EU to integrate military forces

[Black Red Devil]

14 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I think that's his recommended solution to the EU's intransigence over Brexit: send a battleship to shell Brussels! 

What intransigence?  As Steve basically mentions, Brexit is off topic here, but it seems that everyone else can talk about it.  You mean their competitiveness to look after their own Business?  What were your expectations that the EU, scrub previous agreements and zero all costs (debts), maintain Free Trade and offer the UK a seat at the EU table as a non Member with no commitments but the power to make decisions?

Maybe you guys should get ol' Nige back.  Nothing holding him back with his ludicrous requests in his discourse post-Brexit (see from 4:52 to 6:25). How about the guy sitting at 123, hilarious.

 

[RAyMO]

Trump when launching his security plan

Mr Trump also said that wealthy countries must recognise that they need to "reimburse" the US for the costs of defending them.

Probably another factor encouraging the EU down the path it has seemed to have chosen.

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That might be a very sensible idea, do you not think. - being independent of whatever blundering fool might install himself in the White House next, I mean. 

sensible and a sign of European confidence and maturity. The Cold War is over, threats have changed and even though Russia is still a problem, it’s just not nearly as big as it used to be for Europe. I guess the era of blind obedience is over. or at least some in Europe would like it to be.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

If you had a metaphorical set of scales and on one side you had actions and history and on the other words (tweets) from Trump, which side do you think would carry more weight?

prrsonally I’m all for the EU wanting to protect themselves, as long as it is for the right reasons.  Right now though I can’t help feeling that the EU is busy making its members so reliant on Brussels for everything.  Which I guess that’s ok but if it does mean NATO members have choices to make, them it is a problem.

If the EU wasn’t such a conceited, self absorbed organisation it could be talking to NATO about some form of joint cooperation, how strong would a NATO bolstered by contributions from all the EU member states be?

obviously the collective before Trump would outweigh Trumps prior remarks but what would really change if NATO took a backseat to a united Europe defence pact? wouldn’t America and possibly GB still be an ally? and what makes the EU anymore conceited and self absorbed than NATO? 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

8 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

What intransigence?  As Steve basically mentions, Brexit is off topic here, but it seems that everyone else can talk about it.

I think you were overlooking the humorous intent behind that post. 

[godnodog]

The only reason I am aware of a problem of Pesco-Nato is the command central, having 2 distinct commands will cause problems down the chain of commands.

As Pesco being necessary? Absolutly is, Europe cant be lead by the US when the US is directed by peoplemlike Trump, heck not even the US can afford that (forign policy, internly I dont care).

Pesco can perfectly be organized in conjunction with Nato.

As for those who say the EU will be gone in 10/20 years, I bet the UK as we know it will gone sooner, mainly Scotland leaving.

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I think you were overlooking the humorous intent behind that post. 

Indeed I did.

[stevewinn]

10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

I don't have to explain, I'll just redirect you back to my previous post pointing you to the words of the NATO Supremo and the Lisbon Treaty intentions.  How they'll end up integrating the two and the associated budgets is up to the people paid to make those decisions.  To suggest they've never thought it through, well that's just.....  That you and Admiral NOT (let me guess, voted BREXIT?) have your doubts is up to interpretation, which I pointed out, but to me the move of a common EU "Defense" force seems to be in line with the project laid out in Lisbon. 

Time will tell on this one. trouble is its many years into the future. until then keep posting.

[stevewinn]

challenges such as this will have to be overcome. If a EU-Defence force are to be realised.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a14480191/germanys-entire-submarine-fleet-is-out-of-commission/?src=socialflowTW&src=socialflowTW

http://www.janes.com/article/75790/over-half-of-bundeswehr-s-leopard-2-mbts-are-not-operationally-ready

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-germanys-air-force-dying-14549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34983396

Pick any number of EU countries and its the same across the board.

 

 

 

[Grey Area]

7 hours ago, stevewinn said:

challenges such as this will have to be overcome. If a EU-Defence force are to be realised.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a14480191/germanys-entire-submarine-fleet-is-out-of-commission/?src=socialflowTW&src=socialflowTW

http://www.janes.com/article/75790/over-half-of-bundeswehr-s-leopard-2-mbts-are-not-operationally-ready

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-germanys-air-force-dying-14549

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34983396

Pick any number of EU countries and its the same across the board.

 

 

 

Well... who needs operational hardware when you have the EU in your pocket and the combined military of a potential EU army.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Well... who needs operational hardware when you have the EU in your pocket and the combined military of a potential EU army.

so the NATO alliance was and presumably still is a sensible idea to unite the countries of the Free World against the Red menace, but any similar idea for European countries is merely a cynical ploy by Germany to get others to do the fighting for you because its government has been stupid enough to run down its armed forces?  

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

so the NATO alliance was and presumably still is a sensible idea to unite the countries of the Free World against the Red menace, but any similar idea for European countries is merely a cynical ploy by Germany to get others to do the fighting for you because its government has been stupid enough to run down its armed forces?  

Well I was really just being facetious, to be completely honest when it comes to the EU nothing would surprise me anymore.

It wouldn’t surprise me if all the presidents and officials were simply front men and the guy who makes all the decisions is a senile old cat lover living on the moon, and the ESA periodically makes covert moon landings to ask him random questions and to drop off a new crossword.

[+and-then]

On 12/18/2017 at 5:47 PM, Captain Risky said:

sensible and a sign of European confidence and maturity. The Cold War is over, threats have changed and even though Russia is still a problem, it’s just not nearly as big as it used to be for Europe. I guess the era of blind obedience is over. or at least some in Europe would like it to be.

I agree totally that the EU should stand up and build their own force.  I'd also remind everyone here that it took NATO (without U.S. firepower) 6 months to "liberate" Libya.  That's a second or third rate military, BTW.  If Vlad decided he wanted to gobble up a few European states, I think NATO would be in a bit of a pinch without the U.S. today.  Lucky for everyone that Vlad's such a nice guy, huh?

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, and then said:

I agree totally that the EU should stand up and build their own force.  I'd also remind everyone here that it took NATO (without U.S. firepower) 6 months to "liberate" Libya.  That's a second or third rate military, BTW.  If Vlad decided he wanted to gobble up a few European states, I think NATO would be in a bit of a pinch without the U.S. today.  Lucky for everyone that Vlad's such a nice guy, huh?

Bolded: irony well noted.

The thing is that even though the U.S. didn't contribute proportionally to its size, it still played an active part,  particularly initial cruise missile strikes and bombing sorties. without the U.S. back seat contribution the Libyan war would have been a shambles. yes, the EU has a long way to go to act independently of the U.S.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, and then said:

I agree totally that the EU should stand up and build their own force.  I'd also remind everyone here that it took NATO (without U.S. firepower) 6 months to "liberate" Libya.  That's a second or third rate military, BTW.  If Vlad decided he wanted to gobble up a few European states, I think NATO would be in a bit of a pinch without the U.S. today.  Lucky for everyone that Vlad's such a nice guy, huh?

If anyone could come up with any rational suggestions as to why he might want to, beyond that "he's mad/evil/a dictator, and invading Poland is what they always do" the old bogey of Big Bad Vlad might have a bit more plausibility. 

And I'm sorry? The US remained aloof from the operation to bring Freedom to the oppressed people of Libya by turning it into a terrorist breeding ground? 

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

without the U.S. back seat contribution the Libyan war would have been a shambles

You mean it wasn't? Or didn't the result matter, since once Libya's Mad Dictator had been b*****ed to death by a bayonet  the Free countries of the West dropped it like a sackful of bricks and hurried off to plot their next Regime Change scheme (and how many countries has the West brought disaster to in the last 15 years or so, And Then, compared with the number that Russia's Tyrant Putin has?)

Edited December 23, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Unusual Tournament]

32 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You mean it wasn't? Or didn't the result matter, since once Libya's Mad Dictator had been b*****ed to death by a bayonet  the Free countries of the West dropped it like a sackful of bricks and hurried off to plot their next Regime Change scheme (and how many countries has the West brought disaster to in the last 15 years or so, And Then, compared with the number that Russia's Tyrant Putin has?)

not talking about the result, just the execution of the Libyan war.

but like you i find the reasoning of all of Obama's wars nonsensical other than keeping the middle east region in a continual flux of turmoil and disorganisation. which is prolly what America and the West want. and if that is the case then the Libyan war was a great success.  

Edited December 23, 2017 by Captain Risky

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

West brought disaster to in the last 15 years or so,

Have any of those wars ended yet - I mean has any arena returned to what we in the West would call normal life. That most have not is an indictment of modern warfare. But then I am forgetting the 100 years war and such I suppose.

[Black Monk]

On 18/12/2017 at 11:47 PM, Captain Risky said:

sensible and a sign of European confidence and maturity. The Cold War is over, threats have changed and even though Russia is still a problem, it’s just not nearly as big as it used to be for Europe. I guess the era of blind obedience is over. or at least some in Europe would like it to be.

Russia is no problem at all, and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has just visited Moscow in a spirit of friendship.

As we all know, the real problematic power in Europe today is the EU, whose expanisionist empire-building started the conflict in Ukraine.

[Black Monk]

On 18/12/2017 at 1:00 AM, Black Red Devil said:

I doubt it but I hope you guys well.

It's the greatest thing to have happened to Britain since 1945.

And if you think the EU is so great, why don't you petition your government for Australia to join? You'd probably love being ruled by unelected foreigners in Brussels rather than being an independent state. You're already in Eurovision.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

On 18/12/2017 at 0:52 AM, Likely Guy said:

Hey! You had a bit of friggin' help there. If the rest of the Commonwealth (at least) would have stayed home you'd have been swallowed like France.

That's not true. The RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain, as well as the Channel and the Royal Navy ships patrolling it, paid heed to Germany's invasion plans.

[Black Monk]

On 19/12/2017 at 8:13 AM, godnodog said:

As for those who say the EU will be gone in 10/20 years, I bet the UK as we know it will gone sooner, mainly Scotland leaving.

I bet it isn't.

As for the Scots, they showed what they think about breaking away from the UK earlier this year by reducing the number of "nationalist" (they're not true Scottish nationalists as they want Scotland to be in the EU, not to be an independent, self-governing, sovereign nation state) MPs in the Commons from 56 to 35.

The EU is terminal and the UK - the most successful political union in history - will still be around long after the EU's gone.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Black Monk

[godnodog]

2 hours ago, Black Monk said:

I bet it isn't.

As for the Scots, they showed what they think about breaking away from the UK earlier this year by reducing the number of "nationalist" (they're not true Scottish nationalists as they want Scotland to be in the EU, not to be an independent, self-governing, sovereign nation state) MPs in the Commons from 56 to 35.

The EU is terminal and the UK - the most successful political union in history - will still be around long after the EU's gone.

toatally disagree with your assessment.

Happy hollydays mate

[bmk1245]

Main point: how much it will cost? New political/military entity will end with additional 1000+ bureaucrats with zero efficiency. Period.

[Black Monk]

59 minutes ago, godnodog said:

toatally disagree with your assessment.

So? Doesn't mean I'm wrong.