Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Probably better for Europe if Bush wins

  1. Nov 2, 2004 #1

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It will probably be better for Europe that Bush wins the election, because then he'll have to face all by himself the consequences of what's happening in Iraq and the related costs, and related feelings from Arab populations. The situation being quite hopeless, if Kerry wins, all the chances are he'll ask European nations to help him out of the mess, and we'll get sucked into it too. So although in general there is quite some more sympathy for Kerry than for Bush on this side of the Atlantic, it's probably much better that Bush gets another term.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2004 #2
    You guys don't have a combined force large enough to make a difference in Iraq (not a cheap shot, just the truth). An international force only brings an in the ability to kill off any ideas that this is just America trying to take your OIL!OMG NOES!!!!!
    Bush's move to a lilypad military scheme (fantastic!) , including moving of troops in Europe and S korea, frees up more American troops than you can offer anyways.

    In the most political way I can say it....We don't REALLY need your help. Although, I guess it would be nice to let other countries shoulder most of the cost, like in GW1 :eek: (sorry about that BTW)
     
  4. Nov 2, 2004 #3
    Hmmm, what a nice refreshing view. It is a fact that the US has the strongest army all around and you guys can invade anybody you want whithout needind any help. yet you CANNOT deny the fact that you situation in Iraq is messed up and you do not have it under control with your strongest army around. I would say you are the strongest but certainly not the smartest and the most diplomatic. The US has no credibilty left in the entire world. Just look at how the UK is turning against you guys...The Blair-administration is paying the bill.

    You got away with it this time, but don't be surprised if a second 911 takes place in your superior nation of geniousses...

    regards
    marlon
     
  5. Nov 2, 2004 #4
    I agree with vanesch's statement... hey that will be the first time...

    marlon
     
  6. Nov 2, 2004 #5

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  7. Nov 2, 2004 #6
    Preempting your statement with such blatant sarcasm as "what a nice refreshing view" does nothing for my respect of you or your statement. In short, you weaken your own point because you can't keep this mature.

    I don't even know what I can respond to your post with. You launched a few straw man attacks in there...and that's about it.

    And it's "geniuses".
     
  8. Nov 2, 2004 #7

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not sure if I'd give him that much credit .... how many more cans of worms can he open up if he gets another term? Since the mess needs to be cleaned up, us hiding it out sure won't at least help.
     
  9. Nov 2, 2004 #8
    Thanks for the correction man,...

    I agree with you : you cannot respond because you know i am right and there ain't much to say when the naked truth is said...

    regards
    marlon
     
  10. Nov 2, 2004 #9
    I never stated anything that disagreed with your post. And your post doesn't directly disagree with mine.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
     
  11. Nov 2, 2004 #10

    hahaha, nice one :biggrin: :uhh: :biggrin: . You know it is really credible that someone like you gives lessons in raethorica... :wink: :wink: :wink:

    Yet i never said you need to agree with me nor did i imply that you DID or DID NOT agree with me. What i said are plain facts and there is not much to argue about. On the other hand we can THINK about the implication of these words rather then argue about them, but obviously you missed that point...


    regards
    marlon
     
  12. Nov 2, 2004 #11

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nope, we don't have the MONEY to do so (and nor does the US :tongue: )
    The US army has about 1370.000 military (everything together) if I'm right.
    I will take 3 European nations to compare with: Germany has 221000, the UK has 212000 and France has 294000 military in service.

    The US spends $953 per capita on military, Germany $470, UK $527 and France $772.

    The US has 370000 Air force personnel, Germany has 76200, the UK 52540 and France has 78000.

    The troops the US has in Iraq are of the order of 150000. So compared to the above numbers, although the US is of course much stronger, your claim is wrong. It is just that it would RUIN Europe to send, say, 300000 soldiers in Iraq.
     
  13. Nov 2, 2004 #12
    Yes someone like me.... :rolleyes:

    I'm not here to try to figure your implied nuances. You quoted my post and continued on with "YOU KNOW I'm RIGHT" stuff.
    I'm moving on. If you care to get back on track, feel free.
     
  14. Nov 2, 2004 #13
    Mentioning numbers of troops that won't be sent to Iraq makes no difference when discussing a "force large enough to make a difference in Iraq ".
    If that force can't get to the ground and implement military tactics there, then size isn't the only reason you can't make a difference,and I repeat my original assertion in that case.

    In the end, don't worry. No one is calling for you to enter Iraq, and your government itself has continued to repeat that Kerry winning won't change there being no French troops.

    P.S. England is already in Iraq, so their numbers are moot for this discussion (unless you want to discuss the fact that such a small number of their troops actually went to Iraq, and then there's another story on what percentage of actual standing military can be afforded.)


    PPS. That 1.4 million number of yours is Active dute only. We have about double that number when including reserve
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2004
  15. Nov 2, 2004 #14

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is the gouvernment of the country I live in. But it is not my gouvernment, although for the Iraq issue it has all my sympathy. I just say this in order for you not to think that I'm in some chauvinist mood. My own country has a military force of about 39000 and hence IS indeed insignificant.

    I only took 3 European nations as examples. There are 25 in total, so it should give you the idea that although the US is stronger, it is not, say, 5 times stronger than all European nations united, and that considering the number of troops in Iraq, this is a small part of what the US has, and can be delivered by Europe too. The point I was making was that even with such a small part of the total forces "at war" (meaning, sitting on trucks riding through the country until a carbomb blows their truck in the air), the bill is tremendeous for the US (if you recon that you'll have to stay there for 5 or 10 more years :-)
    So it is not a matter of military force in stock. It is a matter of paying the bill. The money bill, but also the political bill and the terrorist exposure bill.
    It is a very high one, and I think it is better that we won't get involved. Because you don't buy much for the money invested!

    Same for the others.
     
  16. Nov 2, 2004 #15
    "YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT STUFF...", hhmmm, yes :rolleyes:

    since i am feeling very free i will mention the fact that you are not getting the point here. There is a difference between arguing and considering facts. The US has no real policy in Iraq nor does the US have any control what so ever in this region. Basically i am just wondering what it is , Americans are doing there. Just like you say that the US does not need Europe when it comes to military help, it needs to be said that Iraq does not need the US-military present in their nation. Why o Why did you guys went there in the first place ??? What is your justification and what is your goal???

    marlon
     
  17. Nov 2, 2004 #16

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If I may reformulate your idea:
    The US doesn't need Europe to do nothing in particular in Iraq, except messing around. It does it very well by itself. :biggrin:

    (are we still agreeing ? I hope so...)
     
  18. Nov 2, 2004 #17
    we sure are... :)

    marlon
     
  19. Nov 2, 2004 #18

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In a dark past, I vaguely remember a certain M. Bush claiming that the justification was that they had pictures of Saddam H. himself (brother in law, or almost so, of his best friend O. Ben L.) screwing warheads containing Weapons of Mass Deception onto intercontinental missiles that were going to hit the center of Dallas (or something of the kind, it was so long ago that my memory is fading).

    The goal was to make a safer world, and have the Iraqi children wave American flags and pictures of Bush when the glorious troops would deliver the country from their bad bad dictator. The surrounding nations, also with bad bad dictators would become so jealous of the luck the Iraqis had, that they would soon ask for a delivery all for themselves...

    :rofl: :rofl:
     
  20. Nov 2, 2004 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    Voter registration began TODAY, in Iraq. :smile:
     
  21. Nov 2, 2004 #20
    Quick question, honestly. French government has been a very keen opponent of the War in Iraq.
    1) Do the majority of the French agree with the French government ?
    2) Is the war in Iraq make French people dislike Bush ?
    3) Did the French people know that Saddam sold oil ilegally to France for dirt cheap oil, is this have anything to do with the French govenment opposing the war?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Probably better for Europe if Bush wins
  1. Bush Wins (Replies: 47)

  2. Can bush win? (Replies: 7)

Loading...