentiment then that. US gets its nose into every little place it can, EU doesn't get involved in politics of other nations like US does. I recall there was an article that Afghanistan wanted EU to rebuilt Afghanistan not the US cause the US would do it the way it wants it done and not the way the people necessarily want it.

[Loco]

I think many europeans "we" do have many terrorist/terrorifcs experiences in recent history, europeans aren´t pacifists, we do like peace and we´re ready for keeping this peace. This is a false cliché created by Robert Kagan and it was succesful, but only in USA. Americans love peace too, but americans are so strong that they can play the war game even if it´s not necessary and if it´s cheaper in americans lives, example Panamá, that was an unnecessary and extremely unfair war, for calling in some way. And USA never experienced war at home since 1864, and that´s a looong time, USA usually do war in onther´s living rooms, this is like doing a party at your home: usually is a mess when the party has finished and you hadn´t fun because you were worried about your f...friends don´t burn the curtains or drink the best brandy you have stored, but when you go to a party in your friend´s home, then you really enjoy. American civil people don´t have memories of tuberculosis, typhus, louses, generalized prostitution, famine, permanent fear, scarcity of elementary articles and all these calamities that goes together with war.
I think that USA spends a lot of money in other´s defence, but only the money it really needs. USA is the empire of this time, and empires aren´t built for the wealth of the countries the emperor rules, but for the worth of the ruler´s country. In any way I can see the need of spanish defense in having american bases prior to 1982(when Spain got into NATO), in fact it was a blackmail Franco paid to USA in 1952 for being sure of he remain ruling Spain after the IIWW, and spanish´s freedom was the price. Well, now really USA pays nothing to our Defence budget in anyway, but it pays the coast for spanish of his bases here, and we pay or share. In cases like they IGWar is well known that war didn´t cost a lot of money to USA or the allied forces, apart of course the dead soldiers, the bill was paid by Al Sabah family of Kuwait, what was the fair thing since they were given back their kingdom. I know spanish paid all the oil used by american vessels and aircrafts of all kinds who took off Spain, that were thousand in that war. And after the war, Kuwait paid a big cheque to Spain, is not beautiful but things were like this. I don´t critize USA behaviour after the 80´s, I only point that since Spain is a really free country, we get what we pay, no more no less, and I´m sure that being Spain a so called "middle-class" country in Europe and not getting any cent of USA, it´s clear that richest countries like Germany don´t recieve nothing for free. The case of GBritain is special, of course, is thanks to USA that still keep some global influence that couldn´t keep without that help. That said, cooperation with USA is beneficial for both sides when it´s used in terms of equality, between free societies, not like in Franco´s time, and in this way the democratic countries of europa have a good prosperity, equally USA enjoy an unprecedent era of continuous prosperityhas and enjoys an influence over a rich market, not to speak that any European country is no more a rival for USA as it was up to the second world war.
Still, it seems formidable the american defense budget, but I think it´s something must concern more american electors. I really think they don´t need so much money for being safe, but it´s because I think it´s not only a matter of safety but of preponderance too: If you are the stronger, you have the last word, that´s all.
The Terror: I´m spanish, and I´m basque, and when I hear about terrorism in other places, well, sometimes I´m move my eyebrows up, but I don´t say nothing, simply I´m sick of terrorist in my land and I´m upset of this subject, but I can´t evit thinking how ingenuous some people are. Terrorism it´s a daily matter here, since 30 years ago, I´ve seen being a child dismembered dead people in streets, like those photos of Baghdad, with the difference my land, Euskadi, is a very rich and industrialized country, it has beautiful landscapes and beaches, it could be the european paradise but...We´re defeating terrorist, I´m optimistic, and btw I add that a spanish minister was sent to the jail together with other high official for fighting terrorism with ilegal methods we see daily at the news, here we never blow up houses of terrorists, and in the cases suspected of terrorism were killed by mercenaries, 24 killed, the persons in charge were sent to the jail. It´s a long way of fighting terrorist, but we can see the end, and I think, I´m sure, we´ll finish with terror for the next 100 years. So, that´s why I move my eyebrows when Americans "discovered" terrorism the 9/11: hey, that muslims and israelies have been fighting and killing themselves in our countries long before that date in Europe, at least in Spain, and with some spanish victims. I remember clearly when Bush was elected president, he said loud that he wanted USA occupied in his own bussiness, he didn´t want to spend a cent stopping wars in the case they weren´t useful for USA.
I think terrorism is one thing and war is another thing, you fight terrorists with intelligence and policemen, the army is for other thing. That´s why Iraq invassion won´t stop terror, because muslims terrorists didn´t any relationship with Iraq and Sadam Hussein.
And ...woh! I have another short post again! You all are the guilty of that! you talk of interesting things. ;)

[fantassin]

When France was faced with Islamic terrorism, they gave into terrorist demands and became the Islamic radical's European bitch.


Of course, that's why islamic scarves are going to be banned in schools and for civil servants. That's also because it "gave in" that France had more islamic terrorist attacks on it soils than any other european country put together.

It's not because it is not annoying the rest of the world with its struggle against islamic terrorist that France "gives in".

Here is a list of terrorist attacks against French people and French interests in the past years. "Mort" is dead and "blessés" is wounded

If France was "giving in", I can't see why attacks would go on.

- 15 septembre 1974 : Drugstore Saint Germain (2 morts, 34 blessés)
- 27 juin 1975 : rue Toullier (2 morts, 1 blessé)
- 2 décembre 1978 : BHV (8 blessés)
- 27 mars 1979 : rue de Médicis (33 blessés)
- 18 juillet 1980 : tentative contre M. Bakhtiar (2 morts, 2 blessés)
- 3 octobre 1980 : Synagogue de la rue Copernic (4 morts, 22 blessés)
- 29 mars 1982 : Le Capitole (5 morts, 28 blessés)
- 22 avril 1982 : rue Marbeuf (1 mort, 63 blessés)
- 9 août 1982 : rue des Rosiers (6 morts, 22 blessés)
- 11 août 1982 : rue de la Baume (1 blessé)
- 17 septembre 1982 : Lycée Carnot (33 blessés)
- 15 juillet 1983 : Aéroport d'Orly (8 morts, 60 blessés)
- 25 août 1983 : Maison de France, Berlin (1 mort, 23 blessés)
- 30 septembre 1983 : Foire de Marseille (1 mort, 25 blessés)
- 23 octobre 1983 : Beyrouth, le Drakkar (58 morts)
- 19 novembre 1983 : restaurant l'Orée du Bois (21 blessés)
- 23 décembre 1983 : restaurant le Grand Véfour (10 blessés)
- 31 décembre 1983 : gare Saint-Charles, Marseille (5 morts, 50 blessés)
TGV, Tain l'Hermitage (2 morts)
- 4 février 1984 : hôtel le Méridien (1 blessé)
- 2 avril 1984 : rue de la Tour d'Auvergne (1 blessé)
- 16 août 1984 : Annecy (1 blessé)
- 25 janvier 1985 (1 mort : Général Audran)
- 23 février 1985 : Marks and Spencer (1 mort, 14 blessés)
- 29 mars 1985 : cinéma Rivoli-Beaubourg (18 blessés)
- 30 avril 1985 : TRT (1 blessé)
- 5 septembre 1985 : ATIC (1 blessé)
- 7 décembre 1985 : Galeries Lafayette ; Printemps (51 blessés)
- 3 février 1986 : Galerie du Claridge (7 blessés)
- 4 février 1986 : librairie Gibert-Jeune (4 blessés)
- 5 février 1986 : FNAC (15 blessés)
- 3 mars 1986 : rue de Lancry (3 blessés)
- 17 mars 1986 : TGV (10 blessés)
- 20 mars 1986 : Galerie Point-Show (2 morts, 21 blessés)
- 3 mai 1986 : Colombo, Sri-Lanka (3 morts)
- 9 juillet 1986 : Brigade de Répression du Banditisme (1 mort, 20 blessés)
- 8 septembre 1986 : Hôtel de Ville de Paris (1 mort, 16 blessés)
- 12 septembre 1986 : Casino la Défense (43 blessés)
- 14 septembre 1986 : Pub Renault (2 morts, 1 blessé)
- 15 septembre 1986 : Préfecture de Police de Paris (1 mort, 45 blessés)
- 17 septembre 1986 : rue de Rennes (7 morts, 54 blessés)
- 17 novembre 1986 (1 mort : M. Besse)
- 15 décembre 1986 : Provins (1 mort)
- 18 mars 1987 : Djibouti (13 morts, 60 blessés)
- 17 juin 1987 (1 mort : Dr Lafay)
- 24 juillet 1987 : Air Afrique (1 mort, 1 blessé)
- 19 novembre 1987 : Paris 15e (3 blessés)
- 11 juillet 1988 : City of Poros (9 morts, 80 blessés)
- 22 octobre 1988 : cinéma Saint-Michel (13 blessés)
- 19 décembre 1988 : foyer Sonacotra (1 mort, 10 blessés)

- 19 septembre 1989 : DC 10 d'UTA (170 morts)


- 27 septembre 1990 : Djibouti (1 mort, 15 blessés)
- 23 octobre 1990 (1 mort : Dr Cyrus Elahi)
- 18 avril 1991 (1 mort : M. Boroumand)
- 6 août 1991 (2 morts : MM. Bakhtiar et Katibeth)
- 25 décembre 1994 : détournement de l'Airbus d'Air France (3 passagers décédés et 236 otages)
- 11 juillet 1995 : Paris 18e (2 morts dont l'Imam Sahraoui)

- 25 juillet 1995 : RER Saint Michel (8 morts, 200 blessés)


- 17 août 1995 : Place de l'Etoile (20 blessés)
- 3 septembre 1995 : marché Richard Lenoir (4 blessés)
- 7 septembre 1995 : école de Villeurbanne (32 blessés)
- 6 octobre 1995 : avenue d'Italie (16 blessés)
- 17 octobre 1995 : RER Orsay (30 blessés)
- 27 mai 1996 (1 mort : M. Mazlouman)

- 3 décembre 1996 : RER Port-Royal (4 morts - 170 blessés)


- 1993 à 1996 : (43 Français assassinés en Algérie)
- 17 novembre 1997 : Louxor, Egypte (68 morts, 80 blessés)
- 6 février 1998 : Corse (1 mort : M. Claude Erignac, Préfet)
- 19 avril 2000 : Quévert (1 mort, 6 blessés)
- 11 septembre 2001 : New York-Washington (près de 3028 morts).

- 2001 à 2002 : Israël (nombre de blessés incalculable, 113 morts dont 12 Français),

- 11 avril 2002 : Djerba, Tunisie (19 morts)

- 8 mai 2002 : Karachi, Pakistan (14 morts, 12 blessés).


- 6 octobre 2002 : Le Limburg (navire français attaqué au large des côtes du Yémen)

- 12 octobre 2002 : Bali (Indonésie)

[wholagun]

America's experience with war has been a recent one (due to the fact that the country is not that old). America has seen in bloody war not doubt about that but thier experience has been abroad with war, never has war come knockign on thier door step in the same mannor it has in Europe. European history is filled with bloody conflicts back and forth and has been host to 2 of the most dealiest war of all. (don't tell me that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were actuall big acts of war, albeit those were attacks they were only minor attacks in the whole sheme of things).

Europeans had thier homeland ravaged and destroyed over and over again. This has left divided (socially, economially, and politically) for a long time. It is only now that we (Europeans) have come to grips with what war has done and we are finally uniting. Ameriacns don't understand this cause they have never been put into an instance where war has totally destoryed thier whole country. Thus to you americans who feel that Europe is a pussy state - I say you guys don't know **** about having your homeland destroyed.

[WARPIG]

What the heck just happened? Did we just skip back to the Anti-US thread again?

It was a European Leader that proposed this. Not the Yankee Cowboys!
The US Military is a heavy handed force. We are known for killing mosquitoes with a sledgehammer. Old news. Yes we have awesome special ops units.. yes we have world renown capabilities to do more precise ops.... but; we are, in general, the biggest, baddest, meanest, dog on the block. This Finnish General seems to think we should stick to that. Militarily, I think it makes sense. But, it opens a whole can of bull**** for the EU an US politicians to fling at each other though. As for the US meddling in other countries business... well if supporting them financially, being the heavy for the UN and NATO, being drawn into dialogue at their request, and reacting to acts of terror.. is meddling. I guess we are guilty.

[mustamato]

America's experience with war has been a recent one (due to the fact that the country is not that old). America has seen in bloody war not doubt about that but thier experience has been abroad with war, never has war come knockign on thier door step in the same mannor it has in Europe. European history is filled with bloody conflicts back and forth and has been host to 2 of the most dealiest war of all. (don't tell me that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were actuall big acts of war, albeit those were attacks they were only minor attacks in the whole sheme of things).

Yes exactly. For a american war is something "over there somewhere in terrorist territory where our heroic servicemen get purple hearts after fighting for FREEDOM". The immature american reactions during 9/11 is quite typical, they experienced something that all other countries in war has experienced thousands of times, and many many times because of americans bombs! WTC and the 3000 killed civilians was nothing compared to the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, not to mention the bombings of Tokyo, or the atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More recent examples is of course also found, such as the carbet bombings over Hainoi etc. Of course innocent civilians died, and in huge numbers. But yeah, it was "somewhere over there were our proud and heroic servicemen got medals for fighting of terrorists".

Americans should be thinking of WTC in a more mature manner, that is war. In example the amount of Iraqis killed during that "freedom"-war recently is like 10+ WTC-bombings. For me a Iraqis life is just as much worth as an americans. So if there is a terrorist attack in US again, well, then I´ll just say that if you play the game.....

[fantassin]

The only effect it has had on our society is the fact that there are no bins in our train stations! Now that's bloody annoying!



Refreshing taste of good British humour ! :lol:

[Loco]

What the heck just happened? Did we just skip back to the Anti-US thread again?
... I guess we are guilty.
In what I´m concerned, this isn´t an Anti Us-Anti european thread. Simply, there are different points of view. The fact is conditions in Europe, well, in the whole world changed since the fallen of Berlin Wall, and so NATO must must change as the history has changed political conditions, since NATO was created to opposite Warsow Pact countries.

[Kitsune]

@OnTheRocks: No. A Confederation of souvereign states could do things properly. Even before it comes to that, there can be European cooperation regarding foreign policy, defense, research, developement, reconnaisance, intelligence gathering, space programs...in short all this stuff thats too expensive for one European nation alone.

@usa230: Nonsense. European states cooperate with the US on many ways and levels in the war against terrorism. Some even supported your Iraq war. Others do not...since it has little to do with either WMDs or terrorism (and they were right as it looks now...except of course that NOW there are terrorists in Iraq who weren't there before...)
So don't tell that the US were told to bugger of or something...they weren't.
And as far as the British are concerned...their behaviour concerning the EU isn't exactly the smart. They have an irrational fear to be dominated by a strong European power...and are fleeing right into the arms of the US because of it, to be dominated by them. The EU "blows" because until now it cannot act...much talk but nothing comes out of it. And it is this largely BECAUSE of the British or nations who behave similar (two others come to my mind here...)
But if one thinks about it: The European nations have torn each other apart only 60 years before now. And especially during the last 20 years Europe has made huge strides. All good things take time....this will take another 20 years before this will be working properly. But I believe it will. Because it is the right thing to do.

This general is right of course. There is NO reason why a region which is the richest of our planet, inhabitat by 400 million people, with the largest economic and industrial power in this world, high technology, a common history, common values, even sharing a common currency for the most part, should need outside assistance to see to its own security. The only halfway probable opponents are Russia (if they get aggresive again) or an NorthAfrican/Middle Eastern country threatening us with nukes. As for the Russians just compare their GDP with the EUs...their technology and infrastructure with ours...it is down right ridiculous to say that the USA would be needed ! And the Russians even have the Chinese to care about ! Same with a Rogue state threatening us with nukes. All is needed is the capability to hit it with a few dozen nukes in retaliation and to intervene with conventional forces...with a little cooperation both should be possible.

As for NATO: It has a future. But not as organisation dominated by the USA and used or not used at their whim. But as a American/European partnership and cooperation it could see a renaissance. But it needs total restructuring. It cannot be that the commanding general of Europes NATO force is always an American. And there should be about as many US bases in Europe as there are European bases in the US. NATO should become a fair and bilateral partnership. But for this Europe needs effective military forces (I am strongly preferring national armed forces cooperating with help of a European organisation not unsimilar to todays NATO not some paneuropean "shaken but not stirred" defense force). Right now this is still science fiction. But knowing the way means already taking the first step.

[-Max2-]

America's experience with war has been a recent one (due to the fact that the country is not that old). America has seen in bloody war not doubt about that but thier experience has been abroad with war, never has war come knockign on thier door step in the same mannor it has in Europe. European history is filled with bloody conflicts back and forth and has been host to 2 of the most dealiest war of all. (don't tell me that Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were actuall big acts of war, albeit those were attacks they were only minor attacks in the whole sheme of things).

Europeans had thier homeland ravaged and destroyed over and over again. This has left divided (socially, economially, and politically) for a long time. It is only now that we (Europeans) have come to grips with what war has done and we are finally uniting. Ameriacns don't understand this cause they have never been put into an instance where war has totally destoryed thier whole country. Thus to you americans who feel that Europe is a pussy state - I say you guys don't know **** about having your homeland destroyed.

Good post, wholagun... ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

When France was faced with Islamic terrorism, they gave into terrorist demands and became the Islamic radical's European bitch.


Of course, that's why islamic scarves are going to be banned in schools and for civil servants. That's also because it "gave in" that France had more islamic terrorist attacks on it soils than any other european country put together.

It's not because it is not annoying the rest of the world with its struggle against islamic terrorist that France "gives in".

Here is a list of terrorist attacks against French people and French interests in the past years. "Mort" is dead and "blessés" is wounded

If France was "giving in", I can't see why attacks would go on.


That was quite a list in your post, but I'm not sure that it's really a good example of Muslims' disapproval of France. It lists many French who were injured/killed in terrorist attacks worldwide, not just attacks against French interests.

I would argue that France has had so many attacks on their soil because they've opened the door so wide to the Muslims. I mean, you're more likely to have Islamists blowin' your stuff up & murdering your people if you have a million of them than if you only have two. And they do have the largest Muslim population in Europe. Not to generalize or "racially profile" anybody, but it certainly does provide a meaningful and undeniable illustration.

The Muslims in France are all up in arms about the ban. It will be interesting to see who strong-arms who. If they have gained sufficient political power just by their sheer numbers, they can win. And there will be no going back, as they will seek to further flex that power. So long to a "European" French culture.

I think the leadership has seen the writing on the wall, and is trying to more rapidly force their assimilation. They seem to be realizing that they are at a cultural crossroads.

What makes France French? Or Britain British? Is it the racial backgroud of those living there - the traditions etc? I read a report last year that stated that most British are no longer of British descent (i.e. they're recent immigrants). Anybody have that info?

See, the problem is, we in the West now feel guilt over such things as "assimilation" into our culture. It is no longer expected for immigrants to a Western nation to truly become part of it. That's now viewed as cultural opression. It is simply new land for the immigrants to live on, and transplant their own culture. If enough can move there, it will in fact become "the old country"...except with somebody else paying for all those nice social programs they suckle from. Witness Kashmir etc. Get enough people living there, and it becomes de facto territory.

Of course, Westerners moving elsewhere cannot expect the same level of tolerence. Learn the language, dress the correct way, adopt the customs etc.. Just a curious observation..
.

[fantassin]

France has listed such terrorists organizations like Hizbollah, Hamas, and others as "official charitable organizations". They can raise money in France from donations from the kind French people to blow up Israeli school children. The French turn their head when money is being raised to kill Americans and Jews, they turn their head when hundreds are leaving their country and volunteering for terrorism in Israel, Chechnya, and Iraq. They endorse Syria's control of Lebanon (which Hizbollah uses to launch guerilla attacks against Israel). They support the Palestinian Authority which loans its weapons to terrorists to use against the Israelis and issue fatwahs

For more propaganda of that style, just go to your nearest jewish orthodox website or keep on watching FOX News

Another example of France giving in to Hizbullah (actually giving 1000lbs bombs courtesy of Aéronavale Super Etendards)


At almost the same time another truck blew up the French barracks a few kilometres away, killing 56 French troops. The Islamic Jihad (one of the organizations of the Hizbullah) was held responsible for these suicide attacks. The French launched an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasadran) and the Islamic Amal in the Bekaa Valley.

BTW, when the US Navy tried the same thing, they lost 2 planes shot down and one pilot POW.

[fantassin]

The Muslims in France are all up in arms about the ban

There were 20,000 demonstrators altogether (10,000 according to the police) against the scarf. That's about 0,4% of the moslem population in France....

Germany has got about the same number of moslems as France but they are from Turkey, not arabian countries.

As for the attacks, most of them came from outside, not from within France.

Don't worry, France will remain France; it's been there for over 1500 years, ( since 496, the baptism of Clovis) it ain't gonna stop now because of a few illiterate bearded tyrants who think their wives belong in the kitchen...

[Loco]

The Muslims in France are all up in arms about the ban. It will be interesting to see who strong-arms who. If they have gained sufficient political power just by their sheer numbers, they can win. And there will be no going back, as they will seek to further flex that power. So long to a "European" French culture.

The veil I think is a nationalist sign more than a religious sign, it´s my opinion. French authorities will win if they do what they must, it´s no so difficult: french public schools must be like always were, a laic territory, the home of all frenchs boy, being jews or muslims or "gauls", so religous signs must be banned. Last week, a muslim religious man, an Iman, was sentenced to 1 year in the jail in Spain because he wrote a book recomending to punish with a stick women and the better way of hitting women. Of course, there were some voices of an "attack to Islam", but the "Boooo" to the Iman were louder. Go to hell with him.

[GazB]

Hehehehe... for years the US has complained that the Europeans dont' spend enough on defence and how they have to keep bailing them out, but every time a European suggests a European military force the US complains that it is being shut out.

The US has taken on the role of Worlds policeman. It wasn't offered it, or asked to do it. It has TAKEN the role for itself. It has not been very good at that role and has been very selective about who gets democracy and who doesn't... seems to be influenced by skin colour and proximity to oil but the lines are a little fuzzy.

For example black Rwandans can kill each other as much as they like, but 15 or so Saudi Arabians fly a plane into a building and kill less than 3,000 people and two countries are bombed and invaded... neither of them being Saudi Arabia of course. The War on terrorism... that doens't involve any non muslim terrorists of course... the KLA are not bombed, nor are the IRA.

BTW earlier someone suggested that the US had plenty of money before WWI.... hahahahahahaha!

For centuries Europe has pillaged the know world for gold and treasures, and while they fought a lot there was still plenty left. What sent it to fort knox was lend lease and the marshall plan...