War?

[kthx]

I don't know why someone from Canada is saying that, I as an American should be the one to lament our fallen soldiers.

[Troll King]

This thread cheapens the efforts of ALL soldiers that have given their lives in battle for their country. They died for a purpose; they just didn't know that purpose was so they could be used in a forum pissing match.

[Exalt]

6.95% of nothing isn't much...........

owned.

also i will point something out to you...

As of June 30, 2008, about 1,427,546 people are on active duty in the United States military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components.

you do the math there buddy... and also the US has the best military technology in the world, and no china and russia do not compare

and what happened in your winter war.. thats completely different than today... .you obviously don't know history or you would know that for one, back then russia was led under stalin in 1939, and he executed more than 50% of his military officers before the war, along with that half the soldiers didn't have the equipment it should have and some didn't even have guns or bullets at all

russia has by far superior numbers and technology to your country, and is much better trained then it ever was in 1939 LOL

oh and they actually receive guns, and bullets, oh snap...

btw, you lost that war technically... cuz Finland held out until March 1940, when the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed, but gave up about 9% of their territory and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union.

sorry but you don't win wars and give up territory and industry, just don't happen

[Heroin Bob]

lol exalt, what a deluded tool you are.

im not gonna bother quoting and replying to your various lines of bullshit, but ill post up some statistics.

you say finland doesn't have an army worth a flying fuck and that we basically have no chance of defending ourselves, yet look at stats from the winter war.

[b]Finland[/b]                        [b]Soviet Union[/b]                                      
250,000 men                             1,000,000 men
30 tanks                                   6,541 tanks
130 aircraft                               6,800 aircraft

                [b]Casualties and losses[/b]
26,662 dead                        126,875 dead or missing
39,886 wounded                       264,908 wounded
1,000 captured                  	5,600 captured
                                               2,268+ tanks

Yeah, were absolutely useless...

Atm we have about 350,000 wartime soldiers, which is one of the largest in Europe, and the largest of the so called Northern European countries.

As for military spending, Finland has the highest defence spending out of EU member states, at 6.95% of GDP.

6.95% of nothing isn't much...........

[Displaced]

lol exalt, what a deluded tool you are.

im not gonna bother quoting and replying to your various lines of bullshit, but ill post up some statistics.

you say finland doesn't have an army worth a flying fuck and that we basically have no chance of defending ourselves, yet look at stats from the winter war.

[b]Finland[/b]                        [b]Soviet Union[/b]                                      
250,000 men                             1,000,000 men
30 tanks                                   6,541 tanks
130 aircraft                               6,800 aircraft

                [b]Casualties and losses[/b]
26,662 dead                        126,875 dead or missing
39,886 wounded                       264,908 wounded
1,000 captured                  	5,600 captured
                                               2,268+ tanks

Yeah, were absolutely useless...

Atm we have about 350,000 wartime soldiers, which is one of the largest in Europe, and the largest of the so called Northern European countries.

As for military spending, Finland has the highest defence spending out of EU member states, at 6.95% of GDP.

[Ayano]

If you have a link please post it.

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL33611.pdf

[Kolar]

The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. 22% is the maximum any one state can contribute. Where 'assessed' would be the minimum contribution.

If you have a link please post it.

Btw Kolar, you can only run the middle ground for so long. :P

In terms of?

[Ayano]

Edit: I'm pretty sure to be a member state the amount of funding your country provides to the UN is based on the size of your economy. Not on the size of your military, population or perceived importance to the world.

The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. 22% is the maximum any one state can contribute. Where 'assessed' would be the minimum contribution.

Japan wins in terms of population if anyone wants to argue winners/losers.


Btw Kolar, you can only run the middle ground for so long. :P

[Kolar]

The US doesn't have the influence in the region to begin with. US troops on the ground "protecting" Georgia would be seen as provocation and a threat to Russia. The only thing we and the Georgian people can hope for is a UN peacekeeping force and having a territorial deal brokered by the EU (or anyone else hopefully not Russia because they failed the first time) to give both the provinces full autonomy within Georgia. No one is calling for a direct conflict, the US is responding appropriately in my opinion given the reality on the ground. And not because NATO forces are depleted or can't do anything.

[Exalt]

Should NATO, OPEC, SCO ect... collectively fund the UN together? They are military an economic alliances which are made up of member states. I'm sure minimum funding that a member state has to contribute is based on the size of their economy, the UN deals directly with those states and not their military or economic blocs. And if you want to go further I would bet collectively the "other" plus UK, France, Germany and Italy would equal that figure. Not gonna waste my morning looking it up.

if the US did pull out of the UN (it never would) I'm sure some programs might suffer. But on the whole they would probably do less, not that they do much at all.

"At present, there is no military of the European Union, as the European integration has not developed very far in the area of defence. There have however been a number of defence initiatives, peacekeeping operations and organisations established in the context of the European Union (EU). The actual defence of the Union is the domain of individual Member States."

Edit: I didn't say the US alone undermines the authority of the UN. I said all UNSC members have an interest in wars and instability in different regions. Creating peace isn't in their interest sometimes.

Enjoy.

well to put it bluntly, president bush would never had congress backing him to enter "iraq" and we never would have wanted to enter "afghanistan" if we weren't already attacked on 9/11 by the terrorists... we chose to act and Iraq was misleading by Bush but it happened... what i said in previous posts is that now that it has happened we don't have the funds nor the capacity to go into protection mode for small countries like Georgia right now

the only way it would work is through the UN or something like that.. and the UN doesn't have the capacity either because no one wants to fund them... Japan and USA are the two main contributers... almost 50% of the total funding comes from two countries.... and yet there are around 150 countries in the UN... including all of the EU countries

what im saying is everyone is talking about how the US should react to Russia being in Georgia... well we can't because we are tied up in other areas of the world.... so its Europes job to take care of Europe at this point... and if you don't well then I hope you realize the implications of it

EU's economy is going to go back down to earth eventually, everyone that knows economics knows this... its the same thing that Britian is facing now... last I checked they dropped from 2.40 to 1 US dollar to 1.60 to 1 US dollar in no time at all... and not because the US dollar has gotten that much stronger

Russia is going to regain its superpower status real fast, and watch out Europe because USA can't stop them.... and the bad part is you are all rooting for the US to fall (zelazny, other europeans in these forums)... yet none of you realize the consequences if that happened

[Kolar]

if the EU is a financial institution only that is composed of countries that are included in the UN, why is the EU not involved in spending money on the UN?

you cannot and will not be able to convince anyone that the US is not the main reason the UN is even around at all, and if we decided to back off and spend only as much as the next country does, the UN will dissolve completely, and you KNOW that

also as far as the EU being purely financial... what about this?

The EU primarily acts through its Common Foreign and Security Policy, though Denmark has an opt-out from this and some states are limited by neutrality issues. As a result forces under EU command have been for peacekeeping, in which European states have a great deal of experience.

If all the member states' annual spending was taken as a bloc the figure would amount to over $292.7 billion, second only to the US military's $518 billion.[1] However the cumulative effect is much less than it seems due to duplication of capacities in individual militaries.[citations needed] There have been efforts to overcome this with joint projects such as the Eurofighter and through joint procurement of equipment.

the EU has a military already, the EU is not a financial agreement only, so stop saying that

the EU has such a great economy then fucking spend it on the UN like the US does, and yet you try to say we "undermine" the UNs authority... well fuck you, spend more on the UN and maybe we won't

Should NATO, OPEC, SCO ect... collectively fund the UN together? They are military an economic alliances which are made up of member states. I'm sure minimum funding that a member state has to contribute is based on the size of their economy, the UN deals directly with those states and not their military or economic blocs. And if you want to go further I would bet collectively the "other" plus UK, France, Germany and Italy would equal that figure. Not gonna waste my morning looking it up.

if the US did pull out of the UN (it never would) I'm sure some programs might suffer. But on the whole they would probably do less, not that they do much at all.

"At present, there is no military of the European Union, as the European integration has not developed very far in the area of defence. There have however been a number of defence initiatives, peacekeeping operations and organisations established in the context of the European Union (EU). The actual defence of the Union is the domain of individual Member States."

Edit: I didn't say the US alone undermines the authority of the UN. I said all UNSC members have an interest in wars and instability in different regions. Creating peace isn't in their interest sometimes.

Enjoy.

[Pressure Drop]

the United States pays 22% of the UNs budget.... which is around 1.8 billion dollars a year

thats the highest total BY FAR over any nation in the entire world

you know what Russia, the other supposed huge superpower pays to the UN a year?

1.8%

now you tell me if they give a shit about the UN, when the US pays 22% and Russia pays 1.8%


get real, maybe have your country invest more money into the system and it might work, but until then don't tell the USA to just "let the UN handle it" when your countries wont even support it financially....

how is the USA paying 22% when the EU's economy is so much better? Let the fucking EU pay for it then. Personally I would rather the US back the fuck out and pay 1.8% like Russia... i wonder if the EU will pick up the slack huh?





yeah, go fuck yourselves.... oh and btw finland, FUCKING MEXICO PAYS MORE INTO THE UN THAN YOU, CHEAP FUCKS

I don’t know what sort of brain damage you are suffering from but it’s pretty pointless to talk in terms off USA funding 22% of the UN’s budget then comparing that countries with smaller populations and a lower GDP

Then mock the EU when your graph shows that germany contributes over 8% UK 6% France 6% italy 5% spain 2% well hang on isn’t that more than 22% already ??



The fact is the USA is the only country that meets the cap that was reduced from 25% to 22% but again it doesn’t matter only another bullshity way to derail and proclaim USA is the greatest …

[Exalt]

The lesson from WW2 is that strict isolationism doesn't work. The US is still learning that strict intervention or preemptive action also doesn't work. I'm not saying the UNSC works. It doesn't because all the member states (yes even France) have an interest in starting and continuing wars. But again the only way to work around the differences is to talk, trade and speak to people you perceive as your enemy. Peace isn't a state of mind it's simply not killing people or blowing things up and being as far away from that reality as possible, and doing the later two will never get us anywhere. This bullshit about Europe not handling their own shit is retarded. The EU isn't a military organization and you guys are the only superpower in the world with great interest in eastern Europe. 3.7% of your GDP is not significant, in fact for the US to keep up with other countries it needs to place more emphasis on defense, not counter terrorism but to counter China. Defense spending is not inhibiting the implementation of a Universal Health Care system. But building bridges to nowhere and the like might be. My standard of living is probably close if not the same as yours but on average a private health care system in terms of quality might not perform as well for as many people then a universal system. But both are not perfect and tend to leave some people without. And it's not free, no one is that delusional. Even with the aid of facts and statistics it really is impossible for me to convince you otherwise.

if the EU is a financial institution only that is composed of countries that are included in the UN, why is the EU not involved in spending money on the UN?

you cannot and will not be able to convince anyone that the US is not the main reason the UN is even around at all, and if we decided to back off and spend only as much as the next country does, the UN will dissolve completely, and you KNOW that

also as far as the EU being purely financial... what about this?

The EU primarily acts through its Common Foreign and Security Policy, though Denmark has an opt-out from this and some states are limited by neutrality issues. As a result forces under EU command have been for peacekeeping, in which European states have a great deal of experience.

If all the member states' annual spending was taken as a bloc the figure would amount to over $292.7 billion, second only to the US military's $518 billion.[1] However the cumulative effect is much less than it seems due to duplication of capacities in individual militaries.[citations needed] There have been efforts to overcome this with joint projects such as the Eurofighter and through joint procurement of equipment.

the EU has a military already, the EU is not a financial agreement only, so stop saying that

the EU has such a great economy then fucking spend it on the UN like the US does, and yet you try to say we "undermine" the UNs authority... well fuck you, spend more on the UN and maybe we won't

[Kolar]

The lesson from WW2 is that strict isolationism doesn't work. The US is still learning that strict intervention or preemptive action also doesn't work. I'm not saying the UNSC works. It doesn't because all the member states (yes even France) have an interest in starting and continuing wars. But again the only way to work around the differences is to talk, trade and speak to people you perceive as your enemy. Peace isn't a state of mind it's simply not killing people or blowing things up and being as far away from that reality as possible, and doing the later two will never get us anywhere. This bullshit about Europe not handling their own shit is retarded. The EU isn't a military organization and you guys are the only superpower in the world with great interest in eastern Europe. 3.7% of your GDP is not significant, in fact for the US to keep up with other countries it needs to place more emphasis on defense, not counter terrorism but to counter China. Defense spending is not inhibiting the implementation of a Universal Health Care system. But building bridges to nowhere and the like might be. My standard of living is probably close if not the same as yours but on average a private health care system in terms of quality might not perform as well for as many people then a universal system. But both are not perfect and tend to leave some people without. And it's not free, no one is that delusional. Even with the aid of facts and statistics it really is impossible for me to convince you otherwise.

Edit: I'm pretty sure to be a member state the amount of funding your country provides to the UN is based on the size of your economy. Not on the size of your military, population or perceived importance to the world.

[Exalt]

God damn why the fuck does everything get derailed to the point of sheer stupidity by morons proclaiming their country is the best it has single handedly won every war ever as if it even means anything?

Get over it

WW2 was a terrible event, the positives being only that we can see “civilized” nations are capable of terrible acts … and we need to work together to prevent anything like that reoccurring.

I’m sick off kids several generations away from the actual war boasting about it like they did something.

Did USA help win the war? Yea it did. Did Russia help win the war? YES it did. Did Britain? AGAIN WITH THE YES!

Not only is it all a moot point who was the most important nation as it took all 3 of these nations as well as many other nations who contributed very importantly and off course luck as well to resolve the war.. Not only that but the allies also committed acts no one should ever be proud off, they did what they deemed needed to be done and that involved bombing many cities into the ground with huge civilian casualties etc. etc …


It was 70 years ago and none of us did anything so instead of boasting who did what perhaps learn the lesson of why we need to strengthen the UN and diplomatic avenues rather than turn to war at the drop of the hat. The actions taken by Russia recently and also USA this decade have both undermined the UN rather than make it stronger.

It’s tough because even when the UN does sanctions etc it can often not make the corrupt government change making it seem ineffective and hurt the people hence the oil for aid policy towards iraq. However a better solution is needed for all, so rather than stand idly by and watching corrupt governments like those in Zimbabwe run the country into the ground there should be more international pressure and also rewards etc for positive change.

the United States pays 22% of the UNs budget.... which is around 1.8 billion dollars a year

thats the highest total BY FAR over any nation in the entire world

you know what Russia, the other supposed huge superpower pays to the UN a year?

1.8%

now you tell me if they give a shit about the UN, when the US pays 22% and Russia pays 1.8%


get real, maybe have your country invest more money into the system and it might work, but until then don't tell the USA to just "let the UN handle it" when your countries wont even support it financially....

how is the USA paying 22% when the EU's economy is so much better? Let the fucking EU pay for it then. Personally I would rather the US back the fuck out and pay 1.8% like Russia... i wonder if the EU will pick up the slack huh?





yeah, go fuck yourselves.... oh and btw finland, FUCKING MEXICO PAYS MORE INTO THE UN THAN YOU, CHEAP FUCKS