More reasons why France & Germany are anti-war.

Debaser · 03-27-2003, 04:07 AM

heh, i know its pretty slanted. but i find it funny anyways. And of course you can always glean kernals of truth from anything.

Coalition of the Fat & Lazy
France and Germany are victims of the welfare state.

When it came down to it, two of America’s closest Cold War allies — France and Germany — were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren’t there when we, and the world, needed them. Instead, they carped, complained, delayed, and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front. Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

American opinion is divided on whether France and Germany’s failure of will is the result of cowardice or just fecklessness. I am inclined toward the latter. I think the truth is that neither country has the means any longer to wage a serious military campaign and were too proud to admit it. Rather than exhibit their weakness for the entire world to see, they pretended that their objection to military action in Iraq was based on some ill-defined principle. But I don’t think they could have done much of anything militarily in Iraq even if they had stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder.

The sad truth is that France, which once conquered most of Europe under Napoleon, and Germany, whose military prowess in World War II was monumental, have become military weaklings. Neither could fight their way out of a paper bag today.

The reason is that the welfare state has severely weakened both France and Germany to the point where their armed forces are just extensions of it. Their armies, navies, and air forces exist not to fight, but to provide jobs with lifetime security for the otherwise unemployable. Moreover, the welfare state — and the high taxes that go with it — have so weakened them economically and technologically that they couldn’t afford a 21st century military even if it were a matter of national survival.

According to a recent report from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last year the United States spent 3.3% of its gross domestic product on national defense, while France spent 2.5% and Germany spent just 1.5%. At first glance, the difference may not seem that great, but the U.S. spends much more of its defense budget on weaponry and equipment, while France and Germany spend most of theirs on personnel. According to NATO, France and Germany spend over 60% of their defense budgets on pay and benefits, while the U.S. spends only 34.7%. The U.S. also spends 24.9% of its defense budget on equipment, while France and Germany spend just 19.6% and 12.2%, respectively.

According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. “Europe’s military muscle has grown soft,” it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe’s technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.

According to a March 18 report in the New York Times, Germany’s once powerful army has become a “basket case.” It is “one of the worst military laggards” in NATO, it says. Germany’s budget for equipment is so small that it had to lease old planes from Ukraine just to send a few troops to Afghanistan to help out with peacekeeping last year. It spends $1 billion per year on maintaining its aging fleet of trucks, but spends just $40 million buying new ones.

The same is true throughout Europe. Indeed, a spokesman for Belgium’s defense ministry even admitted that its armed forces are a joke. “I’m not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight,” he said. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France’s efforts to block military action in Iraq.

While Europe’s military has grown soft and weak since the collapse of communism, the U.S. has continued to upgrade and modernize its forces. We have the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led military on Earth. Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening. I think that is a key reason why the Germans and French opposed us. They cannot compete and they know it.

If France and Germany want to be fat and lazy welfare states, that is their choice. But if so, they should have the decency to resign from the world stage and not pretend to be major powers any longer.

severin · 03-27-2003, 04:42 AM

mhm, i'm not sure if they are aware, that germany was FORBIDDEN to have a strong army for a long time, and that it is, opposite to the US-Army, mainly for defending purposes and humanitarian aid. that's like cutting someones arms off and than hit him because he can't bear a backpack...

DeviousJ · 03-27-2003, 08:40 AM

Ha, I like the way they try to make out that the coalition is basically the entire world except France and Germany, rather than just the US/UK and a small bunch of random allies pledging moral support. Is the overblown US defense budget supposed to be a *good* thing? Is it bad to put more money into improving the country instead of spending it on weapons and military vehicles? And they completely ignore the fact that the CFE treaty required a reduction in military equipment and personnel, and not just for France and Germany. In short, lol.

yellowsubmarine · 03-27-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Debaser
Instead, they carped, complained, delayed, and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front.

this must be true! the french even invented the concept of sabotage and made up a word for it! i learned that by watching star trek!

Quote:

Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

dolchstosslegende4u?

severin · 03-27-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Debaser
Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

yeah sure, with giving the US a legitimation to start a war, what is happening right now in iraq would never have happened.....the stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me....

Mayfuck · 03-27-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ
In short, lol.

Yeah that article is laughable. However it sort of addresses a larger issue. Europe, particularly Germany and France are trying to compete with the U.S. Spending exorbitant amounts of our budget (that's my fucking money!) is not anything to be proud of, but it shouldn't shame us either, as our 'allies' across the Atlantic would like us to believe. The bigger issue is how this newfound competition Europe has thrown itself in against the U.S. and how it will effect future diplomacy and foreign affairs. I'm very appreciative of the fact that France and Germany tried to prevent the U.S from going to war. However you're a fool to believe France and Germany have done this based on moral principles. This goes back to competition. Their blockade is primarily the contain the U.S. and hold on to Iraqi oil contracts. So what I'm saying is that motives on both sides of Atlantic are incredibly shady, and this will probably only hurt diplomacy and future foreign affairs.

Debaser · 03-27-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck

Yeah that article is laughable. However it sort of addresses a larger issue. Europe, particularly Germany and France are trying to compete with the U.S. Spending exorbitant amounts of our budget (that's my fucking money!) is not anything to be proud of, but it shouldn't shame us either, as our 'allies' across the Atlantic would like us to believe. The bigger issue is how this newfound competition Europe has thrown itself in against the U.S. and how it will effect future diplomacy and foreign affairs. I'm very appreciative of the fact that France and Germany tried to prevent the U.S from going to war. However you're a fool to believe France and Germany have done this based on moral principles. This goes back to competition. Their blockade is primarily the contain the U.S. and hold on to Iraqi oil contracts. So what I'm saying is that motives on both sides of Atlantic are incredibly shady, and this will probably only hurt diplomacy and future foreign affairs.

on the rizneal.

DeviousJ · 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mayfuck
Yeah that article is laughable. However it sort of addresses a larger issue. Europe, particularly Germany and France are trying to compete with the U.S. Spending exorbitant amounts of our budget (that's my fucking money!) is not anything to be proud of, but it shouldn't shame us either, as our 'allies' across the Atlantic would like us to believe. The bigger issue is how this newfound competition Europe has thrown itself in against the U.S. and how it will effect future diplomacy and foreign affairs. I'm very appreciative of the fact that France and Germany tried to prevent the U.S from going to war. However you're a fool to believe France and Germany have done this based on moral principles. This goes back to competition. Their blockade is primarily the contain the U.S. and hold on to Iraqi oil contracts. So what I'm saying is that motives on both sides of Atlantic are incredibly shady, and this will probably only hurt diplomacy and future foreign affairs.

Defense spending isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it is when it's at the expense of the economy in general. I think the difference is that it would seem more justified if its use was justified, and not everyone sees it that way. But I know that wasn't your main point.

I don't doubt for a second that oil contracts between Iraq and France/Russia weren't a consideration on their stance. I don't see how Germany fits into this though, apart from addressing public feeling during an election campaign - nobody seems to be mentioning any German oil companies involved. You could always argue debts owed to Germany will never be recouped if Saddam is ousted - however nobody seems to mention Germany's opposition whenever motives are discussed. But if oil is the reasoning on both sides of the argument, I'd still consider those pushing for war to be at greater fault, simply because of what is has resulted in - this isn't a purely academic issue. Maybe if the situation was reversed, France and Russia would have started a war, and the US would be protesting due to the prospect of losing valuable contracts. But that argument *is* academic. But the fact still stands that the majority of the world is against this invasion, and only a couple have vested interests in the current regime.

You're probably right about France and Germany wanting to contain the US - the entire concept of the EU and its dedicated defense force will eventually shift the balance of power away from the US (to a degree), but that's understandable. And this kind of behavior will hurt diplomacy and relations, but then the US isn't really used to not getting its own way. I hope we don't start to see a trend of disagreeing on issues for the hell of it though.

Tambourine · 04-07-2003, 10:47 AM

why is it that the relevance of a country's opinion is based on the power of their army? Are we reentering some kind of modernised feudal system? Yes, Everyone knows about America's "military might," How dare we forget. America has never really had to deal with what France and Germany have though, and I think part of their stance is to do with the fact that France was occupied by invaders for quite some time in the recent past, and Germany knows the horror of dictatorship.

Nimrod's Son · 04-07-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tambourine
How dare we forget. America has never really had to deal with what France and Germany have though, and I think part of their stance is to do with the fact that France was occupied by invaders for quite some time in the recent past, and Germany knows the horror of dictatorship.

Right, the U.S. has never tried to commit genocide on a race of people and take over the world, nor did we ever just give up and let someone else run our country.

Tambourine · 04-09-2003, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Right, the U.S. has never tried to commit genocide on a race of people and take over the world, nor did we ever just give up and let someone else run our country.

Germany was under horrific hardships of price inflation and lack of power if you didn't realise that, and also under a dictatorship. The people enlisted in the nationalist army of Germany were the millions of unemployed, unqualified people of the country. Also, another thing you appear to have overlooked is the resistance movement of France.
The french are on the whole a xenophobic nation, it must be said, but it is easy and ignorant to claim that their opposition is caused by cowardice or jealousy of america's military power.
The point I was trying to make is that you should see it from their point of view as well as your own. America is seen by many people, not just in the middle east, to be an ignorant and arrogant country, (I should point out this is not my own firm conviction) unconsciously overlooking past history and wisdom in order to create their own Mcdonalds and coca cola future, so to speak. The axis of Evil speech, and Bush's ultimatum of "you're either with America, or with the terrorists" surely must have pissed these people off

Nimrod's Son · 04-09-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tambourine

Germany was under horrific hardships of price inflation and lack of power if you didn't realise that, and also under a dictatorship. The people enlisted in the nationalist army of Germany were the millions of unemployed, unqualified people of the country. Also, another thing you appear to have overlooked is the resistance movement of France.
The french are on the whole a xenophobic nation, it must be said, but it is easy and ignorant to claim that their opposition is caused by cowardice or jealousy of america's military power.
The point I was trying to make is that you should see it from their point of view as well as your own. America is seen by many people, not just in the middle east, to be an ignorant and arrogant country, (I should point out this is not my own firm conviction) unconsciously overlooking past history and wisdom in order to create their own Mcdonalds and coca cola future, so to speak. The axis of Evil speech, and Bush's ultimatum of "you're either with America, or with the terrorists" surely must have pissed these people off

Germany was a democratic nation when they elected the Nazi party. They elected a dictator.. there was no coup or revolution. How can yo ujustify genocide because of economic problems and unemployment?
The French Resistance.. yes, of course, they get a lot of press, but they were surely a minority. The government rolled over, and most of the citizens didn't react one way or another.
Bush's "with America or with the terrorists" statement wasn't made in relation to Iraq, it was made to the "War on Terror." It was meant in the context that if you harbor or hide terrorists or withhold information related to terrorist activities, you will be considered in league with the terrorists. I think that statement makes sense.

03-27-2003, 04:07 AM	#1
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	More reasons why France & Germany are anti-war. heh, i know its pretty slanted. but i find it funny anyways. And of course you can always glean kernals of truth from anything. Coalition of the Fat & Lazy France and Germany are victims of the welfare state. When it came down to it, two of America’s closest Cold War allies — France and Germany — were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren’t there when we, and the world, needed them. Instead, they carped, complained, delayed, and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front. Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully. American opinion is divided on whether France and Germany’s failure of will is the result of cowardice or just fecklessness. I am inclined toward the latter. I think the truth is that neither country has the means any longer to wage a serious military campaign and were too proud to admit it. Rather than exhibit their weakness for the entire world to see, they pretended that their objection to military action in Iraq was based on some ill-defined principle. But I don’t think they could have done much of anything militarily in Iraq even if they had stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder. The sad truth is that France, which once conquered most of Europe under Napoleon, and Germany, whose military prowess in World War II was monumental, have become military weaklings. Neither could fight their way out of a paper bag today. The reason is that the welfare state has severely weakened both France and Germany to the point where their armed forces are just extensions of it. Their armies, navies, and air forces exist not to fight, but to provide jobs with lifetime security for the otherwise unemployable. Moreover, the welfare state — and the high taxes that go with it — have so weakened them economically and technologically that they couldn’t afford a 21st century military even if it were a matter of national survival. According to a recent report from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last year the United States spent 3.3% of its gross domestic product on national defense, while France spent 2.5% and Germany spent just 1.5%. At first glance, the difference may not seem that great, but the U.S. spends much more of its defense budget on weaponry and equipment, while France and Germany spend most of theirs on personnel. According to NATO, France and Germany spend over 60% of their defense budgets on pay and benefits, while the U.S. spends only 34.7%. The U.S. also spends 24.9% of its defense budget on equipment, while France and Germany spend just 19.6% and 12.2%, respectively. According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. “Europe’s military muscle has grown soft,” it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe’s technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life. According to a March 18 report in the New York Times, Germany’s once powerful army has become a “basket case.” It is “one of the worst military laggards” in NATO, it says. Germany’s budget for equipment is so small that it had to lease old planes from Ukraine just to send a few troops to Afghanistan to help out with peacekeeping last year. It spends $1 billion per year on maintaining its aging fleet of trucks, but spends just $40 million buying new ones. The same is true throughout Europe. Indeed, a spokesman for Belgium’s defense ministry even admitted that its armed forces are a joke. “I’m not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight,” he said. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France’s efforts to block military action in Iraq. While Europe’s military has grown soft and weak since the collapse of communism, the U.S. has continued to upgrade and modernize its forces. We have the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led military on Earth. Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening. I think that is a key reason why the Germans and French opposed us. They cannot compete and they know it. If France and Germany want to be fat and lazy welfare states, that is their choice. But if so, they should have the decency to resign from the world stage and not pretend to be major powers any longer.

03-27-2003, 04:42 AM	#2
severin no more than sympathy Location: lying on the floor Posts: 14,826	mhm, i'm not sure if they are aware, that germany was FORBIDDEN to have a strong army for a long time, and that it is, opposite to the US-Army, mainly for defending purposes and humanitarian aid. that's like cutting someones arms off and than hit him because he can't bear a backpack... __________________ i once told a To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. that nothing really ends

04-07-2003, 10:47 AM	#9
Tambourine Pledge Location: Manchester, England, UK Posts: 106	why is it that the relevance of a country's opinion is based on the power of their army? Are we reentering some kind of modernised feudal system? Yes, Everyone knows about America's "military might," How dare we forget. America has never really had to deal with what France and Germany have though, and I think part of their stance is to do with the fact that France was occupied by invaders for quite some time in the recent past, and Germany knows the horror of dictatorship. __________________ the girl with kaleidoscope eyes

03-27-2003, 08:40 AM	#3
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	Ha, I like the way they try to make out that the coalition is basically the entire world except France and Germany, rather than just the US/UK and a small bunch of random allies pledging moral support. Is the overblown US defense budget supposed to be a good thing? Is it bad to put more money into improving the country instead of spending it on weapons and military vehicles? And they completely ignore the fact that the CFE treaty required a reduction in military equipment and personnel, and not just for France and Germany. In short, lol.