Will the europeans ever be powerful?

Originally posted by fritz...

I for one, do not want to subsidize French or German farmers with the Common Agricultural Policy.
....

Are you aware that you still have your rebate (which France is the largest refunder for), and that Germany has only a marginally higher CAP share?

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Regarding European militaries once again, it is neccessary that those which now consist of conscripts are professionalised.

There is no major EU army left that relies on conscripts. In fact, only 5 of 27 nations have any form of conscription today.

You can't win wars if your military isn't professional ...

There is no basis to that statement.

...because what are your soldiers going to do? Fire their rifles which they have previously fired only once? Drive tanks which they have never driven before? Unless the required service time is extended by 10 years, those soldiers may as well already dig their graves.

10 years? The majority of voluntary (read:professional) soldiers serve a shorter than that. So basically you are saying that the conscripts would be MORE capable then than the professional elements. Your description of conscription however shows that you have no idea about conscripti service anyway.

To make it short, conscripts are intended to guard the home land, and for that they are usually sufficiently trained and equipped (in the EU).

[edit on 22/4/2007 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Are you aware that you still have your rebate (which France is the largest refunder for), and that Germany has only a marginally higher CAP share?

Are you aware that despite the rebate Britain is the EU's #2 net sponsor, and without the rebate it would be netcontributing more than even Germany?

Originally posted by INeedHelp
In fact, only 5 of 27 nations maintain any form of conscription today.

Only 5 nations eh? Prepare for asskicking time.

Map

There are 9.

10 years? The majority of voluntary (read:professional) soldiers serve shorter than that.
So basically you are saying that the conscripts would be MORE capable then than the professional elements.

No, I said that conscripts would be better trained if the compulsory service time was 10 years longer. However, it is not, and changing the service time by 10 years would mean these conscripts would be professional soldiers (although FORCED to serve).

To make it short, conscripts are intended to guard the homeland, and for that they are usually sufficiently trained and equipped (in the EU).

Conscripts aren't sutaible for anything. Oh well, you Germans can try fighting us yourselves. Be sure that we will win. I'm glad I'll be on my island if this happens.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by fritz

Yes they have made a considerable contribution to the Columbian and Bolivian economies with their consumption of drugs, but on the other hand, they are ready to go to war to secure oil supplies at the drop of a hat - and nobody seems to give a toss.

The country that gives the most foreign aid, the country that is giving millions of dollars worth of HIV medications in Africa through the new Bush plan. The US is also spending billions for clean water for Iraqis and new infrastructure such as libraries which they never had previously.

Could the US give more aid? Yes...But so could European countries, and China.

But all we do is contribute to the South American economies through comsumption of drugs.

Simply ridiculous

The EU treats us unfairly. Even despite the rebate our net contribution is bigger than that paid by any other European nation except the Germans. The French and the Italians contribute much less than we do, even though France's GDP and Italy's GDP are equal to Britain's GDP. The subsidies mean that the French get back 98% of their gross contributions every year. If the rebate was terminated, we would be contributing more than even the Germans and frogs would be net beneficiaries of the EU.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by INeedHelp
...
Are you aware that despite the rebate Britain is the EU's #2 net sponsor, and without the rebate it would be netcontributing more than even Germany?

Yes I am. But noone here ever spoke of ending the rebate for the UK. Nevertheless, without the reabte and the refinancing for it, there would also be less CAP subsidy necessary. Basically the balance would again be roughly "ex ante", and these number games are theoretical at best.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Only 5 nations eh? Prepare for asskicking time.

Map

There are 9.

In fact your map isnt up-to-date anymore, and there are ten, or 8 if you count out Denmark (conscription only when there are not enough volunteers) and Poland which has decided to end conscription.

Nevertheless, I was wrong with my original figure since I forgot the new eastern EU states. But I think I can swallow your "asskicking" since I have a comfortable lead in debunking YOUR theories. See you in the other threads

No, I said that conscripts would be better trained if the compulsory service time was 10 years longer. However, it is not, and changing the service time by 10 years would mean these conscripts would be professional soldiers (although FORCED to serve).

They´d still be conscripts. A professional soldier is determined by choosing soldierism as his carreer, and not by the time he serves. Given that the service time varies from nation to nation, both for conscripts and pros, the only constant difference that remains is that a conscript has to serve and the volunteer chooses to serve. And even 10 years of conscript duty will not change that differentiation AND the negative/positive aspects coming with it.

In a nutshell, it would serve no purpose to be obliged to duty for 10 years when the conscript is still not willing to be soldier. And likewise, a volunteer serving 1 year is not automatically better than a conscript in a state with a 2 year service length.

Conscripts aren't sutaible for anything. Oh well, you Germans can try fighting us yourselves. Be sure that we will win. I'm glad I'll be on my island if this happens.

What is your problem with conscripts? Conscripts have fought, and DECIDED, every important war in recent history. BTW, Germany has only a marginal amount of conscripts nowadays, somewhere at less than 15% of the armed forces.

I also see no reason why Germany and the UK would fight each other. And basically its a ridiculous scenario as well. The German forces can´t invade Britain for the lack of a proper Navy, and Britain cant stand against the german army on the continental soil. Its a no-win situation. (And don´t mention your nukes again... UK using nukes on Germany would make them a pariah in the international community - again, no gain.)

Originally posted by INeedHelp
The EU treats us unfairly. ...

No it doesnt. Or otherwise, EVERY net payer is treated " unfairly" following your logic. But thats the whole point of the money shifting: the richer members share money to GET IT BACK via increased trade. Not to forget, a stable-homegrown agriculture sector is a strategic asset, vital for European security (and much more important than all the nukes you´d like France and whatnot to have), and as such the CAP is not only a backrubbing for France and the like but a vital security tool. The rebate however is only a political bargaining chip.

[edit on 22/4/2007 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

In fact your map isnt up-to-date anymore

Huh?

there are ten, or 8 if you count out Denmark (conscription only when there are not enough volunteers) and Poland which has decided to end conscription.

The Poles haven't decided to end conscription, their current government ADVOCATES conscription.

But I think I can survive your "asskicking" since this is the FIRST debate against you where I made an outright wrong statement.

Wrong, you have been disproven a few times already, but if you wish me to kick your ass once more, just ask.

They´d still be conscripts.

De iure they would - they didn't volunteer. However, no one could say they aren't unprofessionalists/incompetent since as you said most volunteers serve for less than 10 years.

A professional soldier is determined by choosing soldierism as his carreer, and not by the time he serves.

Driving a tank (or any other vehicle), flying a plane or diving is a skill you can hone only if you practice. How do you think, who is a better tankdriver - a guy who has been drafted 1 month ago or a guy who has been drafted 10 years ago and has been driving his tank ever since he was drafted?

What is your problem with conscripts? Conscripts have fought, and DECIDED, every important war in recent history.

Name one example.

15% of the armed forces

Against 0% of the British military.

no reason why Germany and the UK would fight each other.

I've written a theoretical statement.

Britain cant stand against the german army on the continental soil.

HAHAHAHAHA! What are you going to use? Your untested L2 tanks? Our tanks have been attacked with weapons such as T-72s, RPGs, mines, IEDs, LAWs etc. and no enemy has ever destroyed even one C2 tank.

(And don´t mention your nukes again... UK using nukes on Germany would make them a pariah - again, no gain.)

Keep wishing. We don't care if other nations hate us or not. That being said, I don't think the Americans would object after you backstabbed them twice.

[edit on 22-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Lonestar said: 'Are you aware that you still have your rebate (which France is the largest refunder for), and that Germany has only a marginally higher CAP share?'

Well Lonestar. Obviously you don't remember the last round of CAP talks held, I think, just after Blair's Presidency finished. I think I'm right in saying that both Germany and her lapdog France wanted the UK's rebate to be cut by anything up to 85%, because of the rebate we receive through membership of the EU.

Originally posted by IneedHelp: 'Are you aware that despite the rebate Britain is the EU's #2 net sponsor, and without the rebate it would be netcontributing more than even Germany?'

Lonestar replied: 'Yes I am. But noone here ever spoke of ending the rebate for the UK. Nevertheless, without the reabte and the refinancing for it, there would also be less CAP subsidy necessary. Basically the balance would again be roughly "ex ante", and these number games are theoretical at best.'

Actually Lonestar, they did. Please read the articles I have linked for you. They even date back to 2002/3 and are still, very much on the agenda:

news.bbc.co.uk... or

news.bbc.co.uk... or

www.politics.co.uk...$13043714.htm or

www.eupolitix.com... or if you're still not satisfied

www.myreader.co.uk...

Apart from all the bollocks being spouted by the Germans, the French are still miffed at us for winning the 2012 Olympics!

Whilst not my argument, INeedHelp...need's help..

posted by INeedHelp
Driving a tank (or any other vehicle), flying a plane or diving is a skill you can hone only if you practice. How do you think, who is a better tankdriver - a guy who has been drafted 1 month ago or a guy who has been drafted 10 years ago and has been driving his tank ever since he was drafted?

You'd be in a bad way if your fresh concripts were expected to fight within a month of being drafted. For example, if Britain ever wanted to conscript again, the draftee's would go through the same basic 12 week programme as any volunteer and still have to pass on any weapons or vehicle certs as a reg/volunteer.

posted by INeedHelp

What is your problem with conscripts? Conscripts have fought, and DECIDED, every important war in recent history.

Name one example.

Both World Wars is a good place to start!!

Korea is another, although not really a "win" as it's not technically over, but it was fought almost entirely with conscripts on both sides.

posted by INeedHelp
HAHAHAHAHA! What are you going to use? Your untested L2 tanks? Our tanks have been attacked with weapons such as T-72s, RPGs, mines, IEDs, LAWs etc. and no enemy has ever destroyed even one C2 tank.

"Destroyed" is such a absolute term. Plenty of Chally's get knocked out in Iraq all the time. I know of one driver who has been IED'd 4 times, each time knocking out the Chally and making it combat ineffective. The brute can be hauled back and repaired, but in the immediate aftermath of an attack, it is effectively "destroyed" as it can have no further participation in the engagement. The crew are 99/100 perfectly safe, if shaken, mind you.

Having said that, Chally's also emerge entirely unscathed from many attacks, usually with a combination of IED's, RPG's and advanced ATGM's (that the Iranians supply) in one attack.

Nevertheless, without the reabte and the refinancing for it, there would also be less subsidies

Wrong. The rebate and the subsidy are two different expenditures which are not connected. Surrendering the rebate wouldn't mean subsidy reductions. That's because the EU budget says so.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Whilst watching The Daily Politics hosted by Andrew Neil on BBC 2 recently, it was suggested by a Labour politician that the only way for Europe to counter the financial threat from the Far East, was to unify.

Said person suggested that we needed to accept and ratify the EU Constitution and thereafter move forward as quickly as possible.

Andrew Neil, quick as ever, asked, 'Are you suggesting that we form the United States of Europe?'

The reply was as usual, fudged rhetoric with no clear, concise answer.

Do any of our European members think the way forward is a United States of Europe.

For me personally, the very idea of that name is repugnant. To me, it smacks of an offshoot of the USA - no offence to our American cousins.

Britain should withdraw from the EU, not unify with other European states. We should even close the Austrian embassy.

Originally posted by INeedHelp
Britain should withdraw from the EU, not unify with other European states. We should even close the Austrian embassy.

INeedHelp, I am sorry for coming across as a bit thick, but why should we close the Austrian Embassy?

I was wandering the same...

Something against Austrians, chap? May I ask what? Seems random to me...

Originally posted by stumason
I was wandering the same...

How about the Austrians supporting Iranian terrorists?

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Originally posted by stumason
I was wandering the same...

How about the Austrians supporting Iranian terrorists?

Well, ah, okay. I'll believe ya!

But, just to be sure and in all fairness to Austrians all the world over, do you think that you could provide a link or ten so that we can see the proof.

Cheers mate.

Originally posted by INeedHelp

Originally posted by stumason
I was wandering the same...

How about the Austrians supporting Iranian terrorists?

Come again?

Austrians supporting Iranian terrorists?



Indeed.....

The Austrians aren't supporting Iranian terrorists? Prepare for asskicking time, kids. Read this

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL BEING OWNED. WHEN WILL YOU KIDS BECOME BORED OF BEING ASSKICKED?

The Iranians don't export anything other than oil and NG, and if they didn't export it, they wouldn't be able to afford uranium, and wouldn't be able to fund terrorists who kill American soldiers everyday. Anyone who buys oil or NG from the Iranians is a supporter of a terrorist nation.


[edit on 29-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

What?

(Snip)

Besides the fact they export far more than just Oil and Gas, they also have their own supply of uranium ore anyway, so they don't need to buy it.

Some very fuzzy logic you have there and a strange compulsion to declare an "asskicking" all the time, whatever that is, but it sure isn't this.

(snip) especially when you present the above as "proof" of Austrians helping "terrorists". You do know the Uk does significant trade with Iran as well, don't you?

Duh...

[edit on 29/4/07 by stumason]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by chissler]

Besides the fact they export more than just Oil and Gas

Wrong. Read this

Exports - commodities:
petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits, nuts, carpets

You are owned - again.

they also have their own supply of uranium ore anyway, so they don't need to buy it.

I'm not talking only about uranium, they are also forced to buy reactors, centrifuges, weapons (for their military) etc.

Very childish and it makes you look like an idiot

Oh, so now that you have been disproven, you are unable to do anything else than namecalling? Do you realise you have violated the T&C? Do you realise that I have bothered to read your previous 200 posts and have realised that had this been any other forum you'd be permabanned? I haven't used this forum long enough to know how many times you will be allowed to violate the rules before you are banned, but I suppose you'll be permanently banned as soon as a moderator reads your posts.

when you present the above as "proof" of Austrians helping "terrorists".

So when Austrians pay the Iranians, who are producing nuclear weapons to kill all Jews, money to buy centrifuges, they're not supporting terrorists? Keep wishing. Do you realise that the Iranians have already invaded American territory once? Do you realise that their current president was then one of the kidnappers?

You do know the Uk does significant trade with Iran as well, don't you?

It doesn't. We have imposed an embargo on the Iranians. Continental European states do, however, which is the reason why they have refused to approve a Paneuropean embargo. Do you realise you should learn about Iran before you reply?

Iran

Exports - partners:
Japan 16.9%, China 11.2%, Italy 6%, South Korea 5.8%, Turkey 5.7%, Netherlands 4.6%, France 4.4%, South Africa 4.1%, Taiwan 4.1% (2005)

Imports - partners:
Germany 13.9%, UAE 8.4%, China 8.3%, Italy 7.1%, France 6.3%, South Korea 5.4%, Russia 4.9% (2005)

[edit on 29-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

[edit on 29-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

Originally posted by INeedHelp
I'm not talking only about uranium, they are also forced to buy reactors, centrifuges, weapons (for their military) etc.

Uranium is the core component in building a reactor and nuclear weapons. Without it all you have is a very large building with a nice cooling system, they do not buy reactors, they build them.
Anyone can build a nuclear reactor, its getting the know how to do it that's the problem.

Oh, so now that you have been disproven, you are unable to do anything else than namecalling? Do you realise you have violated the T&C? Do you realise that I have bothered to read your previous 200 posts and have realised that had this been any other forum you'd be permabanned? I haven't used this forum long enough to know how many times you will be allowed to violate the rules before you are banned, but I suppose you'll be permanently banned as soon as a moderator reads your posts.

I doubt it, as someone whos been on this board for quite a while I'd say that he wont get removed for saying that your actions are making you out to be a child. If he HAD called you a child then he would get a warning atleast but since he said your actions make you out to be one TECHNICALLY he didnt call you one....but stu here is a big enough lad to defend himself so I'll let him carry out his "defence".
Over to you stu!

So when Austrians pay the Iranians, who are producing nuclear weapons to kill all Jews, money to buy centrifuges, they're not supporting terrorists?

Do you buy anything from america? Do you buy anything from japan? China?
If so you are "supporting" terrorism..
www.eia.doe.gov...

Do you realise that the Iranians have already invaded American territory once? Do you realise that their current president was then one of the kidnappers?

Do you realise that america has actively supported thier number one terrorist osama bin laden?