Not entirely. The British and the French have their own nuclear weapons. The Europeans don't match our spending, but they don't have to maintain a global presence either. They certainly have spent money on military advances. All operate the latest in battle technologies, even ahead of us in a few areas. Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, and Italy design, manufacture, and export sophisticated missile, submarine, tank, aircraft, electronics, stealth, and artillery technology. With the Soviet Union gone, they do not need a superpower protector. And they can handle those few other threats that exist for them. This is why they don't kiss our ass anymore. On the other hand, we don't have to treat them as equals either, unless they want to step up to global superpower politics. Good luck, Raoul. But the North Atlantic Alliance is still important to US and European interests. The Russians and the Chinese are trying to gather powerful nations into their spheres. We must continue to hog all of the most important ones in our sphere. The Euro's may be pussies, but they are our pussies, and they turn into powerful allies when the going gets tough. Even the French will line up, although they will bitch and moan and piss everybody off.
I understand the Soviet Union is gone.........the point is, and was missed, Europeans has been raised the last 100 years to believe that we are their protector. Missiles in Europe prompted all of them to cut military spending to almost nothing. The only thing the French in a time of need can do for us or Britain is to shut up and get out of the way. If you think the French are a valuable military ally, then all I can say is whatever. They have like 2 ships and one may sink at any minute. I think they have 4 planes....it's a joke. Name one....ONE, historical example of the French in a time of need being a "powerful ally" to us as you say? And I'm not talking about 1786. In modern times........from 1900 on? Britain is the only European country with any formidible defense. They are it.
The point wasn't missed, it was dismissed. You can't support this claim. Yes, we came to their help twice in the last century, but you can't show me any evidence that they were "raised the last 100 years to believe that we are their protector". I just gave you examples of how militarily advanced they are. France is especially independent, not even serving mlitarily under NATO commanders anymore. Nonsense. 1--There have been no US nuclear missiles in Europe since the Reagan administration. 2-- NATO European nations alone spent $196 billion in 2004 on the military. Collectively thay have more planes, tanks, and artillery than we do. All I can say is do a little research and be surprised. Where do you get this stuff? The French are one of three countries in the world that have both aircraft carriers and nuclear strategic missile submarines. They have over 100 naval vessels and over 1,000 military aircraft. You only need to go back as far as Desert Storm in 1991 where the French sent an armored cavalry division including the French Foreign Legion and fought well. We led and they followed. But you can also include the Cold War where the French developed their own strategic nuclear weapons and helped to deter the Soviets. And you may want to forget that without the French alliance in 1778 we would have lost the American Revolution . . . but I haven't. Nope. Not even close. France also has nuclear weapons on ballistic and cruise missiles. Germany and Sweden have powerful armies and air forces on a scale with Britain. Even Turkey has a bigger army. Italy has strong naval and air forces. The remaining NATO countries have small, but effective and modern militaries. So let me get this straight, you think the French should take all of their dolls and go be allies of Russia and China?
I agree with Red who seems to have all his facts straight. The French Underground in WWII was very formidable. I don't agree with many of the positions the French take, and their anti-Americanism, but I try no to underrate someone just because I don't agree with them.
Dude, here's some notes for you to ponder. Here's how effective the modern French army is......they had a very hard time getting 10,000 to 12,000 troops in the desert for the first Gulf War. Their planes could not fly at night and under Chirac, they have cut their military spending and capability by more than half. They have less than 300,000 uniformed troops and they are having serious discussions about their military preparedness for any quick response requirements. They were highly embarassed by their lack of military preparedness. Dude....their planes could not fly at night! Yeah, you're right, they are so much more advanced than us. You want to rethink your facts? We have nukes in Germany right now that were put there by Reagan. German's are lobbying to get them out as a post-cold-war relic but we have over 500 nuke's right now throughout Europe and most were put there by Reagan. Here's my facts about the all-powerful French arsenal and about your no nuke's in Europe since Reagan. Absolutely wrong. "France had trouble mustering about 12,000 troops for DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, whereas British forces were double that size and quicker to deploy, despite the overall smaller size of the United Kingdom army. The French were also much less effective in fighting terms, unable, for example, to fly night fighterbomber raids for lack of night radar. French units were obliged to rely on American logistics and intelligence." http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_94/forum94.html deploying U.S. Pershing II missiles in West Germany in response to the Soviet stationing of SS-20 missiles near Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration More than a decade after the end of the cold war, the United States continues to deploy hundreds of nuclear warheads across Europe, according to a report from a respected US research agency. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1484206,00.html I don't care what France does. What is your hard-on for France? They are ill-equipped, highly unorganized, and basically a laughable military and have been since WWII. You wanted facts. I gave you facts. Now where are your facts that Europe as a whole hasn't acted like children that have been given everything. They have relied on the US to defend them for more than 100 years. Like I said, name ONE time we have counted on France as a powerful ally like you mentioned. You can't.
I don't either. I don't agree with everything Britain or Australia does but they have a formidable military built on speed and technology. The french absolutely do not have that. And did the french underground free Europe? I don't remember. The French underground is highly overrated......they helped downed servicemen seek shelter and helped them find their way but not much else. Hiding and pushing the enemy out of your country are two different things.
For one thing, you didn't show me anything about how advanced they are. I "showed" you how they are not. If you read any political magazines at all, or historical text, the idea that America is Europe's protectors has been going on for 60 years now. But in truth, our protection of Europe and our so-called allies has been going on for the last 100 years. I have to go find quotes?.....you are dead wrong but you won't admit it. But here's one.....there's about a million articles and books written on this subject if you go out to Google and search Europe's great protector. Read National Review, Time...anything. Especially since the European split over Iraq. This topic of America as Europe's protector was brought up everyday. It's not new and it's absolutely true. It's time for us to abandon NATO and let the French and the all powerful Swede's defend themselves then. You want proof.....why would Germany allow us to put nuke's.....and still keep them there (bahahaha) if they didn't think they needed protection? Turkey allowed us, Belgium, Sweden, England.....hell that's all of the Europe almost. What more proof do you need? I think you need to do a little research. "America is no longer willing to be Europe's protector and Europe is less willing to be strategically subordinate. Anti-Americanism is now a dominant part of the European discourse," said Professor Charles Kupchan of Georgetown, a former official in the Clinton White House. "The pro-Atlanticist Europeans will lose because the U.S. is leaving Europe for good."
Are you saying that you prefer sex with yourself or sex with an American woman????????????????? Or that you prefer sex with yourself and that you ARE an American woman???????????:lol: :lol:
