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

Maybe Europe should try and find a common language (english being the only sensible option)... you know... so they can talk together before they go out and kill together?

Sure, what could it hurt? If nothing else it would be something at which to laugh.

quote:

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

Why? Many EU countries (a ajority of) are in NATO, what do you think will be different from NATO and an EU military capability? Plans for an EU military capability are at an advanced stage. There are already plans for a 60,000 rapid reaction force and an airforce and naval force. The only stumbling block is over planning facilities like what NATO has. The EU wants to use NATO facilities (SHAPE etc) but Turkey is refusing as Greece is a member of the EU. However, I believe Turkey is coming around (as it is extremely eger to commence negotiations on accession)

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Maybe Europe should try and find a common language (english being the only sensible option)... you know... so they can talk together before they go out and kill together?

It may seem strange to us English speakers, who are think as pig shit in regards to languages, but I can assure you speaking English is of no problem to most educated Europeans (look around this forum)

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Sure, what could it hurt? If nothing else it would be something at which to laugh.

As opposed to that laughing stock known as the US military? Who even the British military, your greatest allies, look down their noses at?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why? Many EU countries (a ajority of) are in NATO, what do you think will be different from NATO and an EU military capability? Plans for an EU military capability are at an advanced stage. There are already plans for a 60,000 rapid reaction force and an airforce and naval force. The only stumbling block is over planning facilities like what NATO has. The EU wants to use NATO facilities (SHAPE etc) but Turkey is refusing as Greece is a member of the EU. However, I believe Turkey is coming around (as it is extremely eger to commence negotiations on accession)

NATO is primarily run by the U.S. and U.K. forces and any one who says otherwise is shamlessly lying. The only militarily significant players in Europe are the U.K. and (and dare I say) France. All other European nations have dismal military capabilities and budgets.

Let's say in theory that European nations decide to put together a military. Who has control? The EU? Or some other central command? What about technology and arms? These are sovereign countries which have different interests so who are going to share what and how? What about money? Europeans don't exactly like to blow billions on the military and how is the EU going to convince citizens and taxpayers of European nations that they need a 'united' European force? The plans for a rapid reaction force have been in the works for years but nothing has materialized so far, so why should anyone take it seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX NATO is primarily run by the U.S. and U.K. forces and any one who says otherwise is shamlessly lying. The only militarily significant players in Europe are the U.K. and (and dare I say) France. All other European nations have dismal military capabilities and budgets.

Still, if they'd all join together, they would have a somewhat significant military.

quote:

Let's say in theory that European nations decide to put together a military. Who has control? The EU? Or some other central command? What about technology and arms? These are sovereign countries which have different interests so who are going to share what and how? What about money? Europeans don't exactly like to blow billions on the military and how is the EU going to convince citizens and taxpayers of European nations that they need a 'united' European force? The plans for a rapid reaction force have been in the works for years but nothing has materialized so far, so why should anyone take it seriously?

Well, the EU is pretty much integrated, and if the new constitution passes that would ensure a somewhat common foreign policy, then it wouldn't be much of a problem. Now, as for money, the tax payer cost shouldn't be any larger than to provide for regular standing armies of each individual country.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As opposed to that laughing stock known as the US military? Who even the British military, your greatest allies, look down their noses at?

Precisely. You're starting to catch on, I think.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=new+cold+war

old post on a similar subject.

EU army sounds like a bad idea to me, would be a disaster. for example out of the current EU there are over 150 different varieites of tanks, think of the problems of trying to unify it into one coherent fighting force.

i would not mind diff countires having diff specialisations particularly the smaller European countires. Eg Belgium could specialise in attack helicopters, Sweden as medics, Norway as marines, Dutch as paratroopers, italians can wave the surrender flag (seems their only mililtary strength), another country could specialise in intelligence based arouond the primary fighting forces of UK and France (sic)

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape EU Army would be fine as long as they don't subscribe to any French cut and run doctrine. HAHAHHAAAA!!! [[[smoke]]]

Ya much better then the American, come at the last 8 months of the war method and then claim you win.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As opposed to that laughing stock known as the US military? Who even the British military, your greatest allies, look down their noses at?

even canadians look down on them. I think the yanks are better at hitting thier allies with friendly fire then the enemy. In the last couple of missions we participated in with the Yanks we lost more men to the americans than to the enemy. From my understanding its close with the Brits as well.

Makes you wonder about all this high tech missles they have and they keep hitting thier allies.

nice one guyz

swilly

It will take time but much like all things it will come round. China was a very fragmented collection of states for sometime before they saw each other as one nation. Same as germany and Italy now look at them. Much like anything give it time and they will see the advantage. With respect to funding... quit NATO and use the money for the EU army. With respect to organization have each member state elect a representative and then use them to decide on military affairs. Also any military engagement must have has the support of the populace. This could be done by referendum or something.
This will ensure states like Italy,UK,Spain,poland and romania dont have to send thier troops to places where the majority of the population does not want them to be. Not going to point any fingers but I will it rhymes with Braq. The representatives should be elected on some form of proportional representation as well.


In terms of the whole logistics of differnt armies well.... integrate them. The germans make excellent tanks and rifles, the french make brilliant airplanes as well as aircraft carriers the Brits make amazing ships and support craft. Use each countries competitive advantage and form a body that will utilize each nations speacialty. That way you will have the best trained, smartest dressed, best smelling and funkiest soldiers in the whole planet and they will be able to sip fine wine and eat nice cheese during thier operations.

It will happen give it time. You can see it already in how much europeans think of the commonalities of each nation as opposed to the differences.

PS while you are guyz are making this army Canada wants join and we want to join the EURO as well.

quote:

Originally posted by swilly even canadians look down on them. I think the yanks are better at hitting thier allies with friendly fire then the enemy. In the last couple of missions we participated in with the Yanks we lost more men to the americans than to the enemy. From my understanding its close with the Brits as well. Makes you wonder about all this high tech missles they have and they keep hitting thier allies. nice one guyz swilly

haha you are the representative of the canadian people now are ya? When you have facts please show them rather than making your narrow opinion seem to be fact.

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Maybe Europe should try and find a common language (english being the only sensible option)... you know... so they can talk together before they go out and kill together?

yeah and so should the candians, belgian, switzerlands etc?

guess their armys don't work

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil haha you are the representative of the canadian people now are ya? When you have facts please show them rather than making your narrow opinion seem to be fact.

its true! god do i have to waist my time pointing out the blatently obvious. Why waste my time proving that the world is flat when we could be aruging about usefull facts. Look up the deaths that occured with the princess patrisha light infantry and then how much occured overall over the past couple of years and tell me which is greater.

we both know the answer its just that one of us is in denial. Also such a comment coming from a person who has posted such immensely obvious narrow minded comments in here is not worthy my reaction. Let alone a picture of a gun. I cannot say that I speak for all canadians but I can tell you what the majority knows and majority feels. Look up our feelings in Iraq and our general feelings on particiaption with the US in missions. We hate it!!! We are just like the UK under Blair and I even like blair in comparision to the opposition
swilly

quote:

Originally posted by swilly its true! god do i have to waist my time pointing out the blatently obvious. Why waste my time proving that the world is flat when we could be aruging about usefull facts. Look up the deaths that occured with the princess patrisha light infantry and then how much occured overall over the past couple of years and tell me which is greater. we both know the answer its just that one of us is in denial. Also such a comment coming from a person who has posted such immensely obvious narrow minded comments in here is not worthy my reaction. Let alone a picture of a gun. I cannot say that I speak for all canadians but I can tell you what the majority knows and majority feels. Look up our feelings in Iraq and our general feelings on particiaption with the US in missions. We hate it!!! We are just like the UK under Blair and I even like blair in comparision to the opposition swilly

Apparently I am worthy of your vastly superior reaction as I am responding to your response.

Believe it or not I'm rather neutral typically but when I see absurd comments I feel the need to counter the absurdity to neutralize the Ph Balance of the one sided argument. I am neither republican or democrat, I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq and the Palestinian conflict as well as Mr. Bush himself.

As for being in denial, honestly I'm in denial of nothing. I know there are friendly fire incidents as there are in every war. I also realize that the casualties have been so much lowered in wars over the last century that even though friendly fire incidents are vastly lower than in the past they are seen as greater because actual combat deaths are so much lower. I suppose you'd like us to go back to using napalm and carpet bombing instead of smart bombs.

On a side note I don't understand what a picture of a gun has anything to do with your argument. I rather like my weapon and its not pointed at you in particular.

//////////////////
To keep somewhat on target. Now if the EU formed an army and since most of the countries are vastly inferior to England, France, and even moderately armed countries like Spain and Poland would this create bickering amonst the various countries as they wouldn't want to lose their individuality in terms of military strength? I just can't see France agreeing to be equal to say Latvia

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah and so should the candians, belgian, switzerlands etc? guess their armys don't work

Now you know I hate to be the one to tell ya this but...

I have my doubts about it, an EU army needs the consensus of all the Union members to intervene in a war and this consensus is imposible nowadays (just remember the Irak's war).

So in the practice this army would be like not an army, they would intervene in natural catastrophies, like heartquakes, floodings, etc. when all the members are in consensus but not in wars where economic, politician reasons make that each country defend different things about the war so make no consensus.

NO! This would just become another reason for Sweden to keep away from EU.

quote:

Originally posted by AC. NO! This would just become another reason for Sweden to keep away from EU.

aww not you

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil As for being in denial, honestly I'm in denial of nothing.

Hehehe I'm not talking the piss but seriously you could put that on a t-shirt and it would be funny ]

quote:

I know there are friendly fire incidents as there are in every war. I also realize that the casualties have been so much lowered in wars over the last century that even though friendly fire incidents are vastly lower than in the past they are seen as greater because actual combat deaths are so much lower. I suppose you'd like us to go back to using napalm and carpet bombing instead of smart bombs.

Yeah but the point is though these all (friendly fire attacks) seem
to come from the same place if you get what I mean.

quote:

////////////////// To keep somewhat on target. Now if the EU formed an army and since most of the countries are vastly inferior to England, France, and even moderately armed countries like Spain and Poland would this create bickering amonst the various countries as they wouldn't want to lose their individuality in terms of military strength? I just can't see France agreeing to be equal to say Latvia

All I'm gonna say is read the bottom of my sig...... please...... then you can talk about the EU.

Anyway they aren't talking about making them equal. They will have less votes probebly and have to commit less.

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