Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

EU to integrate military forces


The Truman show
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

that's possibly. another scenario is a smaller EU with the Baltic's, Poland and other central European countries leaving the EU and making an independent alliance with the U.S. or even Russia.  But that does nothing for British security. 

It would have to take a big political earthquake for Poland and the Baltics to consider recreating the Warsaw Pact .. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If it hadn't been for Blücher, Waterloo station would have had to have been called... something else. 

Those were the days! ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FLOMBIE said:

Those were the days! ;)

A damn close run thing enough, even without old Vorwärts. 

Blücher (nach Gebauer).jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah, but they probably all invested in Betamax as well ! :P 

The two are completely compatible :w00t:  Seriously, though, the prediction was based on Daniel 9:26  "and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary"

Roman Legions destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple/Sanctuary in AD 70.  The Prince who is to come is another description of the AC.  For many years it was assumed that this man would arise in a renewed Roman empire.  For there to be a new empire, there would need to be a unification politically and economically and finally, militarily.  Joel Richardson's research puts reasonable doubt on the veracity of this train of thought, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

That is not German, but Germanic. It's a difference. But I agree, some people do hold a grudge. My personal experience shows it's a minority, though. 

not much of one. and i wanna correct what i implied earlier that its not all Brit's that still fear Ze Germans just a minority. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/12/2017 at 0:36 PM, Black Red Devil said:

Your constant attempts to undermine anything the EU does is starting to appear more like attempts to convince yourself, at all costs, that BREXIT was the best thing that ever happened to Britain.  Ever consider the possibility that your arrogant attempts to display constant British superiority over the "continentals" may turn out to be wrong?  I'm sure we won't be seeing much of you on UM if things turn South for Britain will we? :P

Brexit is certainly the best thing to have happened to Great Britain since she won WWII in 1945.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If it hadn't been for Blücher, Waterloo station would have had to have been called... something else. 

Rubbish. Wellington would have beaten Boney without Blucher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

Rubbish. Wellington would have beaten Boney without Blucher.

You've gotta love chauvinism. I suppose we'd have beaten Adolf too without the Yanks and the Russkies, given time. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You've gotta love chauvinism. I suppose we'd have beaten Adolf too without the Yanks and the Russkies, given time. 

It's not chauvinism. It's a historical fact.

And, yes, Britain would have won WWII without the Americans.

Edited by Black Monk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you must have the most advanced case of xenophobia I've ever seen, if you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the help of an ally two hundred years ago. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I think you must have the most advanced case of xenophobia I've ever seen, if you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the help of an ally two hundred years ago. 

I you think knowing that Wellington would have won Waterloo without Blucher is the most advanced case of xenophobia you've ever seen then I have serious worries about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2017 at 0:15 AM, stevewinn said:

The figures represent the total spend in members budgets. Not their contribution to NATO. i.e the USA doesn't not spend $600Billion on NATO. 

To quote myself from above. The USA spends $650Billion ON IT'S military. hope it clears up any confusion.

 

 

Not really but doesn't matter because I don't see an issue because nothing's going to change IMO.  It's a benefit to both Europeans and US Govt's.  The US provides the manpower and equipment and Europeans provide the Basis.  The US benefits financially through Arms sales where they made $36 billion in 2014 (obviously not all to Europe but a large chunk) and Europe cuts down on their Defense costs.  The win-win is they keep the Russians at bay.

 

On 12/17/2017 at 0:15 AM, stevewinn said:

purely on financial and treaty grounds, in my opinion it wont be possible for dual membership of both NATO and a European defence force, The Lisbon treaty laid the frame work for a EU army and as this 'new' EU defence pact develops over the coming years it will lead to EU members having to adhere and abiding to first and foremost the EU treaty obligations. In the wider context of the EU building its capabilities to meet those same standards of NATO today the EU members of NATO will have to cut back on standing NATO commitments. They simply cannot do both. 

 

This isn't what the Lisbon Treaty says.

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The policy of the Union in accordance with this article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

Nor from the NATO Secretary General

Strategic partnership between NATO and the EU has never been more important than it is today.  The challenges of our times demand a comprehensive approach to security, in which military and civil means are employed together and in a coordinated way.  There is no stronger civil player than the European Union.  And there is no stronger military alliance than NATO.  There is therefore in my view only one conclusion – we must finally get serious with the strategic partnership!  I know that that is the aim of the German Presidency of the Council.  And I shall do everything I can to support it in that aim.  Thank you.  link

 

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Brexit is certainly the best thing to have happened to Great Britain since she won WWII in 1945.

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.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2017 at 0:15 AM, stevewinn said:

In answer to your next question. (quoted below)

How have i undermined the EU's future defence pact? because I've pointed out it currently lacks the capability to rival NATO on size scope and assets, posters are saying this is what the EU proposal is a Europe moving away from NATO and US influence and taking responsibility for its own defence. well, forgive me for asking how this is going to be financed.

I even ended my original post with the comments. I hope the EU continues with their Defence force policy and wish them well.

Not every post as to be about Brexit you know. in fact it was only you who mentioned it.

 

Well you're not asking, you're implying,

In the wider context of the EU building its capabilities to meet those same standards of NATO today the EU members of NATO will have to cut back on standing NATO commitments. They simply cannot do both. 

This is called attempting to undermine their capabilities. 

God forbid, nothing wrong with throwing your doubts on the forum but let's put it this way, your doubts seem to be regularly anti-EU and pro-UK which is what you would call someone being biased.  I just simply pointed that out to you.  How much humble pie will you be eating if all your negative impressions of the EU turn out to be wrong?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Brexit is certainly the best thing to have happened to Great Britain since she won WWII in 1945.

I doubt it but I hope you guys well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Hey! You had a bit of friggin' help there.

:P Black Monk's mind is still stuck in the Victorian age.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

:P Black Monk's mind is still stuck in the Victorian age.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Well you're not asking, you're implying,

In the wider context of the EU building its capabilities to meet those same standards of NATO today the EU members of NATO will have to cut back on standing NATO commitments. They simply cannot do both. 

This is called attempting to undermine their capabilities. 

God forbid, nothing wrong with throwing your doubts on the forum but let's put it this way, your doubts seem to be regularly anti-EU and pro-UK which is what you would call someone being biased.  I just simply pointed that out to you.  How much humble pie will you be eating if all your negative impressions of the EU turn out to be wrong?

 

I think you'll find your wrong. I stick with the same line of thinking as Rear Admiral Lane Nott. All you have to do BRD is explain how members are going to be able to contribute both financially and in assets to NATO and at the same time build, maintain and increase assets to meet the new demand of PESCO. Brussels wants a common foreign policy, with all the machinery to run it. PESCO/EUMU is that machinery. Some posters have stated PESCO is to rival or emulate NATO. so a duplicate organisation. and so duplicate financial/defence spending. consider this 18 members of NATO who are also EU members don't meet the minimum 2% of GDP on Defence spending. These countries have a decision to make do they up defence spending or do they choose between NATO or PESCO/EUMU. remember the later EU members are treaty bound to enact EU foreign policy. food for thought. PESCO/EUMU will eventually see the end of NATO in its current form.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it might be time to consider the effectiveness of NATO, much like those other sacrosanct multinational institutions the EU and UN, and whether it does in fact deliver value for money or whether in fact it has any use at all since its major constituent, the US of A, does whatever the hell it damn well likes and its NATO "partners" have the choice of going along with it or, er, being tonally ignored and treated with disdain by Washington. This "all for one and one for all" business might be all well and good, but if Washington, as it dearly wants, was to rope in places like Montenegro and Georgia and, God help us, Ukraine, then NATO members would in theory have to be ready to go to the aid of those places in whatever little territorial squabbles Washington may be able to engineer with the current Big Bogey, Big Bad Vlad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Perhaps it might be time to consider the effectiveness of NATO, much like those other sacrosanct multinational institutions the EU and UN, and whether it does in fact deliver value for money or whether in fact it has any use at all since its major constituent, the US of A, does whatever the hell it damn well likes and its NATO "partners" have the choice of going along with it or, er, being tonally ignored and treated with disdain by Washington. This "all for one and one for all" business might be all well and good, but if Washington, as it dearly wants, was to rope in places like Montenegro and Georgia and, God help us, Ukraine, then NATO members would in theory have to be ready to go to the aid of those places in whatever little territorial squabbles Washington may be able to engineer with the current Big Bogey, Big Bad Vlad. 

NATO Responsible for peace in Europe for 68 years. I call that Effective and others can determine the Value and price of that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stevewinn said:

NATO Responsible for peace in Europe for 68 years. I call that Effective and others can determine the Value and price of that.

has NATO been effective in containing threats, promoting peace, and integration of militaries, absolutely! but it doesn't help your argument when POTUS calls it obsolete. so is Europe looking to demolish joint European security or keep it alive beyond the whim's of any U.S. president? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

has NATO been effective in containing threats, promoting peace, and integration of militaries, absolutely! but it doesn't help your argument when POTUS calls it obsolete. so is Europe looking to demolish joint European security or keep it alive beyond the whim's of any U.S. president? 

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. 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I think you'll find your wrong. I stick with the same line of thinking as Rear Admiral Lane Nott. All you have to do BRD is explain how members are going to be able to contribute both financially and in assets to NATO and at the same time build, maintain and increase assets to meet the new demand of PESCO. Brussels wants a common foreign policy, with all the machinery to run it. PESCO/EUMU is that machinery. Some posters have stated PESCO is to rival or emulate NATO. so a duplicate organisation. and so duplicate financial/defence spending. consider this 18 members of NATO who are also EU members don't meet the minimum 2% of GDP on Defence spending. These countries have a decision to make do they up defence spending or do they choose between NATO or PESCO/EUMU. remember the later EU members are treaty bound to enact EU foreign policy. food for thought. PESCO/EUMU will eventually see the end of NATO in its current form.

 

 

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. 

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

has NATO been effective in containing threats, promoting peace, and integration of militaries, absolutely! but it doesn't help your argument when POTUS calls it obsolete. so is Europe looking to demolish joint European security or keep it alive beyond the whim's of any U.S. president? 

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.