A European Army ?

[CyberRose]

Might have helped if wankers like Hurd didn't stymie every bloody effort.

Yes because Britain supported NATO action and the French supported UN action!

If there was some middle ground, which is what they are trying to create within the EU, then everyone might be a little bit more relaxed about providing forces for peace keeping missions that will have strong command and planning facilities (countering the British fear that only NATO is capable of mounting successful operations, which is actually true at the moment) and without the influence of America (countering the French fear)

 

[Poi E]

Yes because Britain supported NATO action and the French supported UN action!
)

Read "Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia" and then try to believe that Britain had any honourable intentions whatsoever. Christ, the Americans practically had to ram NATO raids in '95 down Major's throat.

 

[CyberRose]

Read "Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia"

Could I perhaps just take your word for it without having to read a whole book? That would save me a lot of time, effort and money

 

[Poi E]

Could I perhaps just take your word for it without having to read a whole book? That would save me a lot of time, effort and money

I could lend it to you It is rather a good read.

 

[CyberRose]

I could lend it to you It is rather a good read.

Well that deals with the money, but not the time nor the effort!

 

[Poi E]

Well that deals with the money, but not the time nor the effort!

Summary: government bad, people die. Shocking, huh?

 

[JHE]

Does Europe need to be a military power? As opposed to being able to draw on the armies of its member states?

The EU and the very pro-EU top politicians in the member states want it, because proper countries have armed forces and the ability to defend themselves. The most important countries have the military ability to intervene abroad. The Powers That Be want the European Union to be a proper country and an important one at that.

They are keen to tell the world that Europe is not just a dependency of Uncle Sam.

What would they actually do with a European Army? Fuck knows! Offer contingents for any UN force and beyond that... ?

Some European politicians, allegedly, were stung by the accusation that Europe was impotent throughout the decade of carnage in ex-Yugoslavia - though whether an EU army would have been used or, if used, would have done any good is another matter...

 

[Poi E]

Some European politicians, allegedly, were stung by the accusation that Europe was impotent throughout the decade of carnage in ex-Yugoslavia - though whether an EU army would have been used or, if used, would have done any good is another matter...

Germans bombing Belgrade...hmmm.

 

[frogwoman]

Germans bombing Belgrade...hmmm.

World war 3.

 

[CyberRose]

The EU and the very pro-EU top politicians in the member states want it

Could you please find me a statement from "the EU" that says they want a standing army?

And please do tell who these "top politicians" are who want a centralised standing army...?

because proper countries have armed forces and the ability to defend themselves. The most important countries have the military ability to intervene abroad. The Powers That Be want the European Union to be a proper country and an important one at that.

NATO is the most powerful military force in the world. NATO is not a country or an army...

They are keen to tell the world that Europe is not just a dependency of Uncle Sam.

And they need a standing army to do that?

What would they actually do with a European Army? Fuck knows! Offer contingents for any UN force and beyond that... ?

What it will be used for is documented in the treaties - Petersberg Tasks - and this is to assist the UN mount peacekeeping/enforcing missions

Some European politicians, allegedly, were stung by the accusation that Europe was impotent throughout the decade of carnage in ex-Yugoslavia - though whether an EU army would have been used or, if used, would have done any good is another matter...

Well if the EU's planning and command structures were as good as NATO's, and if EU states upgraded their military capabilities to fill vital operations gaps, then there is no reason to suggest the ESDP would be any less able to undertake a mission as successfully as NATO's in Kosovo 1999

 

[gosub]

I've read the article, and I am more than aware of what ESDP actually is (and isn't)

And there is no "they" talking about anything (unless you mean the journos bullshitting to stir things up like they normally do with all things EU)

There are no EU plans to create a standing army, even this one MEP is not calling for the creation of a standing army as far as I can see, and even if he did, he is just one man in an institution that has no say, whatsoever, about defence issues

From the blog article :"Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the Polish MEP charged with producing a report on the future of EU foreign policy, wants the European Parliament to vote before soldiers go to war. He wants the EU to wave a bigger stick than it's got at the moment." and he is interviewed 1 minute in to the Today program report which is only 5 minutes long

 

[JHE]

Rose,

It is perfectly obvious that western Europe was militarily dependent on the US throughout the Cold War. Yes, to be militarily independent of the US, Europe needs its own armed forces.

I simply don't understand your apparent scepticism about my point about whose policy it is. Do you believe that it is not the policy of the people who run the EU and the pro-EU top European pols? You you imagine it's just some daft idea dreamt up by some journalists that lacks the support of anyone important?

 

[CyberRose]

Rose,

It is perfectly obvious that western Europe was militarily dependent on the US throughout the Cold War. Yes, to be militarily independent of the US, Europe needs its own armed forces.

Lol! I think "Europe" already has it's own armed forces does it not? Half of them were fighting in Iraq and the other half are fighting in Afghanistan!

What they lack is not forces (altho there are operational gaps, which will be filled at national level) but planning and command structures - this is what makes NATO so powerful - the ability to bring a large number of different national military forces and combine them to fight as one larger force. That is what ESDP is, not creating a standing "EU national" army. ESDP is no different to NATO

I simply don't understand your apparent scepticism about my point about whose policy it is. Do you believe that it is not the policy of the people who run the EU and the pro-EU top European pols? You you imagine it's just some daft idea dreamt up by some journalists that lacks the support of anyone important?

I don't believe it is not the policy of the "people who run the EU", it's NOT the policy of the "people who run the EU", plain and simple

 

[CyberRose]

From the blog article :"Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the Polish MEP charged with producing a report on the future of EU foreign policy, wants the European Parliament to vote before soldiers go to war. He wants the EU to wave a bigger stick than it's got at the moment." and he is interviewed 1 minute in to the Today program report which is only 5 minutes long

Don't understand your point? The Parliament has no power over foreign policy issues (other than the EU's budget) and foreign policy isn't defence policy. Nor does your quote say anything about creating a standing army...

 

[JHE]

Lol! I think "Europe" already has it's own armed forces does it not? Half of them were fighting in Iraq and the other half are fighting in Afghanistan!

But they are not an EU force and they are not under EU command.

You really have given yourself two tasks at odds with each here. On the one hand, you try to pooh-pooh the idea that there is a push for an EU Army. On the other hand, you are keen to emphasise Treaty definitions and current arangements that you claim amount to a Euro armed force already.

What is your stance? My guess is that you are one of those very touchy pro-EU people who want to stress the importance of the EU while simultaneously jibbing when people who do not share your enthusiasm point out that the EU is a project to create a country called Europe.

 

[gosub]

Cyberose, I'm not sure I care, having been through pages upon pages of you arguing black is white on another thread I hereby put you on ignore I'm offline for while when flow <90 anyway

ETA :That was simple, nevr done that before

 

[CyberRose]

But they are not an EU force and they are not under EU command.

You really have given yourself two tasks at odds with each here. On the one hand, you try to pooh-pooh the idea that there is a push for an EU Army. On the other hand, you are keen to emphasise Treaty definitions and current arangements that you claim amount to a Euro armed force already.

What is your stance? My guess is that you are one of those very touchy pro-EU people who want to stress the importance of the EU while simultaneously jibbing when people who do not share your enthusiasm point out that the EU is a project to create a country called Europe.

You seem to be getting confused between what an army is and what an organisation like NATO is

NATO has no standing army, it relies on contributions from its members. This is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now - EU member states are fighting in a combined fighting force

A standing army has a single command (usually the government of whichever country the army belongs to), whereas NATO (and ESDP) will have a joint command between those countries taking part. It will not be under the control of the Commission which is what the insinuation is when you, or whoever, refer to creating an "EU army". It implies that the EU will have a number of troops etc to command and send into battle wherever they decide, bypassing the wishes of the UK government. That will never happen and no county in the EU wants that to happen

ESDP is exactly the same as NATO, minus America. If you don't have a problem with NATO then the only possible reason for arguing against ESDP is purely political

My stance? I think providing a mechanism for solving problems that can only be dealt with by international cooperation are a good thing, that is why I support the EU. On this particular issue, as has been pointed out, when the EU failed to act to sort out a humanitarian crisis in their own backyard, thousands died. ESDP is specifically to provide assistance for UN peacekeeping operations. Currently, EU member states already have the forces, but they lack the mechanism that can bind them together for them to take on these missions successfully (this is what NATO has - planning and command structures).

If you can't understand any of this then sorry, but it really isn't all that complicated

 

[JHE]

You have nothing but quibbles. I'll leave you to them.

The EU and the very pro-EU top politicians in the member states want it, because proper countries have armed forces and the ability to defend themselves. The most important countries have the military ability to intervene abroad. The Powers That Be want the European Union to be a proper country and an important one at that.

They are keen to tell the world that Europe is not just a dependency of Uncle Sam.

ESDP is exactly the same as NATO, minus America.

Quite.

 

[CyberRose]

Do you oppose NATO?

 

[JHE]

I'm not a supporter of it. Why?

 

[CyberRose]

I'm not a supporter of it. Why?

Then being against the ESDP has nothing to do with the EU but everything to do with your opinion of defence cooperation, isn't it?

Why could you just not say about 10 posts ago that you oppose the UK entering into any defence organisations instead of trying to make out that the EU's ESDP something it isn't?

 

[JHE]

Then being against the ESDP has nothing to do with the EU but everything to do with your opinion of defence cooperation, isn't it?

Why could you just not say about 10 posts ago that you oppose the UK entering into any defence organisations instead of trying to make out that the EU's ESDP something it isn't?

You are a silly sausage, Rosie! I have NOT expressed ANY position on the EU Army, for or against - and I only expressed my lack of support for NATO because you asked.

As it happens, I am pretty sceptical about it being a good idea - as indeed I am pretty sceptical about the EU and its doings in general.

 

[CyberRose]

I have NOT expressed ANY position on the EU Army, for or against

Either way, your first post on the thread suggested you were confused as to what exactly the EU is doing (indeed, has already done). Anybody that uses the phrase "EU army" either doesn't understand what ESDP is, or they're trying to portray a negative image of the EU ordering around our armed forces...

 

[paimei01]

I would not join that in a million years. I mean not for it's "principles". Same thing for the majority of Europeans I think, remember what happened with the EU constitution, they had to bypass the people.
So they will get an army of mercenaries, joining for money, perfect to control Europe with.

 

[CyberRose]

So they will get an army of mercenaries, joining for money, perfect to control Europe with.

Yes. That's right. Britain, France, Germany, and all the rest will agree that a mercenary force should be created in order to police their own countries...

 

[paimei01]

If they send people to other countries to police them, it should work

 

[likesfish]

if you look at the EU budget as a whole its members spent a vast amount of cash on hardware.
but when it comes to putting stuff in harms way for nato or the UN its sorry can't go.
the Germans are in Afghanistan but aren't allowed to fight bit pointless sending them then
A basically heavily armed liberal democracy power bloc would make a change

 

[weltweit]

The scenario that bothers me is an economically powerful and well armed USA, and Europe and China. It seems to me to lead on to the situation of three power blocks as Orwell predicted in 1984. Would there be peace between them? would they be competitive?

 

[Crispy]

In theory, if europe clubbed together for defence, economies of scale would mean reduced overall spending on defence, wouldn't it? And that's a good thing. Leaves more for hospitals schools welfare and those other good things.

 

[weltweit]

In theory, if europe clubbed together for defence, economies of scale would mean reduced overall spending on defence, wouldn't it? And that's a good thing. Leaves more for hospitals schools welfare and those other good things.

Can't see Britain agreeing to that, we like to be able to operate independently [1] especially when attacked in the Malvinases I can't see many French troops rushing off to the south Atlantic to free the Falklands!




[1] in concert with the boss the USA