TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- would you support a EU army?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

would you support a EU army?

just curios, Bush admin stance is that Europe should keep to NATO, but people on this forum always criticize europe for not taking any military responsibility, which imo is impossible without a common army.

i prever a world without any army..*meh i know clich�*

so i don't care about this poll...

Hey! Why can't I vote?? Grr....

I think with a single army then individual european countries lose their right to choose what conflicts they enter. If there is only a single army then all the nations will have to be in agreement to join a conflict and we all know that European countries all have differing opinions. Just look at right now in Iraq, Poland, Spain, Denmark, England, Italy, etc initially sent troops but France, Germany, Sweden, etc did not. To me the EU isn't really a single body because each coutry is so different and in themselves separate. If the EU was a single country with a single leader and single language formed of the states then perhaps but to me it seems to much of a struggle to get one to work correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hey! Why can't I vote?? Grr....

you can't?

i would support one btw

and it should be one without any veto rights... otherwise Eu could never have a a common foreign policy

Yes, NATO is passe.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew you can't? i would support one btw and it should be one without any veto rights... otherwise Eu could never have a a common foreign policy

Hm, now I can but I couldn't before...weird. Anyway, I'd support one too.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil I think with a single army then individual european countries lose their right to choose what conflicts they enter. If there is only a single army then all the nations will have to be in agreement to join a conflict and we all know that European countries all have differing opinions. Just look at right now in Iraq, Poland, Spain, Denmark, England, Italy, etc initially sent troops but France, Germany, Sweden, etc did not. To me the EU isn't really a single body because each coutry is so different and in themselves separate. If the EU was a single country with a single leader and single language formed of the states then perhaps but to me it seems to much of a struggle to get one to work correctly.

was for example the whole UK in agreement to go into iraq?

EU Army would be fine as long as they don't subscribe to any French cut and run doctrine.

HAHAHHAAAA!!!
[[[smoke]]]

LOL!

isn't this what hitler tried to do?











hehe, ok bad example.

The US needs a worthy opponent.

*evil laugh*

aren't the French and German integrating their armies as we speak?

That would be the first step I guess.

I'm all for it.

i say yes, with the condition for it to be used properly

Yeah the world needs an army to balance US

Yes, in theory, but not at the moment. In fact, that sums up my stance on Europe as a whole. The current setup of the European Union is too undemocratic. If it were to be legitimised with more points of access, influence over EU legislation then I�d be all for it.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Just look at right now in Iraq, Poland, Spain, Denmark, England, Italy, etc initially sent troops but France, Germany, Sweden, etc did not. To me the EU isn't really a single body because each coutry is so different and in themselves separate.

I changed my sig just for you. When you mean the UK say UK not England. It's seriously peaving.

Anyway back to the topic. (I seem to have to write that in all my posts lately am I becoming a c*nt?)

I totally depends on the form of the Army and how it is used. But basicly if it did have a huge amount of power and people were obligated to use their armys even when they didn't want to. Well firstly that would be a bit shit (dying for something your country doesn't want...). Secondly who would decide who is incharge and what units ere to be used?

But if it was just a kinda chummy request for forces it would be just like now as far as I can see. Only differnce the admin would cost money and un-needed changes would be required.

Only possible reason was if we were actually going to commit totally to it. In otherwords each nation would no longer independantly be able to (have to) defend themselfs. I.e. only one nuclear sub fleet.... so on and so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I totally depends on the form of the Army and how it is used. But basicly if it did have a huge amount of power and people were obligated to use their armys even when they didn't want to. Well firstly that would be a bit shit (dying for something your country doesn't want...). Secondly who would decide who is incharge and what units ere to be used?

UK soldiers are dying, yet not everyone in the UK wanted to go into war with iraq... people must stop to think of countries like one person who always only have one opinion

European parliament would be in charge? imo that pretty much build on a more federal EU, but still

Ahh but the old friend nationalism will rear its ugly head. Can you seriously see British troops dying because

"Some Frog sent them to die and their troops weren't there.... "

"Our lads didn't even want to go even the goverment didn't want them to."

"This has gone too far."

Political suicide allround, for any nation really. Unless they pretend to like it.... (can anyone say US-UK and Iraq?)

War sux, army sux .. just wanted to say this

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Ahh but the old friend nationalism will rear its ugly head. Can you seriously see British troops dying because "Some Frog sent them to die and their troops weren't there.... " "Our lads didn't even want to go even the goverment didn't want them to." "This has gone too far." Political suicide allround, for any nation really. Unless they pretend to like it.... (can anyone say US-UK and Iraq?)

true true, but yeah, that is kinda happning already, but yeah would probably get worse... but perhaps just not have drafts, ie volenteer militairy service? then noone really could complain that EU is sending "our" people to death or whatever

i see the problem, but i don't really think it's that big, and over time it would be even smaller.

Maybe the first stage would be something where the countries don't have to provide support if they don't want to.

Personally I'd have no problem with an EU army. It would lower costs. So long as it remained fast acting I'd have no problem with it.

I dont think an EU army would mean EU countries have no choice over what conflicts they take part in. My understanding is that an EU army would operate on a similar principle to NATO (ie an alliance not a standing army). Also, there is no reason why a clause cannot be built in to allow countries such as Ireland (pussies!) to opt out of all missions, and to allow other countries to opt out of certain missions. Obviously, it would need some kind of unanimous decision just to opertate under the 'banner' of the EU.

The US was orginianlly all for an EU army, but soon changed its mind when it realised the EU opposed the US on almost all issues. NATO gives America a huge amount of influence in Europe, and as such would be losing alot to see it disappear.

Here's an article I get no end of fun reading...!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comm...,442690,00.html

There are better chances for someone "re-discovering" cold fusion than the formation of a federalized Europe, nevermind army.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.