EU vs NATO

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Commie Russia is gone, and more than liely, no more major military actions will occur in Europe, so yes, NATO needs to go. Followed by the UN.

Thanks for a good laugh. No more major military actions will occur in Europe about ten years after the universe ceases to exist. I wish it were otherwise, but your optimism is almost certainly misplaced.

As for NATO, bear in mind that the best army is that which need not be used. Sun Tzu had some memorable insights on that.

I watch the rapid formation of the European Union with both interest and concern. There is much more to the EU story than its proponents would have you believe, and some of the cast of characters involved with the EU's nascence ought to give you pause for thought. Your mileage may vary, but be ready for a serious case of buyer's remorse down the road.

Millennia of historical forces cannot be lightly swept aside, and concentration of political power makes it all the easier to seize (we are seeing this play out in the U.S.). I may, of course, be hopelessly wrong, but I see a very dangerous storm brewing in Europe. Time will tell.

We live in interesting times. However things may go, my sincerest best wishes go out to all my friends across the pond.

i somehow doubt a large scale military event is going to happen in europe for a long long time..

who is there to invade us... Russia... nope why bother... China... they would basically have to declare war on the world... nope can't think of any other countries.

Peace in our time? Europe has been the scene of more than one "war to end all wars".

The danger to Europe does not come from outside, but from within.

Beware, and let's both pray that I am wrong.

who is going to fight each other in europe...
the main powers in europe won't go to war with each other

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm truly sorry. War will continue in Europe.

i'm still waiting for which two or more countries would go to war with each other...

if there is any aggression in the future it will be from the out side of europe

I am not a prophet (nor anyone of consequence), just an observer, so I expect you to take what I say with a grain of salt, and welcome challenges to my opinions with gratitude. I always learn more than I teach in public forums, which is what makes them a profitable use of my time, by and large. Knowledge is power.

Nation-to-nation conflict, per se, is not what threatens the people of the European Union. It is the consolidation of power itself.

Remember the lessons of the twentieth century. Millions died in wars, but tens of millions were killed by their own governments. Remember the Soviet Union. It is not an identical case by any means, but there are and will be parallels.

Formalized conflict between nations will not disappear entirely anytime soon, but has already been eclipsed by more amorphous forms of combat that either transcend national boundaries or are conducted within them by indigenous governments: counterinsurrection, political purges, police activities, "pacification" initiatives, genocide programs, etc. These are the threats you face, not invasion.

The very idea of national boundaries is being challenged -- a seductive proposition for people weary of an endless series of wars -- but not without cost and consequences that may very well prove worse.

The most immediate threat to Europe is not external. People may forget or dismiss history, but it has a long memory. What many have tried to achieve violently, Europe is attempting to do peacefully. It won't be that easy.

If you are looking outside Europe for threats, you are looking in the wrong place. The tanks and troops you face next will be your own. The fact that it will all be "civil" will be a bitter irony.

Your new emperor is already polishing his crown.

ok lets look at this who actually has the power to fight a war
france,italy,spain,britain,sweeden and most of the small balcklan states.
now the big boys like france and co aint gona go to war for nothing short of invasion of bombing,the smaller ones just go to war for absolutely no reason.
now all sure we have to remember that wars started here in europe before but you gota relise europe has lost its warlike tendacies ,take germany thier society has had the military battred out of them. all im saying is that all that could happen is if there was a major polictical incident or russia got a huge influx of money and decided to go and try take europe.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

You do not need to be able to fight a war to suppress dissent or commit genocide.

The people of Europe are in danger, not from without, but from within. I am comfortable going on record saying this.

We'll see how truly secure you are under the "watchful eyes".

Trouble is brewing. You can stop it, but only if you choose to.

so which countries are going to go to war with each other in europe???
you still even made an educated guess

Europe has had it's internal military fighting beaten out of it in WW2

Originally posted by Majic
You do not need to be able to fight a war to suppress dissent or commit genocide.

The people of Europe are in danger, not from without, but from within. I am comfortable going on record saying this.

We'll see how truly secure you are under the "watchful eyes".

Trouble is brewing. You can stop it, but only if you choose to.

Three words........what the f%$K???
People of Europe are in danger?? of what?? Europe is currently united for the first time in history, well ok maybe thats abit wrong, and genocide!?!? who is going to commit the slaughter??.........Sorry but Fascism died along time ago in Europe

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but to date, history is leaning heavily in favor of my predictions on this one.

Originally posted by Majic
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but to date, history is leaning heavily in favor of my predictions on this one.

well i can safely say your wrong, no offence but your a wanna be WhispersInTheDark look him up if you don't know what im talking about....

I won't take offense. Some of my posts are more declarative than they should be, to be sure. I am not a prophet, nor anyone of consequence, although I can be prone to forget to inject disclaimers in every one of my posts. Guess I should update my .sig. **

Now if you were to call me a "wannabe John Titor", them's fightin' words.

The danger is nonetheless real. Europe has been united before. I am not suggesting that doing so is necessarily a bad thing, but there are inherent risks in even the best-laid of such plans.

Beware the inevitable and upcoming power grabs.


**Edit: .sig updated to include the words "Don't believe anything I post." That oughtta do it.

[edit on 7/18/2004 by Majic]

Europe doesn't need an EU military force. What's the point? Each country has it's own military, and they can work together as and when required. A joint EU defense force is just another attempted power grab by federalists, and won't ever happen while the UK is part of the EU. UK troops fight for UK interests, not Franco/German bureaucrats!

Anyway we have to stay independent so we can save Europe's arse again if the EU gets too uppity.


[edit on 18-7-2004 by muppet]

Iirc the politicians justified this with what happened in Bosnia when nato and US forces were deployed to force peace. So it's not just the EU inside, but geographically close places too.

Just because the Cold War is over does not mean NATO is finished. One of the benefits to NATO membership is that it does not impose any economic regulations or delve its claws into the government, tearing away the sovereignty of once independent nations. The EU reads more like a Franco-German pact, assimilating other countries for its own economic gains.

I dont see how the Franco-German union will continue to thrive in the decades to come. Does the EU really have the interests of smaller eastern european countries in mind? The logistics of it all would seem to be a nightmare. So many different cultures and languages, traditions and customs; all to be blended into one Union. That in itself may cause problems in the years ahead as countries seek to reclaim their identity and resources and other countries claiming that they no longer own them, that they are part of the EU. Nations would take sides and that is how war could errupt across Europe, starting small like most military conflicts in Europe but with the potential to have global impact.

My opinion is that NATO will stick around and focus its efforts on other potential threats such as terrorism. Besides, it is more an organization of resources used for a common cause versus entirely separate equipment and personnel that is to be committed on a permanent basis.

Our bases will remain in many parts of Europe for forward deployment to other locations throughout the world. That in itself pays for out presence. Some may be combined and others downsized but we will always maintain a presence in Europe.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by fawlty]

Well now where should I begin. First you are all making assumptions that are false. With far reaching consequences
Valdimir Putin's take over of the appointment of local government officials and the impending implementation of Government approval of Legislative candidates seems to be a bit worrisome (FOR YOU). The US will finish the complete withdrawal of all US Armed Forces in about 2 years and it seems to me since no country in the EU ( except England )actually has an army will lead to Russian political/economic/military domination. England will remain unaffected because most of us are from their and no matter if they dislike or like us we shrug it off. We will fight and die to protect England unlike say France or Germany or Belgium or Holland or ... you get the picture. The US is deploying our Missile Shield System in England ( if this is not yet known in the EU than catch up ) not to protect say France, who the majority of Americans hate, but England. At any rate you kids on the other side of the English Channel may want to think about spending more than 0.03% of your GNP on your armed forces. It might come in handy after we are gone.

While the topic has been raised if France is going to be the "Counterbalance to the US" would not France need ... oh lets say an economy 46 times larger and an actual army. Word to the wise Sudan has a larger and more powerful army than France.

As for NATO since we are militarily pulling out and our traitorous Allies not only refused to help but sold their UN veto to Saddam Hussein there really is no NATO. Another fact I am almost certain you do not know is that we are establishing two bases in Poland, our new ally, to meet our rapid deployment needs. Trust me any threat to our former Allies does not meet the requirements of said "Deployment Needs".

I would continue but so many "facts" have been posted to correct that it would take all night. One more thing we reelected Bush for two reasons; we are in a World War and need a President that without hesitation will do what is required to protect America even if that means launching hundreds of nuclear weapons and we wanted to piss France off - Mission Accomplished.

A citizen of the US who really cares less about you response.

Originally posted by Majic
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm truly sorry. War will continue in Europe.

Europe has gone pass the time of major wars, at the moment its only building fast recon forces to aid on crisis such as africa has, causing starving, genocide etc. So you cant really call it as building major military power if its based on small group of task forces and other to aid it. And still many EU nations run their own separete military forces and those have always been able to join their forces on crisis (NATO), have to agree US is majority on that table. still most EU countrys have militarys that are tailored to defend the country, so that brings the idea to make EU task forces.
To get EU fighting "civil war" isnt really option, you may only see isolation if economy growth stop and start to go down rabidly and thats not on sight atm cause theres taken acts to prevent it.
In future i see europe as one of the neutral territorys on globe place where different cultures have place to live, its not gonna happen in 10 years or so but its my vision cause so far as i look around me i see people thinking out of box generally, every country still has their madmans but long as they are kept out of power everything is fine, as seen Italy just withdraw one of its emissarie cause major comission didnt want radical thinker to center of EU.
So generally long as economy stayes as it is or gets better European countrys have no reason to think war, im optimistic about economy cause now theres China / india and bunch of other countrys to rely and those wont outrun EU for a while long as we keep doing our internal changes and do things we are good at. Have you seen any european country having dictators in past 30 years? No monarchs have power anymore, only working as tourist atraction and cultural monuments currently, few country have presidents / prime ministers that has nearly absolute power, but still cant call those dictators. For example look at China that has its own way of goverment, but as looking that country history record it seems to be only way that has run its past 2000 years in general.

Have to point out also that EU havent been aggressor on any conflict long as its been formed, Britain and some other countrys have acted as their own, doesnt still talk majority of current EU. Some narrow minded might see EU as enemy but still EU has generally much more allies than possible enemys.

Future is to build goalitions of countrys to in future unite whole earth, its only future that will allow to prevent human extention, people arent our problem long as we get over population on control. To effectively travel on space all countrys needed united to do so and EU takes effort on that by running global political space projects instead only it self military based space race.

Originally posted by Cobalt
it seems to me since no country in the EU ( except England )actually has an army

U better call it the Britsh Army, unless u want to provoke a fight with the Welsh, Scots and northern Irish on here!!

The US is deploying our Missile Shield System in England ( if this is not yet known in the EU than catch up ) not to protect say France, who the majority of Americans hate, but England.

The system is principally being deployed to give early protection from missiles headed to the us not for missiles aimed at the UK. The US did exactly the same when they placed nuclear tipped missiles in Canada to shoot down russian bomber formations during the cold war. They were there to protect the US, any extra protection to canada was a coincedence.

At any rate you kids on the other side of the English Channel may want to think about spending more than 0.03% of your GNP on your armed forces. It might come in handy after we are gone.

You should spend more on your health care system too

While the topic has been raised if France is going to be the "Counterbalance to the US" would not France need ... oh lets say an economy 46 times larger and an actual army. Word to the wise Sudan has a larger and more powerful army than France.


there GDP is 1/3 of the US not 1/46? As for the sudan what are you basing this on, numbers or military effectiveness.

The idea behind the Eu forces is to do away with areas where there is excessive repitition. Do the EU countries really need 15 military planning departments etc. All countries retain control over there individual forces/equipment.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by paperplane_uk]