Europe's armies 'still in cold war' warns EU arms chief

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, well, a little unification goes a long way to making Europe's military might increase dramatically.

There is no war, why should we increase military might ? We need more hospitals, schools, penitentiary facilities, stuff like that. We don't need a bigger, more modern airforce, a bigger more modern fleet, or a larger more modern army. At least not at the moment. [/QUOTE]My point was simply that unification probably increases military might -- whether or not it's needed.

But, your post sorta reflects what the article is saying -- that you are thinking with a cold war or conventional war mentality. There is a War on Terror on, and you guys are a part of it. Like it or not -- it's coming to you. Now, that doesn't mean you necessarily need *more* of this tank, that gun, or those soldiers -- but it does necessitate some re-tooling of the military equipment and tactics of yesteryear. [/QUOTE]Yes, the war on terror, of course. Well, since we probably don't consider it a war, but more like a case of paying extra attention to unusual or suspicious behaviour from, mostly Islamic persons, i still don't see why we should invest heavily in military equipment. Increasing policebudgets seems more appropriate to me, or simply recruit more lawenforcers and actually let them investigate something for a change.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, in this country we have adopted a philosophy -- however poorly or well implemented it may be -- that you should take the offensive on the war on terror, rather than wait for the next tragedy at home. Soccer games aren't easy to win if you just have a really good goalie and no-one else on the team. Whether or not I think we should be in Iraq or elsewhere, I do think we should be involved in fighting the war on terror outside of our own borders. As I've said before, the one thing Iraq did do was give the war a THEATRE.

[johnny]

Yes, it did, but it was the wrong theatre. The star of the show was hiding in a cave in Aghanistan, together with his total cast of rag tag actors. Iraq was unfinished business i assume, something that just had to be done sooner or later, but has absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.

And i also think the "War On Terror" will end after the capture of Bin Laden and a few Al Qaeda and Taliban big shots. Or will the ETA be next ? Or the IRA perhaps ? I don't think so. It's not a war, it's a vendetta, a cat and mouse play in a maze of mountains and tunnels. The players are OBL on one side, special forces on the other.

[John D Harris]

The war on terror will never end, given human nature, we are low-life self-centered sacks of horse manure. Now the war on Al Queda may very well end, but somebody somewhere will rise to take their place. Did mass murder end with the capture, conviction and execution of Ted Bundy? or have other mass murders risen in the vacum that was left? Does that mean we should quit because another will rise to take their place, NO. It means we have to continue as long as we are on this side of the grass.

[Timber Loftis]

So, then, how can we win the war on terror? Both guys up for reelection promise to "win the war on terror." Promise it vehemently, and over and over, in fact.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, then, how can we win the war on terror? Both guys up for reelection promise to "win the war on terror." Promise it vehemently, and over and over, in fact.

That's BS and poetry T.L., spued forth by both sides to give confort to their supporters, and alow one side to say "We're tough!" and the other side "Us too!"
Both sides are saying they can win the war on terror not just both guys on one side!!!!!!! Your premis(sp?) is inaccurate.

The real question is NOT who will end the war on terrorism, but rather who will execute the war the most effective way. One side making the terrorists fight us on their ground, a ground of OUR choosing. vs. the other side that says inpart it's a law enforcement problem. Well I believe we went down the Law enforcment road, in the mid 90's through 9/11/2001. Same thing for the bi-lateral talks with those most honest of people the leaders of North Korea, that road was traveled down in the 90's, what did it give us? Why North Korea NOW claims to have Nukes, when those most wonderful of bi-lateral taks started and ended, NK had zero nukes. You make the call for yourself as to which path you wish to go down.

[Timber Loftis]

You're right, JD, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I've obviously made my choice.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You're right, JD, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. I've obviously made my choice.

Glad to be of service T.L.

[johnny]

The mission is far from accomplished guys, matter of fact, i think it's a mission impossible. Not in a way that there can't be any succes, but more like it will never ever end.