Calling US military in Iraq an occupation is to me calling a zebra striped. What else would it be called? 'My' country (Sweden) is currently occupying a corner of Afghanistan. No other word for it. Once there is a local power (preferably democratic) and security in place the occupation needs to cease before people start to hate the occupiers to much.
I can't really understand from my perspective what McCain (and the republicans?) is getting at here other than the Obama-did-this-so-we-have-to-make-a-fuss factor. Do (R) actually think that the US should benefit from staying in Iraq, if so in what way?
You are right on the spot. Europe does not currently need a standing military anywhere close to cold-war levels. There are simply no immediate military threats to european countries today.
I live in Sweden - situated right on the old cold-war front. We have gone from conscripted armed forces prepared to mobilize the entire able population within a few weeks to being able to mobilize approx 40 000 within 10 days and 30 000 more within 2 years. The vast majority here do not miss that or having the phrase 'Every message that the resistance should end is false.' written on the special war page in the phone book.
We are however not members of NATO (only PfP), and do not have any obligation to support the US global warfare (even though we currently have troops in Afghanistan). The only reason for us to have armed forces at all today is international missions (e.g. we currently have planes flying recon over Libya), keeping our obligations to the EU (NBG), maintaining somewhat updated equipment and help society handle local diasasters (snowstorms).
Calling US military in Iraq an occupation is to me calling a zebra striped. What else would it be called? 'My' country (Sweden) is currently occupying a corner of Afghanistan. No other word for it. Once there is a local power (preferably democratic) and security in place the occupation needs to cease before people start to hate the occupiers to much.
I can't really understand from my perspective what McCain (and the republicans?) is getting at here other than the Obama-did-this-so-we-have-to-make-a-fuss factor. Do (R) actually think that the US should benefit from staying in Iraq, if so in what way?
As a European I thought the following might be your point (until I clicked that first link);
Intentional homocides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 (some 2008)
United States: 5.0
European countries over 4.0:
Russia: 15
Kazakhstan: 11
Lithuania: 9.0
Georgia: 7.6
Moldova: 7.2
Estonia: 7.1
Belarus: 5.6
Ukraine: 5.4
Latvia: 4.8
Albania: 4.5
A selection of other Europeans:
Romania: 2.3
Azerbaijan, Serbia: 2.0
Czech Republic: 1.9
Croatia: 1.7
Ireland, UK, France: 1.3
Poland: 1.2
Italy, Greece: 1.1
Spain, Germany: 0.9
Austria: 0.5
All found on Wikipedias 'list of countries by...'
It would be very rude of me to make any comments about this. :)
You are right on the spot. Europe does not currently need a standing military anywhere close to cold-war levels. There are simply no immediate military threats to european countries today.
I live in Sweden - situated right on the old cold-war front. We have gone from conscripted armed forces prepared to mobilize the entire able population within a few weeks to being able to mobilize approx 40 000 within 10 days and 30 000 more within 2 years. The vast majority here do not miss that or having the phrase 'Every message that the resistance should end is false.' written on the special war page in the phone book.
We are however not members of NATO (only PfP), and do not have any obligation to support the US global warfare (even though we currently have troops in Afghanistan). The only reason for us to have armed forces at all today is international missions (e.g. we currently have planes flying recon over Libya), keeping our obligations to the EU (NBG), maintaining somewhat updated equipment and help society handle local diasasters (snowstorms).