Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Aragorn2002

  1. 5 hours ago, Ivanov said:

    You could start with the ungrateful colonials from over the pond. But I'm afraid if we go down that way, the Arabs may start charging everybody for the use of their numerals. 

    Numerals are entirely of Hindu origin actually. Arabs/Muslims took over a lot of their 'wisdom' from the culture of the people they conquered.

  2. 44 minutes ago, hank24 said:

    We couldn't wish for better Allies. And most Dutch soldiers speak German anyway. And a lot of Germans speak Dutch too, I've noticed.

    But I have to say one thing. A more independent, stronger and better equipped EU army would be very welcome, but we will always need to remember that we have MUCH more in common with US, Britain and our other present NATO allies than we have with certain other powers. Let's hope the present irritation between these natural allies will disappear if those who cause it also disappear, because nobody is going to benefit from disunity, except our enemies. A lot of propaganda about these days. I sometimes wonder if that also didn't play a role in the Brexit and the alienation between US and Europe. Let's be careful.

  3. 38 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

    Well see the F35 Lightning program, there are two European programs existing: the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale. Still, majority of EU countries prefer to buy US. It's fashion. 😏

    For fighters yes. Not for tanks and stuff. Word is that the EU is also planning on more defence projects to keep the money in Europe.

  4. 21 minutes ago, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:

    Fair enough. Budget and intentions is true for all sides. For fun´s sake (before this thread is locked) imagine Europe actually integrating its armies and actually spending 2% of GDP but not on US arms.

    I don't think it will really come  to integrating armies, but more co-operation between units in a larger multi-national unit. Not ideal, but as I mentioned it works for example with Dutch and German units in one Korps. Same would be possible for example for Finnish and Swedish units, or French and Belgian units. Using the same equipment would also help a lot. And yes, preferably made in Europe.

  5. 9 hours ago, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:

    Defence spending: Nato europe: 1,5% of GDP, Russia: 4,3% of GDP

    Nato Europe GDP: 17 trn $, Russia 1,6 trn$

    (do the math)

    But as always Russia is lying about the facts, isn't it?


    And there's also this to consider.


    "This should come as a relief for Europe and for NATO,” said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher with SIPRI. “But of course, budget and intentions are distinct. Russia is still strong enough to make a mess out of things.”

    And we know you guys usualy do. So yes, let's do the math, but let's do it properly.

  6. An EU army won't be like the foreign legion, but much along the lines of the present NATO structure, but more independent from it. It won't be very different from what's already the 1. German-Dutch Army Korps, in which in wartime 50 000 German and Dutch soldiers will be concentrated. And it can act in strictly European interests, without interference from....well, non-Europeans.

    Europe will be forced to spend much more money on their armed forces, which is what the US wants it to do, isn't it?  

  7. 13 minutes ago, slippy said:

    Aragorn, please do not quote the Guardian as actual fact mate. It is a leftist - Liberal paper that is very Pro-Europe, and biased to a certain point of view.


    This discussion could go on and on, so i will say my goodbyes to it now, as we are going off track, with regards the original question. All i would like to say is that your posts single out particular countries, for example the UK and US, for criticism. If you are going to do this in a public forum then you will get reactions opposing your views. Is Britain the perfect country with an unblemished record? Absolutely not. Is any country perfect? Britain is my country of which i am very proud, as you and others quite rightly will be of yours, and therefore i will not stand by and see people slate it based on their own perceived perceptions of it.

    If you check any of my posts, you will see that i do not make personal remarks on an others country, it is not my place to do so, and i am aware that i am not armed with the full facts, all that i would ask is that you pay me and others the same courtesy. Have your views by all means, but think before you post.




    Fair enough, Slippy. Point taken. And for what's it worth, I'm an Anglophile, addicted to Six Nations Rugby, Endeavour, Rory Clements and so on and so on. Always was, always will be.

  8. 41 minutes ago, slippy said:

    But the quote was Britain attempts to 'weaken' Europe, i still do not see how? Demanding concessions does not weaken them, that is just the political game.


    What's so difficult to see? It has been British policy for hundreds of years.



  9. 28 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    I don't think the EU needs an army, NATO will probably be reformed within the next decade.

    On one thing I totally agree with Trump and that is that Europe should take care of it's own safety. With or without NATO. US will more and more concentrate on China and Putin will try to take advantage of that. US will not want to alienate Putin too much and drive him even more in the arms of China. Europe should follow the example of Finland and arm itself to the teeth, but at the same time try to have 'normal' relations with Moscow and Bejing. No more adventures in the Middle East, no more listening to 'his master's voice'. We have enough to worry about in our own backyards, for example the time bomb of the Baltic states, Ukraine and terrorism. I'm not saying we should turn our back on the US though. A good relationship with the US is still vital for the future of Europe. Same goes for  Britain of course. We may not like each other, but in the dangerous times ahead everybody will need alies.


  10. On 4/1/2019 at 3:46 PM, Bulletpoint said:

    I think that's a quite superficial analysis.

    The US spends more on military and NATO contributions, but the EU spends more on humanitarian aid and global development (as share of GNI).

    Or to stay in your metaphor, you're pushing down on the lid of the pot to prevent it boiling over, while the EU is trying to douse the fire below.

    This arrangement actually benefits the USA, because you are able to translate your military investment directly into geopolitical influence, whereas the benefits of global development are more widely distributed and don't always return directly to the donor countries.

    Also, by keeping the EU military small, you're neutering a potential future military rival and keeping EU countries dependant on the USA.

    Well said. I don't have any trust in a US led NATO anymore, which is only abused for US interests. With such 'friends' one doesn't need enemies anymore. Perhaps a European army isn't such a bad idea. A new chapter in the book of Europe. Same goes for the Brits. They've never been really interested in Europe, only in how they could weaken it and use it for their own political games.


    I'm more and more starting to understand why many Europeans are fed up with such so-called allies.  

  11. 8 hours ago, danfrodo said:

    I wonder if Brexit means that UK & France can start fighting again, like in the good old days.  Actually, whatever is left of the UK after N. Ireland and Scotland leave over their anger on Brexit.  Though Neither May nor Marcon seems ready to fill the shoes of the likes of Napoleon or Wellington.

    Britain will find it's way, even after the Brexit. It will still be there and it will still need other countries. But perhaps it won't even come to that.

  12. 25 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

    Please see my earlier post above, there is no "the" in front of "hoi polloi". I do wish people would remember that. Exits stage right tutting loudly  ------------------->

    PEERS: Our lordly style
    You shall not quench
    With base canaille!

    FAIRIES: (That word is French.)

    PEERS: Distinction ebbs
    Before a herd
    Of vulgar plebs!

    FAIRIES: (A Latin word.)

    PEERS: 'Twould fill with joy,
    And madness stark
    The hoi polloi!

    FAIRIES: (A Greek remark.)

    Sir William Schwenck Gilbert (18 November 1836 – 29 May 1911)


    Another Brexit, I guess.

  13. I'm not pessimistic about the future of quality wargames like CM. Look at the amount of serious, new books on ww2 lately. After a long time of copying each other's nonsense, a new generation of historians are publishing books that really add something new to our understanding of war and history. Not for the hoi polloi either, but still enough people who are willing  to spend a lot of money on these books. Same goes for CM, I think.

  14. 20 hours ago, sid_burn said:

    A poor attempt at a comeback, don't make me get @Rinaldi or @IICptMillerII I know you live in fear of confronting them ;)

    I was indeed wrong about your sexual orientation. My apologies. 🤣

    And you did get Rinaldi! He even gave you a Like. How sweet is that! You know what? I will also give you a Like. Little boys like you can use all the support they can get at your age.

  15. 36 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    Maybe true in the very broadest sense, but far more blame goes to the Soviets basically throwing the whole country into disarray with their poorly planned and poorly executed invasion.


    Yeah, sounds familiair, doesn't it?

    36 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    This is a very spicy accusation. Clearly there can be no middle ground between the Taliban and depopulating whole villages like the Soviets did, right? Those barbarous Afghans need a firm hand and all that. The Soviets were just following the well-known and very successful tactics of another power that stabilized regions, Nazi Germany. Take fire from a village? Erase said village, pacify countries with this one little trick.


    Middle ground? Hmm, let me think. Vietnam perhaps?

    36 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    We shouldn't be surprised at this level of competence from the Soviet Union, they did after all compromise FDR ;)

    They sure did. But not the first and certainly not the last of your presidents who blundered his way through history.

    36 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    I'm curious how you read some of these books, like Afghantsy, and still come to the conclusion that the Soviets knew what they were doing lmao.

    I'm curious whether you can read. I said that the Russians, backing the communist government, had the best chance of stabilizing Afghanistan, especially when the West and Pakistan hadn't interfered. I didn't say it would have been easy or even succesful.

    36 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    Give me your wife's number, I'll call her up and we can hear what she thinks of such takes.

    I understand the thought of chatting with a woman without having to pay for it, excites you, but no, sorry. 😀

  16. 47 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    This is quite the chicken and egg problem you've created here, given that the rise of the Taliban was due in large part to Soviet brutality which forced millions to flee into neighboring Pakistani refugee camps where radicalization efforts were being undertaken. Turns out bombing cities doesn't exactly stop people from joining guerilla forces.


    Agreed. But let's not forget the support from the US. Without that no Taliban. Talking about the chicken and the egg...

    47 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    Its also weird to accuse NATO of being too soft, given we're in a thread about about the Soviets leaving Afghanistan, which they did in large part due to declining support for the war effort


    No, we're not just in a thread about the Soviets leaving Afghanistan. We're also in a thread about how difficult it is to stabilize the country. Without the West and Pakistan supporting the Mujahideen the Russians would perhaps have been able to do so. NATO certainly isn't. So the only thing that is weird is your comment. Especially as this discussion really started to heat up after someone said that the Taliban is 'the best bet' for Afghanistan. But perhaps you also agree with that?


    47 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

    I'd be genuinely curious to know what books you've read on this topic.

    Quite a few and more than I can remember. See below. Apart from that I spoke to lots of Afghans and other people who where there and know more about it than you and me together.

    The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and the Failures of Great Powers

    Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979-89

    The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan

    Taliban: The Power of Militant Islam in Afghanistan and Beyond

    Farewell Kabul: How the West Ignored Pakistan and Lost Afghanistan

  17. 21 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    PM sent.  :)

    I'm genuinely interested to know how you believe the Soviets could have prevented the rise of the Taliban or perhaps the morphing of the Mujahidin into the Taliban. 

    PM anwered. 😀

    I'm not saying that the Soviets could have prevented the rise of the Taliban, but they were more up to the task than NATO ever was or will be. War against the Taliban has to be completly ruthless in order to achieve victory and the West most certainly is nog capable of that. We're too soft and too sensitive of media and public opinion. So if there ever was a power that could have beaten the Taliban, it would have been the Russians.

  18. 31 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Do you really believe that?  :o

    Given the historically dismal record of attempts to impose external 'systems' on Afghanistan, I see Taliban (as a home grown 'institution', however horrible), as best bet for the future of the country.....My sincere apologies to the women of Afghanistan, but there it is.  :ph34r: 

    Can you please give me your phone number? My wife likes to speak to you. Yes, she's from Afghanistan. Refugee. Same as the rest of her family.

  • Create New...