Article

2003-10-24 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2003-10-24 10:01:01 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 US military chiefs have already warned it will wreck the Nato alliance.

It's time to throw in the towel on this. If the EU wants to field its own army to the detriment of NATO, then let it go. And the UK needs to decide what it wants to do - it can't expect to exercise some kind of autonomy while being part of the EU.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-24 10:53:09 AM|| 2003-10-24 10:53:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh, The Sun. How lovely and unbiased.

"This paper proves what Tony Blair cannot admit â that people in Europe DO want an EU army which will threaten Nato."

Right on the first part. But how would it "threaten NATO"?

"MEPs would be HANDED the power to send UK troops into battle."
Only if UK chooses to take part in such a defence alliance and/or integrated army.

"Meanwhile Britain and France risk losing their independent voice on the UN Security Council to a Brussels official."

Oh, yes, our magical mind rays shall brainwash the UK public into giving up their vote at the security council, and signing onto a single common Foreign Policy.

When was the last time UK has been forced to do anything it didn't want to? Has it been forced to enter the Eurozone? Has it been forced to enter the Schengen treaty?

Where does the Sun get it that UK will suddenly be forced to join a European army or a European common foreign policy if it doesn't so want it? Precedent consistently goes in favour of the EU letting member-states opt out of whatever it is they don't want to take part in.

"US military chiefs have already warned it will wreck the Nato alliance."

Why is that? Because it will make EU member states less dependent on American assistance? Why would NATO be any less powerful if a Euro-Army existed? Why can't NATO change to have two strong poles, US on the one hand and the Euro-army on the other, and include all those other countries that will be part of neither? E.g. Canada, UK, Turkey, whatever.

And if countries like Israel and India are allowed to have nukes, I don't see why Germany oughtn't have them.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 10:54:14 AM|| 2003-10-24 10:54:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Aris, Germany isn't allowed to have nukes because of some minor incidents called WW1 and WW2. As for Nato, it was supposed to be a defense force of not just Europe, but the world. The French, Germans, Belguims and Luxemberg have all decided they want a opposing force. Why do they want to challenge the US not economically, but Militarily?

Posted by Charles 2003-10-24 11:57:18 AM|| 2003-10-24 11:57:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why do they need British nukes?

Why not phrawnce's? Phrawnce has a tendency to share things.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-24 1:06:19 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:06:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Aris, Germany isn't allowed to have nukes because of some minor incidents called WW1 and WW2."

I rest my case. Those "incidents" happened 60 and 80 years ago.

It'd be much more reasonable to forbid Russia of having nukes because of two little (and much more recent) incidents called "Cold War" and "communistic totalitarianism".

"As for Nato, it was supposed to be a defense force of not just Europe, but the world."

That's quite wrong - read its charter again. It only provides mutual defense in case of an attack by enemy forces on Europe, North America or Turkey. Actions outside this fall outside NATO's authority. But either way this is irrelevant.

"The French, Germans, Belgium and Luxemberg have all decided they want a opposing force. Why do they want to challenge the US not economically, but Militarily?"

And have you stopped beating your wife?

If you want Europe to be useful it has to be strong. If it wants to be independent it has to be strong enough to act independently. Such strength can only be found in unity.

You call that "opposing" force? I call that an independent force.

You can't both mock Europe for uselessness and ineffectiveness, and yet attack all attempts to create something effective in its place.

That makes me believe that you people *want* Europe to remain weak.

So far, Europe is an economic giant but a military dwarf. It's time for the situation to change.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 1:15:36 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:15:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't know what all the hoopla is about. The EU is doomed. As for Aris, perhaps the fact the Phrawnce and Germany intend to 'lead' (whether that happens or not, it is their goal) and the fact that the frogs WANT to be a competitor of the US might be what Charles is talking about. Besides, the EU won't be able to survive. Just look at the condition of the two of the largest economies, France and Germany. Their economies are horrible and getting worse. At least we can thank France for proving, once again, that even Socialism-lite doesn't work. Ha. We can safely continue to mock the EUnuchs. If this is Europes way of trying to create something effective...*shudder*. And one other thing, outside of the UK, when has Europe ever been 'useful'?

Posted by Swiggles 2003-10-24 1:41:01 PM|| 2003-10-24 1:41:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris, you guys didn't do too well the last time the Germans changed from a military dwarf to something more substantive. You can thank Bulldog (perfidious Albion) for not speaking German today.

Because it's Friday, let's break out into song:

"...Sleep, baby, sleep, in peace may you slumber,
No danger lurks, your sleep to encumber,
Weâve got the missiles, peace to determine,
And one of the fingers on the button will be German.

Why shouldnât they have nuclear warheads?
England says no, but they are all soreheads.
I say a bygone should be a bygone,
Letâs make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon.

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldnât happen again.
We taught them a lesson in nineteen eighteen,
And theyâve hardly bothered us since then.

So sleep well, my darling, the sandman can linger,
We know our buddies wonât give us the finger.
Heil--hail--the Wehrmacht, I mean the Bundeswehr,
Hail to our loyal ally!
MLF
Will scare Brezhnev,
I hope he is half as scared as I..."

Posted by Brian 2003-10-24 2:01:34 PM|| 2003-10-24 2:01:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Heard this morning that now not only France but also Spain, Germany and Italy are busting budget accords regarding the Euro. Me thinks there are many problems instore for the EU.

Posted by Lucky 2003-10-24 2:22:49 PM|| 2003-10-24 2:22:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't worry Brian the EU Army will have the benefit of:

1. The French General Staff
2. The German Civil Affairs Dept
3. Luxemburgs manpower.
4. Belgium's terrain.

(But not Italy's tradition)

Posted by Shipman 2003-10-24 2:26:49 PM|| 2003-10-24 2:26:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Don't worry Brian the EU Army will have the benefit of:

1. The French General Staff
2. The German Civil Affairs Dept
3. Luxemburgs manpower.
4. Belgium's terrain.

5. British food.
6. Spanish beer.
7. Greek efficiency.
8. Czech navy.

Posted by Steve White 2003-10-24 2:48:10 PM|| 2003-10-24 2:48:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 9. Served by rude French waiters.

Posted by Raj 2003-10-24 3:07:39 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-10-24 3:07:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris,

I don't have a problem with NATO being tubed in favor of the EU - as long as we can still get help from the UK. Most of the security problems in the world are not in Europe - for those that are - there is certainly enough GDP in Europe to support your own security needs.

the ME, South America, and the Pacific Rim are where the US needs to be. NATO is pure overhead for the US. I'm sure we can work out individual deals with Poland and Turkey.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-24 3:22:38 PM|| 2003-10-24 3:22:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Screw it. They really wanna be OPFOR, let 'em.

Hope they like humiliation, 'cause they're gonna get a lot of it.

Posted by mojo 2003-10-24 4:59:19 PM|| 2003-10-24 4:59:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Brian> I thank everyone who fought in WW2 on the side of the allies.

And I also hate the racist fucks who would still treat Germany as an evil nation that must be set apart and kept on a leash. How would you feel it if white men in the Southern US were all disarmed just in case they go bad and decide to reinstitute slavery, hmm? It's no matter that 140 years have passed, right?

Germany is atleast as democratic and free as UK is, and if there's a fear of it turning bad again, it's no worse a fear than the *UK* or *any* other nation turning bad. The leash that must contain Germany shouldn't be any tighter than the leash that contains any civilised nation, be it Germany, France, UK or the USA.

Swiggles> Whatever.

When has the EU been useful? To you personally, perhaps never. But it has made Ireland a prosperous nation, it has helped solidify democracy in Greece, Spain and Portugal, it has given Cyprus reunification talks a real hope after 30 years of consistent futility, and, oh let me quote:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/akessay.htm
"Bulgariaâs civil liberties improved amid consistent attempts to bring the countyâs political, economic, and social environment in line with European standards, "

"Sloveniaâs civil liberties improved as a result of legislation satisfying European Union membership requirements."

"Turkey registered forward progress as a result of the loosening of restrictions on Kurdish culture. Legislators made progress on an improved human rights framework, the product of Turkeyâs effort to integrate into European structures."

You don't understand, nor have you ever bothered to find out, how each wannabe fascist has found in the European Court of human rights an iron opponent, have you now?

For you "help", means nothing more than going to places and smashing things up. And "financial contribution" is only mentioned about when you are providing it to some place and EU doesn't. When the opposite occurs you are quite quite ignorant. People who whine about Germany and France not giving aid to Iraq, should remember that these countries have been bearing most of EU's economic burden in assisting the Eastern European nations.

But hey, that's not part of the "War on Terror" so I guess it doesn't count, right? As shortsighted as ever...

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 5:25:12 PM|| 2003-10-24 5:25:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 For the love of GOD! Let them have their way! They've been living on the "defensive" cheap for the last 50 plus years. It'll save the US billions that we can use at home!

I wouldn't be too worried about it. The EU can't sustain anything more than Parade Ground Puppies anyways.

Then the US can start a Distance Diplomacy (TM) policy. If it's closer to any EU country than the US, it the Euro's baby. Then we'll see what "real" (cough) European "resolve" (cough, hack) in "action" (like they know what that word means) looks like.

The fact that most of those countries are tough on talk, but weak on action makes it all the more hilarious.

I feel for the Brits (The Warriors). It's like watching a friend dying of cancer.

The Germans troops can't be discounted (to do so would be foolish), however, German society has become so "wussified" (TM) that it would cause massive political turmoil when they were deployed for direct combat missions.

The French, well, do I REALLY have to say anything here. They got nukes and STILL can't get any respect.

And "Oh God! You better hide the wife and kids when the Luxenbergers and Belgian "Waffler" hordes start deploying.

Greece, of course, can deploy the infantry "comfort troops" for morale.

This is the best idea the EU has had since a Italy proposed a new EU law forcing France to import, sell, and actually use soap and deodorant!

Posted by Paul 2003-10-24 6:03:40 PM|| 2003-10-24 6:03:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 This is OT, but does anyone know whether this Guardian story is legit: Blow to Chirac as presidency poll favours Sarkozy If so is Sarkozy a good guy?

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-24 6:24:52 PM|| 2003-10-24 6:24:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris, I'm not trotting out the Morganthau plan here. Let's remember that if it wasn't for Truman where Greece would be today (got your Russian phrase book handy?). I am saying there is a propensity for Europeans to plunge the Continent and, subsequently, the world into war and that if it wasn't for the tender mercies of the Anglo-American alliance, Western Europe would be either a) pastoral landscapes or b) locked into mechanical alliances on the verge of total war. Your entire efforts at integration happened with our winks and nods and if you dare to believe that you will remake the polarity of the world and we will hold the bag for you, you are sorely mistaken to the point of a JDAM.

As for the South, that was already done in Reconstruction. We used a similar template in Europe.

Ultimately, I just liked the song from Tom Lehrer. I trust the Germans with leadership in Europe -- I do not trust Gerhard Schroder to do it. As it stands, Greece has nil chance in hell of reaching real power in Europe unless you continue the rotating model which, flatly, does not work (viz. the US Presidency / Vice Presidency before the twelth Amendment*). So if you don't stand to gain, why are you buying so heavily into Europe?

*If anything is wrong in my grammar or Constitutional law, I just woke up.

Posted by Brian 2003-10-24 8:13:53 PM|| 2003-10-24 8:13:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Brian, more history lessons about matters I know already, with a heavy nationalistic bias about the saintly vs the horrid nations, and the rest of us being poor victims saved by your mercy?

Greece was part of that "Anglo-American" alliance, thank you very much. Greeks fought for Europe's freedom just as bravely as Brits or Americans fought for it. And if you can't express gratitude towards *all* the hero soldiers of that war, then don't bother mentioning it all.

And don't talk about Truman, if you don't want me to talk about Johnson or Nixon.

"and if you dare to believe that you will remake the polarity of the world "

Are we a free continent or aren't we? What is this "polarity" of the world that you are talking about? Is it the "America shouts and the rest of us have to obey" principle?

In a free world the "polarity of the world" shall change the way that free nations will be successful in making it change, economically or politically. If we want to be stronger economically and you are sabotaging it, then that's the act of an enemy. Likewise on the political or the military level.

But my view of the world concerns the struggle between democracy against tyranny, something in which America and EU are natural allies and it's best if *both* are strong and as united within themselves, and with each other, as can be. I don't want to see the US broken up. It's people here that want to see the EU broken up instead.

Your view of the world is nationalistic to the core. The "pole" you are defending is not the pole of "democracy" or of "freedom" or of whatever, but simply the pole of the "Anglo-american" alliance.

An attitude which I find both outdated and disgusting, and in the end deeply bigoted.

Were people in the American South really not allowed to bear weapons for 60 years after the War? I'm guessing it was a much more brief period than that. Banning Germany from having nukes has likewise long outlived its purpose. Especially after the end of the Cold War.

"As it stands, Greece has nil chance in hell of reaching real power in Europe"

And Hawai has nil chance in hell of reaching real power in the US. Or Alaska. Or Wisconsin.

"So if you don't stand to gain,"

We who? Europeans? Greeks? Atheneans? Residents in my block of flats? My family? Or me specifically? Which "you" are you referring to?

Greece is part of Europe. Why am I buying so heavily into it? What should I be buying so heavily into instead? Asking me why I support Europe, is like asking me why I support Greece when I should be asking for Athens to secede from the rest of the country instead.

Why should I feel any more patriotism for Greece than I feel for Europe? I'm a part of both. And the latter is somewhat more likeable in general than the former.

Once again your outdated nationalistic outlook
blinds you to the fact of greater allegiances than those of the nation-state.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-24 9:08:02 PM|| 2003-10-24 9:08:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris:

"As it stands, Greece has nil chance in hell of reaching real power in Europe"
And Hawai has nil chance in hell of reaching real power in the US. Or Alaska. Or Wisconsin

Silly comparison Aris. US states aren't nation-states. You know better than that.

You claim that the view of people here is "nationalistic." In fact, you've made that point a few times in the past. OK, fair enough.

But how is being patriotic towards the EU not a form of nationalism? If European nation-states are going to become like U.S. states (which you suggest in your comment that "Hawaii has a nil chance of reaching real power in the U.S.") then what you are supporting in a "nation" of Europe. That's fine too, but how is that not being "nationalistic"?

Once again your outdated nationalistic outlook blinds you to the fact of greater allegiances than those of the nation-state.

So your allegiances are to what? You say to Greece and Europe. Are they more than that???

But, look, if the EU wants to have it's own credible military (which makes it even more "nation-like"), including with nukes, hey, have a party.

But there is a cost for this. Are Europeans really willing:

1. To support the cost of a military, even if it means significantly reducing social welfare programs?

2. Change the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

3. Give up the advantages of NOT having nuclear weapons on their soil, i.e., become PRIMARY targets in a nuclear war?

Frankly, a great many Americans would prefer to get our forces out of Europe. It's costly, and really not worth it for us any more.

None of this worries me at all. And if the EU wants to take on regional conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, I'm for it. We'll be fine.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-10-25 2:40:49 AM|| 2003-10-25 2:40:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 "So your allegiances are to what?"

Peace, democracy and freedom. Above all. Best served IMHO by transnational unity in a voluntary federation.

"But how is being patriotic towards the EU not a form of nationalism?"

Because I wouldn't mind it (when and if it becomes possible) if the EU eventually became part of an even larger world federation.

The difference between your outlook and mine, is that yours is divisive while mine strives for unity.

Ofcourse there's a cost in having a European military. Right now border nations like mine, countries that don't have the privilege of safe shores, are paying it already, paying greater part of our budget on military than America or Britain does. About what 6% of our GDP versus the 4% that America gives? And needing an obligatory conscription rather than the all-voluntary forces that US can have.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-25 9:25:50 PM|| 2003-10-25 9:25:50 PM|| Front Page Top

21:25 Aris Katsaris
07:53 Raptor
06:32 Tony (UK)
02:40 R. McLeod
00:20 Stephen
00:18 Korora
23:38 Anonymous
22:57 Bomb-a-rama
22:45 Pappy
22:45 Uncle Joe
22:41 Rafael
22:16 Robert Crawford
22:14 Robert Crawford
22:12 Robert Crawford
22:07 Yukonbill
21:52 CrazyFool
21:48 Super Hose
21:45 Denny
21:45 Bomb-a-rama
21:45 Steve White
21:39 Bomb-a-rama
21:38 Super Hose
21:38 Steve White
21:34 Super Hose