Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bert Herman who wrote (142960)	2/27/2002 2:21:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574085

Well look what the war brings in.........;~)) How are you, Bert? Long time no talk. Listen anymore of this pro Europe, anti Americanism and we will annex you........it will be the next phase on the War on Terrorism. We know you stinky Europeans have weapons of mass destruction hidden away. You have been warned. We will not tolerate any dissent. Have a good one! ted

To: Bert Herman who wrote (142960)	2/27/2002 3:01:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574085

I agree with you about the support after 9/11. I think the decision to rely mainly on American forces was to make the operation simpler. If you had large contigents from a dozen different countries it would have been more complex to coordinate the whole thing. The Europeans did contribute AWACS to fly over the US. We might not have actually needed that help, but it was good symbolism and may have given some American air crews some useful time to rest. Suppose you are in trouble, you ask all your friends for help. They all agree to come and help you, arrange there schedules, prepare everything and then you say: Sorry ,I don't need you, I can better do it on my own. Would't you think at least some of your friends would be a little bit angry? It's that feeling which is pretty common in Europe today. I don't think we ever made actual request for significant armed European participation. Certainly nothing that would cause them to have to do the equivilent of totally rearranging their schedules. In any case the criticism I am talking about goes back before 9/11. In Europe, the view is common that America, in spite of some rethoric doesn't want a military strong Europe. Or let me put it different, they want our military money, but not our voices. American contributes a lot to defend Europe and our shared interests and we are not doing so as mercenaries For decades, America is lobbying against one European army. For the single reason they are afraid of losing control over it. Now , in NATO, they control everything. I think the primary reason we lobby against a European army is the sense that it represents a movement away from NATO, and thus a movement away from the US. Also units allocated to such an army would probably also be units allocated to NATO. With the collapse of the Soviet Union this is not as important of concern but still if there was a need for the forces by NATO and they where otherwise occupyed in some European army operation it might make things more difficult. As for American control of NATO that isn't true. We are the dominent voice in NATO by virtue of being the biggest member with the most powerful military, but each country still has soverignty over their own forces and the America's voice is not the only one heard in NATO. Tim