European Union, Military Superpower!?!

This thread is getting pretty bizzarre.

1) The EU is not going to attack Israel!.

The EU is critical of certain Israeli policies (as anyone with eyes to see ought to be) but that is hardly anti-semetic or necessarily 'anti-Israeli'.

As for that weird interpretation of the Bible?
Knock yourself out and enjoy! Whatever 'floats your boat'.

2) It is true that in 1940 into 1941 U-Boats destroyed a significant (and, yes these were unsustainable losses if they had been able to continue it) part of the British merchant fleet.
But they did not sustain this for long enough......and for all the tonnage lost I suggest you check the actual size of the Brit merchant fleet to begin with; it was vast.

.....and lets not kid ourselves either; before the USA entered the war and it had become clear the UK would survive, the USA traded with the UK at top dollar and took most of the UK's reserves and empire territory as payment.....now that's all fair enough given the circumstances but it was loans and trade not aid.
There were no freebys.....in fact we continue to repay today IIRC.

3) France was not actually defeated in WW1.
Even the French near-mutiny of 1917 was hardly unusual given the circumstances, Germany collapsed completely a year after. So what?

It was an appalling war unlike any other.....I can promise you one thing, any smart a$$ed idiot making cracks like that around WW1 vets who experienced the truth of it and knew the score would soon be put straight as to how they ought to be ashmaed of themselves and didn't know what they were talking about. Ditto WW2.

In WW2 France fell after the shock of finding out WW2 was not to be a re-run of WW1.....that was a shock for everyone, even including the USA (and compared to the US forces in 1939-40.....you know before all the British tech and the nuclear scientists arrived? Wow, talk about not stand a chance).

But there you are, it was seriously tough on France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and the UK as we all suffered this shock first but the French defeat was hardly unique or down to some ludicrous notion of something lacking in the French character.

The comment comparing the French resistance to the regular French army just illustrates how little you understand the situation back then. The 'French regular army' were not in France for a start, what with France being so completely controlled and mostly occupied they could hardly be in France now could they? That really did limit their possible operations until after D-Day, right?

(You do know the Americans were outnumbered at D-Day by the British and Canadian troops alone, right?)

But this is just adolescent kiddies stuff isn't it?
Mere giggling name calling.
You can't possibly have the first clue nor live in a culture with the slightest idea about what living under an utterly amoral, ruthless and murderous total occupation is like or you would not be making such stupid insulting comments.
Man you must have some serious insecurities.

4) Krazy Ivan.....if you think French military history is 'unimpressive' how 'unimpressive' is Napoleon then? He only managed to utterly dominate Europe (and effectively the - then - world) for almost 20yrs.

5)Who by the way is this "we" who would allow Russia (in this very funny comical invasion that, firstly happens at all and, then, by-passes Germany but takes France! ) to 'take France'?

6) Do you know anything about the current French military? They have 5 modern long endurance nuclear submarines each with 16 modern highly accurate ballistic missiles (and unlike the UK's similar Trident D5 deterrent the French missiles are completely independant of any US involvement) with full stealthy MIRV capability for a start....2 always out on patrol.

7) Error 404....I tend to agree with you. We do indeed have far more in common than divides us. Same with the European countries as we relate to one another.
But I think there are those here who think that the unvarnished truth is anti-American.
This is idiotic and insulting to us in Europe where our families live and lived this stuff.

(plus there is just so much plain damn wrong gross ignorance masquerading as fact about the EU and what Europe is doing here at times, it's pitiful.....should us Europeans not attempt to set things straight?)

What do I think about the Iraqi/Afghan war and UK involvement?
I think the US was determined to go to war in the ME (especially Iraq) long before 9/11 (read the PNAC documents and the surrounding documents) and, given the pre-text, got together with some friends in UK intelligence and suckered the current UK gov into this.
I think our government to told either to come along or to f*ck off....IMO litterally.
The joy of 'with us or against us' fascism, huh?

I think Afghanistan was more 'just' than Iraq ever was.....but even there it's my view odd things went on....for instance it has been long forgotten but the much heralded bringing democracy and the removal of the Taliban and regime change was merely a late 'tacked on' war aim.

I believe our government - rightly - decided that the atlantic alliance was far too valuable to sacrifice (for us in the UK and everybody else, including Europe....and the USA for that matter) over a dangerous idiot like Bush and his ding-bat fundamentalist evangelical and neo-con crowd and their 'policies'.

It's my belief the UK intended and does act as a moderating influence on the US (just like Clement Attlee did with the 'nuke 'em all' war-perv lunatics in the US during the Korean war).

As far as the conduct of the UK troops goes? Well the news is loud and clear about that. The UK troops have generated far less hostility and because of it taken far less casualties.....proportionally.

The UK has been to Iraq before, we have a clue about the place. Much to our shame we tried to subjugate the place with gross brutality (gas attacks by air in the 1920's).

Perhaps that is why 'we' act with a sensitivity that is widely reported to be very lacking in the US approach.....plus things like our policies and behaviour in northern Ireland have clearly demonstrated the short-term and diminishing 'gains' such a policy can only create.

I have a mate out there. He tells me a little of what is going on.
Here's an example of what UK troops don't do but Americans did (and probably thought it really funny....til the consequences arrived).
US troops at one point were often to be found in HumVees driving around Mosques - during the religious services - with recorded announcements blaring out......now this might have been acceptable to a point given the practicalities but to follow the announcements with heavy metal music was just asking for a very large crowd of resentful angry people. Do you see?

8) There isn't a lot of 'friction' between the EU & the US.
There are those trying to get some going as they see the EU as a 'threat' to there plans for a world utterly dominated by the USA but we all know what they can do.

9) Now finally to return to topic.......

The EU is not attempting to become a military superpower.
That is not what has been proposed at all

There have been certain instances in the past where a 'Europe only' set-up would have been more flexible and quicker to act that the existing structures.

This is the issue being addressed by the allocation of certain national units to this new creation.....it might even be the same units already allocated to NATO. I don't know the full ins and outs of it but I do know it is exactly the same sort of idea.

There isn't going to be a 'new army, airforce or navy'.
There isn't going to be anything that does not already exist.

People in the USA can cast around for military threats as much as they like but it isn't going to be the EU.

Strategically we in the EU only spend the minimum we might - at a stretch - need.
Some people might reasonably say we could do with a slightly bigger army or a couple of squadrons of planes or maybe a few ships .....but that is just peripheral tinkering...... the idea that we would ever fundamentally and grossly bloat out our military to anything like the absurd size of the US's is just laughable.
But fundamentally Americans are on their own there.

Face it, America out-spends the next 35 countries in the 'league table' of militray spending combined.
We aren't playing that game - and we never will - and it's dawning on some Americans that they now have serious trouble justifying it as no-one is playing that game any more.

America's loss.
Pity they keep voting for politicians who keep wasting mountains of their cash on military kit & high-tech toys they will never need.

10) Go home Americans. There is no need for you to be staying in Europe now, WW2 is long over, the cold war is long over, the Russians went home 15yrs ago....why are you still here? Seriously, why?
There is nothing 'natural' about this. Just why are and why should be approx 116 000 assigned to Europe right now?
Save yourselves a lot of $ and go home.

Sadly you look more like an occupying army with each year that passes and this can only start to create problems for us all.


[edit on 13-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Thanks for setting it straight sminkeypinkey.

I always hear this arguement: " the EU will not become a federal state". Who said it will, does it have to? I don't think so.

Nationalism is no longer popular among the masses, and where it is, it is more like racism, and is in reaction to migration from outside Europe. The people of Europe are no longer roused into a frenzy by nationalistic rhetoric, unlike our American friends, and look beyond nationalities. The only thing holding back Europeans is fear of the unknown. If the EU slowly intergrates Europe, then people could accept the all-powerful EU.

sminkeypinkey, I agree totally with point 10. South Korea can take care of North Korea if needed why are we still there? Why are we still in Germany and the rest of Europe? I would like to see the US close bases that are not needed for National Security and bring the troops home.

Hehe I don't think South Korea could "Own" North Korea....

I agree, too much of the budget in the USA is spent on preparing and arming for war... too bad we create most of these conflicts that we have to send troops off to fight.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Sorry I think you got it wrong

uhh no he isnt.

The UK would not have lasted without the help of all the Allies with the US and Canada at the top of the list. Without safe Allied use of the Atlantic shipping lanes Britain could not have survived. To obtain sufficient food to sustain her people, and to import the raw materials to prosecute the war, of necessity, Britain needed to look westwards to North America.

we werent allies when we where buying supplies from you. you where the closest one , we could have picked better.

The German U-Boat service decimated Britain's Merchant Fleet in the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic.

yeah and we rebuilt it.

In April of 1941, 800,000 tons of shipping was sent to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, by U-Boats, these ships were being sunk at a faster rate than they could be built.

yeah and we dstroyed every 2 in 3 of german u boats. they only had 830 operational and we destroyed 510 of them.

Where do you think those supplys came from? Without those supplies the UK couldnt even feed themselves let alone fighting the Germans. And taking back Europe forget about it.

we could actually. it was other sources and i dont think you can call tradeing supporting a country in a war.

Without the ship building industry of North America and ships like the Liberty Ships and the supplies they carried the UK would have fallen to Hitler sooner or later. It would only have been a waiting game for Germany then.

uhh so the whole clyde,liverpool and forth industries where what?.....fishing boats?

[edit on 13-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Getting supplys is perhaps on of the most important factors in a war. And without them nobody can win a war. What were you going to grow the food in the UK mine your own steel? The UK could not produce enough of any by itself.

One of the draw backs to being a small island nation, It saved you from the same fate as the rest of Europe but it was also your biggest weakness in WW2.

Where eles where you going to get food and supplies Nazi controled Europe LOL? Anyone that claims the UK could have beaten the Germans alone is just wrong.

The US, Russia, Canada, etc.. without their help the UK would have fallen to the AXIS.

Although im sick of people who keep focusing on an event that ended 60 years ago...

WW2 was a work of collectiveness by world powers.. not one single country saved the world.

Originally posted by RedOctober90


WW2 was a work of collectiveness by world powers.. not one single country saved the world.

There we go this guy knows what hes talking about. It was the Allies fighting in WW2 not just one country. No one country could have beaten the AXIS powers not matter what anyone says.

Lets look at some basic facts about Korea. South Korea has a vibrant economy which enables it to spend large sums of money on military hardware and training. The North Koreans have an economy in shambles that is not even able to feed its own people. It is kind of hard to fight or even train on an empty stomach. The South has the most modern up to date weapons available and the North still pretty much is using the 50�s and 60�s years technology. The North has somewhere around 1 million soldiers and the South has around 750,000 soldiers. So to recap the South has a well trained and equipped military and the North has a starving army using old soviet 50�s and 60�s military equipment that is not very well trained. I�s put my money on south Korea any day of the week.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Lets look at some basic facts about Korea. South Korea has a vibrant economy which enables it to spend large sums of money on military hardware and training. The North Koreans have an economy in shambles that is not even able to feed its own people. It is kind of hard to fight or even train on an empty stomach. The South has the most modern up to date weapons available and the North still pretty much is using the 50�s and 60�s years technology. The North has somewhere around 1 million soldiers and the South has around 750,000 soldiers. So to recap the South has a well trained and equipped military and the North has a starving army using old soviet 50�s and 60�s military equipment that is not very well trained. I�s put my money on south Korea any day of the week.

The N Korea army is the best people feed in the country. Where do yu think all that aid food goes to the people? The reason their economy is in shambles is because they spend most of their money on their millitary.

N Korea can turn most of Seol into dust in under a hour with just the amount of "1950s" artillery they have on the border.

And N Korea was nukes Its not getting owned by S korea at all.

That's why I think the US military keeps a presence on South Korea.. maybe it is not totally confident in the ability of South Korea to completely withstand a large invasion from North Korea. Plus, I think North Korea does indeed have nukes and would swing them around and level a South Korean city which would probably put the country itself into chaos.

But it's sad we have to focus so much time on military than on progressiveness. But when you have seperatists running around, military is a good idea to have around.

Sure Shadow.. I bet they keep those artilery pieces loaded and ready all day and all night! One move by the South and they would launch a nice barrage of artillery shells to level everything, and launch ICBM's or nuclear tipped artillery shells to destroy an approaching army.
[edit on 13-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 13-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 13-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

N Korea can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. I forgot all about their massive stockpiles of biochemical weapons. 1/2 a million shells thats insane

2 artillery corps and 30 artillery brigades equipped with 120mm self-propelled guns, 152mm self-propelled mortars, 170mm guns with a range of 50 km, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers with a range of 45 km, and other heavy guns. North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world.

It might not be high tech but it will level cites all the same

www.libertyforum.... org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=588774&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=-1

[edit on 13-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I believe this article says it all. Sorry to get off post but.......

www.g2mil.com...

I have no doubt there are serious and very dangerous tensions in the Korean peninsula.....particularly when certain highly placed people seem more interested in going out of their way to add to them rather than defusing and reducing them.

Maybe there is a need for a US presence there; I'd say that was between the USA and the Sth Koreans and whatever they can work out with the Nth Koreans (and, if they still have them, their friends....China, Russia?).

However I was referring to Europe.

Can anyone give a good reason why so many Americans and so many American bases should still be operating on European soil?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


However I was referring to Europe.

Can anyone give a good reason why so many Americans and so many American bases should still be operating on European soil?

I dont see any reason why there needs to be US bases in Europe other then them allowing us forward airbases on that side of the world. No need from large tank numbers in Germany any more

It really is up to the repective host countries if the bases shold be there or not. I am not aware of any European goverments ordering a US base out of their country.

I do feel there is a need for them in S Korea and I dont see S Korea asking the US to leave either.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont see any reason why there needs to be US bases in Europe other then them allowing us forward airbases on that side of the world. No need from large tank numbers in Germany any more

- I'm sure refueling rights can always be negotiated.

It really is up to the repective host countries if the bases shold be there or not. I am not aware of any European goverments ordering a US base out of their country.

- Now come on Shadow....surely it'll not come to that?
(I'm reminded of that all-too-frequent - there's always one! - 'last to leave at a party' guy, you know the dude who just won't take the hint? )

I do feel there is a need for them in S Korea and I dont see S Korea asking the US to leave either.

- Naaa, I can't see that for one for a while yet myself.
Mind you many young Sth Koreans regularly protest the division and US military presence; who knows?



[edit on 13-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Now come on Shadow....surely it'll not come to that?
(I'm reminded of that all-too-frequent - there's always one!

- 'last to leave at a party' guy, you know the dude who just won't take the hint?

)

[edit on 13-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Good point I know exactly what you mean You dont have to go home but you cant stay here

Well, that's an interesting take on an old religion. I've heard Americans say things like "God bless America" and whatever, but I've never actually heard any biblical references to it.

The fact of the matter is that there are no chosen people. America is in a position of economic hegemony for very real economic reasons (see Bretton Woods). Similarly, it is for very real economic reasons that they are in decline. Simply having the biggest military in the world isn't all that its cracked up to be; it costs a lot of money, and most of that expense is in fact being paid for by the rest of the world (US debt is currently at approx. 7$US7.4 trillion). Your little "chosen people" thing rings a little bit hollow when you stop and reflect that about half of that money was loaned to the US by China. It is even more humourous to reflect on the fact that America has to go begging for some $US2 billion every single day just to pay its own internal bills (see deficit, which is fundamentally different from debt. The debt is what you already owe. The deficit is the difference between what you earn and what you owe (the so-called "red-ink")).

Military hegemony is entirely dependent on dollar hegemony. Anybody who thinks that the two can exist separately should look at the former USSR, which was at the absolute height of its military power when it collapsed into economic insolvency. Now, the bulk of its once powerful military is rusting in port.

And no, the Euro is not poised to become the next hegemonous currency, because just as a military hegemony cannot exist outside the bounds of economic reality, neither can economic hegemony exist outside of one's capacity to police that currency. Until Europe develops a military of its own, it is signalling to the world that it does not yet want to be the fiat issuer of a new globally hegemonous reserve currency.

Thomas

are you talkin to me, cuz that post wasn't really intended to be the truth... in fact i am more of a believer of America being Mystery/Whore Babylon, where it gets destroyed then the US being Israel, although it would be cool to see heaven open up and see angels attack the opposing force even if you were the opposing force.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

There we go this guy knows what hes talking about. It was the Allies fighting in WW2 not just one country. No one country could have beaten the AXIS powers not matter what anyone says.

THATS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR THE LAST GOD KNOWS HOW LONG!
we couldnt have won the war but we could have held.

the romans were undeniably the most powerful in their time, as were the greeks in their own time, the carthaginians were wiped out by the Romans before they set up the greek pharos in egypt (cleopatra),

Well...if your gonna try and get all technical, the Carthagians put up a good scrap, to the point they ravaged the Italian penisular for 10 years whilst the Senate Army cowered in fear.

And the Greek Pharoahs where set up in the time of Alexander, hence the fact the the subsequent Pharoahs where call Ptomelic, as it was Alexanders General Ptolemy who was first.

EDIT: I must add thet every wife of the Greek Pharoah (who was always called Ptolemy I think) was called Cleopatra, and she was also his sister.... useless bit of info for you there.

what does this have to do with the EU as a military super power?

Dunno, you brought up that how only one superpower can exist thing, and mentioned History, i was merely pointing out some glaring innacuracies.

Besides, who wants ANOTHER arms race? Lost count of how many we've had now in the past century, and they always end up with somebody crying.....

[edit on 16/11/04 by stumason]