NATO sat on that crisis for six years and it was a joint effort which included Britain that put an end to it. If the US did intervene in a full scale Anglo-Spanish war it would not be to the benefit of Spain. The US has substantially higher value of trade with UK than Spain and has a number airbases here. What does that have to do with anything? Spain is not a major economy. If Britain and Germany pull out of the EU then it would collapse within a few years maybe even on a weekend. I disagree. It would be short because their navy is insignificant. Which means that without the ability to transport soldiers to Britain it would limit the length of time they could afford to fight. Yes the Spanish ariforce is the only credible threat. But it's still outnumbered and would not be able to inflict massive casualties and that's if they decided that it was good idea to break the Geneva convention as well as various other treaties. Yes British cities are fairly packed but we prefer to build our cities in which spread out with large suburbs. The only military/economic targets that are worth targeting would only be worth going after if the war were to last several years. Also the Eurofighter as well F/18's that the Spanish airforce employs has only precision weaponry. An Anglo-Spanish war would be short and restricted and likely cause only a few hundred military casualties at the worst.
originally I was sympathetic to Spanish claims to Gibraltar but then i recall Spain occupies Ceuta and Mellila in Morocco...
EU sendin' in a team to look into controls at the border... EU team to monitor Gibraltar border 19 August 2013 > The European Commission is to send a fact-finding mission to Gibraltar to investigate controls at the border.
The difference between the Spanish enclaves and Gibraltar is that Gib has had a referendum which voted in favour of being a part of Britain. Geography has very little to do with national claims. A bit like the Falklands. The only way for Spain to validate their holdings in Ceuta and Mellilia is to have a referendum.
Starting a war in response to Spanish harassment at the border would be completely out of proportion. Nor would it lead to a meaningful solution. As to the insane part I stand by my words. Staring a war against Spain now would be utterly insane.
Again, you have have failed to read my previous comments. I'll simplify it for you. If negotiations with Spain regarding the violation of British territory and the harassment of Gibraltar fail then I would advocate military action. It would show just how far we willing to go in order the respect and protect citizens of the UK and to ensure that national sovereignty is itself defended. It would also show that Spain has no right to either Gibraltar or it's bullying behaviour. Also you called me "insane" and now you've changed your mind to the idea itself. This duplicity on your part warrants an apology and in the very least a retraction from you.
And I will once again say that what we see in and around Gibraltar is just a crude reaction from Spain. Something that does not warrant military action. A war will not lead to a meaningful result. Only a political solution is possible. We will of course see politicians making bombastic speeches about ‘doing whatever it takes to protect our fellow citizens wherever they live’ because they know that voters love that macho stuff. Neither side will declare war on the other however. I used the word ‘insane’ about your apparent eagerness of going to war over this. It would truly be insane. I think people who are ready to go to war over this are insane. Feel free to think whatever you like about what I meant. I.dont.care.
Then negotiations will do that which is what I've said before. Again you did not. You may not care but others who read this might. I think you're juvenile. And I'm really sorry that this thread has been sullied by people who are incapable of having reasonable debate without resorting to rudeness.
Granny says, "Dat's right - England bringin' out the big gun... British warship arrives in Gibraltar amid tension August 19, 2013 -- A British navy warship has arrived in the disputed territory of Gibraltar, coinciding with a souring of relations between Madrid and London in a row over an artificial reef that Spain says affects its fishermen.
We'll see. I think they'd love a way out that would please the Spanish government. It wouldn't do their election chances, already slim, much good though.
It has to to with the fact that bombings seemed ceaseless. Almost as if the US had a personal hate against Yugoslavians and wanted to wipe the country off the map, which in a way they did. My point with that is... Americans are bad when they get angry.
Remind me. Why would the US have a personal grudge against Serbia? Anyway I'm sure that bombing of Serbia and their military was compliant with the laws of war. Having been shot at myself it can feel as if was a personal and hateful act. They would also be foolhardy to intervene in a hypothetical Anglo-Spanish war. It would cause many problems including the permanent loss of their strongest ally.
They said the same about World War I.... -that proportionally the loses would be insignificant, made up of volunteers who wanted very badly to go to war anyway, out of 'patriotism'. But then as things did not go as expected, people resorted to toxic gases etc. Think of the awfully effective technologies there are today. The beginning is always easy. But to reach the goal you initially thought would be a quick and easy one might make you in the end resort to who knows what. Let's say the Spanish would do it not the UK. But then the response from the UK might be similar or tougher, and a vicious circle is started. Both nations are kind of proud and would not give up easily. And I believe Spain is not to be confused with Argentina or India or Africa.
Didn't say it has or it had. But it looked like that. People from Serbia and who went to Serbia told me how many civilian places were wiped out or beyond repair. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean it's not compliant. Their strongest ally is the European Union. And they already told you rather boldly to stay part of it. USA tells you what to do and you obey it seems. You can't say the UK is their strongest ally.
I think that you'll find that NATO is their ally not the EU. We have already expressed a wish to leave under the promise of a referendum. Nobody can tell us what is in our own interests except ourselves. And yes I can say that were their strongest allied nation. They did not tell us to stay apart of it. They said that they would prefer it if we stayed with the EU which is against the wishes of most Britons. We have been fighting with them since the first gulf war and have had a long standing military exchange since WWII. Wars of that nature are a thing of the past and it is impossible for that to happen again due to the MAD theory. The use of gas in warfare is explicitly outlawed and the UK does not have any stocks of gas. Nor the ability to deliver them. I also believe that Spain would not do so either. A protracted war over Gibraltar would be detrimental to the Spanish treasury and ultimately the economy as well. Even if they won it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Every war is different. Argentina was act of aggression. We did not fight in India they were released as independent nations of Pakistan & India under their wishes which turned into a disaster. Maybe you'd like to be a bit more specific regarding African conflicts.
Feel free to think whatever you like. At the end of the day I know more about what I think than you do.
It is perfectly normal to keep up the bombing in order to deny the enemy the initiative. It puts pressure on them and makes the political solution offered more tempting.
I'm sure you do. But put in a way that's consistent with what you mean. I can't read your mind, can I?
Mind reading would be a fantastic ability to have. Unfortunately it seems to be available only to women… Personally I refrain from the sport of nitpicking other people’s posts when it won’t lead anywhere productive. My experience with women tells me that my words if put under a microscope can be interpreted in all kinds of ways, but I have learned to ignore that
Your gender should not affect your ability to deploy the English language in a way that is succinct and concise. Well that does put me at a major disadvantage. Would you grace me a little tolerance in light of your extraordinary and exquisite femininity? I'm not in room with you so I don't have any clues as to what you are trying to say other than what you've written. If you're willing to continue to discuss the nature of this thread with me then I welcome it. But respect is a two way street and I'm willing to invest that in you if you are willing to do likewise.
And most of NATO, apart from themselves is made up of the EU. Although it is very much economical, the US-EU partnership takes priority over any other partnership of any kind (be it military etc) and because of this, USA needs an economically healthy European continent that doesn't fight itself. Wars are a guarantee for the unpredictable. You just said it yourself, that each war is unique. Didn't say they would use gas lol... I just pointed out how people in the past eventually resorted to things not so 'heroic', conventional or 'honorable'. Throughout colonial history you kept them all under control pretty well, be it either war or not, just because they had no guns, no real technology, no money. And now you say something similar about Spain, that they have no fleet etc. A default tendency to underestimate most of the rest of the world.
It's made up of both European countries and non Europeans. Not the political body known and the EU. In fact there attempts by the latter to form a EU force which would be entirely separate from NATO. You're being very general. War is not that simple either and requires an absolute ton of planning and careful thought. Ok. Well that wasn't that clear. The only weapon that would be available to either side that would constitute inefficacy would the be the nuclear missiles that we have. So really there's only two things that Spain could do. The bombing of civilian targets like city centres and looting Gibraltar. Both of which would worsen their relationship with the West. Well actually they did have guns. Oh there's a few prominent exceptions like the brief Aro wars or the Australian settlers campaigns against the Aborigines, perhaps the Burmese campaigns. And no I did not say something similar about Spain. I said they have 7 combat worthy vessels. Which when taken out would leave the rest of their fleet prone to annihilation.
I hardly think a war between Britain and Spain is going to worry America much. America will not join in a war between Britain and Spain. And the war won't last long anymore. Britain would defeat Spain within a matter of weeks, if not days. That's a laugh. It certainly hesitated in 1914 and 1939. Argentina's population is almost the same size as Spain's. Firstly, no Spanish plane would even reach Britain. It'd be shot down before it got there. And secondly, you are exagerrating how "overcrowded" Britain is. Britain may have an average of 662 people per square miles - so it's overcrowded on that score - but in reality nearly all of Britain is empty. That's because 80% of the UK land area is countryside and rural areas, yet 90% of the British people live in urban areas. So 90% of the British people live on just 20% of the UK's land area. So, really, Britain's isn't crowded. It's empty. 80% of the UK has almost nobody living in it.
And England is not guilty of anything. Gibraltar's government didn't throw anything in the sea. Gibraltar is not making dangerous refuelings there... And even now, Gibraltar is possible that they use sand from a protected area for the construction of their megastructure. It is fault of everybody. And let's not talk about the smuggling of tobacco.
