Well, the coziness of the RoI and murderous dicatorships is being debated on another thread.
Where is that? I don’t see any thread that alleges Ireland has ever been “cozy” with murderous dictatorships.
The US on the other hand …
I do hate to cliché, much less be a total drag, but we here in the States thought the same thing, right up until September 11, 2001.
What will your country do if something similar happens to you? Apologise?
Well look at the Finns and how they ate the Russians alive in 1939 and still lost. The point being if you simply can not win, play for the tie.
Not quite the point. He was talking about an invasion, not a terrorist attack. Has 11/9 made you worry about Canadian troops swarming over the border?
We’re not too worried about terrorist attacks either. I don’t know if you’ve realised but when OBL is talking about “The Great Satan”, he doesn’t mean Sweden. However…
Even though we are poorly equipped to handle an invasion by a superpower, which I think can be said for most non-superpowers, I think we are very able to handle the effects of a terrorist attack. We have an elite unit of CT’s (made up of military and policemen), but more importantly we have plenty of doctors, medics etc. and a good infrastructure, as well as an educated and organised population. USA has the most powerful army in the world, how much good did that do on 9/11? It’s not about military.
You need to realise that Sweden has spent the last two centuries staying out of wars and conflicts. We’ve become as good at staying out of trouble as US is at getting into it. As far as I know there is not a single terrorist organisation that has Sweden anywhere near the top of their target list. If a serious threat was made, I’m sure the authorities would try to settle the issue and solve the problem instead of going nuts and implementing marshall law.
Theres just no POINT in attacking Sweden. I know some people seem to believe that the terrorists are irrational, but they aren’t. They’re very rational, and it’s not in their interests to attack a target like Sweden.
And to those that somehow find the reluctance to fight to be a sign of weakness or cowardice, sure, but we’re not the ones getting attacked and going to war all the time. We’re not sending our young off to die and we’re not worried about being blown up by terrorists. That’s the benefits of being cowards, and I like them.
That’s where you’re wrong. “The Great Satan” is all the western democracies. The U.S. just happens to be the biggest and most powerful of those.
I doubt Sweden is very high on the list of targets, though.
See, the great Satan is Turkey. No, wait, it’s Saudi Arabia. I mean, Bali. If those damn Balinese would just mind their business…
If you’re facing an absolutely overhwhelming foe, perhaps, I guess. But I’m not sure I would regard hiding in the woods and abandoning my home as even a tie. As I say, I think it illustrates a different cultural mindset.
Maybe, but you get to keep your country. The Russians lost about 250,000 men while the Fins lost around 20,000. Had they the equipment, I would wager they would’ve been able to maintain the status quo instead of surrendering some territory and sovereignty.
You also forgot the Great Satan that is Morocco. 
Stoneburg a few things. You have a few more years to go before you can say you’ve been out of wars for 200 years, though I’ll admit I’m nit picking. Secondly dealing with the aftermath of an attack and removing the threat of attack are two different things. The Americans dealt with the aftermath remarkably well. Sweden would likely do as well or better. However I can see no possible method Sweden could use to remove or address the potential for continued attacks, unless you count hunkering down and picking up the numerous, and potentially radioactive, pieces every so often. And finally, trying to compare strategic entanglements between a minor European power and the US is silly.
Hehe. I’m of the opposite opinion. Staying out of war for almost 200 years would indicate that we are very good at addressing the potential for attacks. If you look at the strategy of the US, it has the exact opposite effect. In this scenario, the more you attack your enemy, the more you increase the potential for attacks on yourself, unless you utterly destroy him. Or you can work at the problem from the other point.
It’s like the question on how to prevent crime. Some would argue that punishing the criminals harder will do it, some think that removing the reasons for people to commit crimes is a better idea. We’re using the latter, how is the former working out for you? 
About the invasion scenario, as far as I know the US hasn’t been invaded since 1812, if you ant to count that. Most of their modern wars have been exported, fought at a safe distance and against a vastly inferior enemy. Sweden getting attacked by the USSR wouldn’t quite be like that, so comparisons with US military experiences are indeed quite silly.
What would have been a good defense strategy for Iraq when US attacked them? What would have been a good strategy for Kuwait when Iraq attacked them? What are you taught to do if attacked by a 800lbs grizzly bear?
I think one of the main reasons for differences in mindset between Euros and the US is that Europe has seen wars at home, in their country, towns and neighbourhoods, not just on CNN. Kind of makes you not have to do it again, unless you’re crazy. To be honest, I find the ‘light’ and macho attitude towards war from Americans very disturbing.
Not to take anything away from Sweden, Stoneburg, but you haven’t exactly been a major power since, what? Gustov Adolphus (probably spelled his name wrong) in the 1600’s? For Sweden, it was a good strategy…when you are weak, play the neutral card. Its a bit harder for a world power to do such things (even if you are just an economic world power). I’m not even speaking to only America here either…look at the other world powers. Any of them ever been successfully neutral when it counted?
And, that brings up another point. America WAS neutral. We TRIED to be neutral. We WANTED to be neutral. Being as we weren’t relatively a non-entity on the world stage (except for banking and chocolate :)) like Sweden though, it didn’t work out as well for us…though we certainly gave it a good shot. Twice.
As I recall from history, Europe dragged US into THEIR wars (kicking and screaming). If you don’t like our attitude…tough shit. Its your own damn faults (the collective YOU…not you personally, Stoneburg, pacifist that you are :)). We finally got tired of getting involved in foriegn wars, looking stupid and initially getting our asses kicked, being totally unprepared with a backward military, shitty equipment and poor training, and basically grinding through using our citizens as cannon fodder. Granted, it took us a long ass time for that message to sink through, and a lot of our citizens died for those mistakes. But it finally HAS sunk through. So…you don’t like it? Should have left us alone then and dealt with things yourselves. Had you done so, America would be an economic giant…with a weak ass comic opera military. Hell, we’d probably still be using bolt action rifles.
From Stoneburg
I think the main differences in mindset of the Euros is…they have very short memories. They love to poo poo away THIER dirty laundry, and are facinated by our own. Americans on the other hand LOVE torturing ourselves with our past mistakes…its practically a national passtime. Hell, just look at this board. How many Europeans get on and actively, even agressively, attack their own countries? Now, look at the US posters. Most of the most critical people on this board towards America are…Americans. To me, its natural…but it shows a huge difference in mind set.
The other thing about Euros is, they want their cake and eat it too. They want America around as an attack dog, especially since that means THEY don’t have to pony up the bucks for strong militaries anymore…they just want to hold the leash. They get pretty indignant when we go off the reservation on our own without their permission.
-XT
BTW, the banking and chocolate thing was a JOKE (Ugly America dunt know dick about Europe kind of thing…)…for the humor impaired. Just wanted to point that out, as I didn’t caviot that earlier.
-XT
Yep. Those Germans and Japanese keep coming back at us. Ditto them Spanish, Mexicans, etc.
**
Crime rate falling since we got tougher in the 80s, thanks.
**
Actually, a large chunk of our country is littered with monuments and battlefields from what they still refer to as “The War of Northern Aggression,” which was followed by a lengthy armed occupation. Now guess what part of the country many of our troops come from …
More to the point, a healthy fear of war is a good thing; but one can also go the other way and become gun-shy to the point where one doesn’t fight when the occasion demands it.
Or as a cheesy country song has it; sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kenny-rogers/77861.html
Well if the poverty and humiliation felt by well off Saudis can produce 3000 dead, just imagine what they could do if they ever tapped into a real victim hood culture.
The point was what would Sweden do after it was attacked in a manner similar to 9/11? Particularly since the people involved had previously bombed and shot you, and had now scaled up their efforts?
Be nice, your original point was comparing Sweden’s strategic entanglements with a great power’s entanglements. We both know they simply are not comparable.
I suppose the intelligent course would’ve been to avoid being accused of possessing and planning to use nasty weapons that it agreed to destroy under a peace treaty with the major state that thwarted their nasty previous war.
Europe hasn’t seen a major war for 60 years because of the standoff between NATO and the WARSAW pact, unless you count the Falkland Island war. Once the Soviet threat was removed I noticed the Balkans managed to enjoy a remarkably European style war of genocide and city shelling.
Avoiding being accused of something is quite a bit harder than just avoiding doing that thing. It’s true, of course, that once the 800-lb. grizzly is attacking you, you’ve already fucked up a great deal. If you’re smart, you take a few precautions and don’t get attacked.
For a couple of days after 9/11, the UK’s RAF was patrolling the East coast of Ireland in warplanes - in Irish airspace but presumably protecting Britain too. Cite? Well, they flew over my house. I don’t think this was a NATO agreement, but one between the UK and Irish governments.
There’s actually nothing unusual about that. The Brits are supposed to ask for permission before entering Ireland’s airspace, but they’re granted it as a matter of routine. It might have increased shortly after 9/11, though.