It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German Rearmament

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
first of all if the EU is going to become the next big thing they are going to NEED germany to be a detterant against any kind of aggressive actions of foreign nations that would threaten their interests, this is how the world works.

its just outrageously funny how EU member countries completly mistrust one another it's really regressive in regards to progression for forming a stable bloc. here you got the brits getting all riled up talking crap just thinking about german innovation and military power, a clear sign of mistrust although the mistrust is justified please remember this is now a member country of a union you're apart of, your interests are now bound together something that never before existed.



[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]


It's a sign of weakness, the Britts know that Germany bled them dry in the Great War, that Germany only lost that war by their good will to stop fighting and were betrayed by the French and British after they disarmed.

In WW2 the British wouldn't dare fight the Germans directly.

Today they know Germany could smash the UK into oblivion as the UK can't even gain victory against the Irish Republican Army.




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I never mentioned the war in relation to jews being taxed - you just invented that as you were exposed as a liar.

So Germany needs all these arms to defeat the UK and dominate Europe??

Wow! You really have no shame do you?

Ignored from now on.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
I never mentioned the war in relation to jews being taxed - you just invented that as you were exposed as a liar.

So Germany needs all these arms to defeat the UK and dominate Europe??

Wow! You really have no shame do you?

Ignored from now on.

Good ignore me ignoramous now begone. Sie Werden nicht beleidegend Deutschland.

My goals are to liberate Germany and thus Europe from the US protectorate she has become. This is only possible with a significant Nuclear arsenal. All the other toys are for force projection in order to protect Germany's and Europe's economic assets abroad. Something that can be mitigated by cooperation among all European nations.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
sratrf_Rus said that Germany did not tax jews leaving until after the war started. btw as i said before, Geramny is already a very well armed country, hardly a pushover, and doesn't exactly need more troops to defend itself... but if your talking about power projection thats a whole different category....



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
'notice stumason i said 'in a world where the US collapsed
[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]


Then the world economy collapses. No one comes out on top.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by ape
first of all if the EU is going to become the next big thing they are going to NEED germany to be a detterant against any kind of aggressive actions of foreign nations that would threaten their interests, this is how the world works.

its just outrageously funny how EU member countries completly mistrust one another it's really regressive in regards to progression for forming a stable bloc. here you got the brits getting all riled up talking crap just thinking about german innovation and military power, a clear sign of mistrust although the mistrust is justified please remember this is now a member country of a union you're apart of, your interests are now bound together something that never before existed.



[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]


It's a sign of weakness, the Britts know that Germany bled them dry in the Great War, that Germany only lost that war by their good will to stop fighting and were betrayed by the French and British after they disarmed.

In WW2 the British wouldn't dare fight the Germans directly.

Today they know Germany could smash the UK into oblivion as the UK can't even gain victory against the Irish Republican Army.


I thought Germany lost because of British and American arial supremacy and superiority, several million rounds of .303, backed up by good old Sheffield Steel!


As to your trumpeting the Irish Republican Army - please do an ex serviceman the courtesy and get your facts right.

The Irish Republican Army you shout about, became the de facto army of Eire [southern Ireland] when they eventually got indepenence from GB in 1918.

You may remember 1918, BG had just fought a long and bloody conflict called WWI and were in no shape to conquor southern Ireland - again!

If you're spouting about the military wing of the terrorist organisation Sinn Fein - the PIRA or Provisional Irish Republican Army were defeated militarily by the UK Special Forces Group, backed up by Paras, Marines, infantrymen and women, the Ulster Defence Force, the Royal Irish Regiment and, not least the Royal Ulster Constabularly and SB.

These brave men and women wore uniform and carried their arms openly in public.

They, unlike scumbags like McGuinness and Adams, did not hide behind the local populace, bombing, shooting, raping, torturing and meeting out punishment beatings to anybody who opposed the crown.

No you stupid little idiot - we left that up to PIRA - led by Adams and McGuinness - two of the most notorious terrorists, the world has ever seen!



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritzIt may also come as a shock to many, but the Swastika was originally a Jewish symbol, bastardized by the Nazis - to rub salt in to the wound, as it were - by turning it on it's side and also by reversing it.

The Swastika is a universal sun symbol at least 7000 years old. I never heard about in Judaism, but it has been nearly everywhere around so it is possible.

The Wiki tells that the Swastika is a sacred symbol in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) and Germanic ones (Odinism.)

The original Swastika is left facing thus depicting the direction of the sun. The story goes when the nazies copied it, they did it from a mirrored photo and by that getting a symbol working against the forces of nature.

Some say, if they had copied it correct they would have won.

Maybe a divine coincidence made them error.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
very interesting khunmoon..
and right on about the beginnings of the swastika



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Indeed, the history of the Swastika can be traced back in some cases, to 7,000 years. However the Swastika itself, is at least 10,000 years old and can [in some way] be attributed to pagans.

The actual origin of the swastika is open to debate because so many civilisations and religions claim in for their own not least the ancient Christians as a secret sign during their early persecution.


The Finns used it on their aircraft during WWII and I think their was even an American unit that used it as their unit recognition symbol [?]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
You guys are seriously off the point. Everyone who was responsible for the jewish genoside is dead or dying and holding germany (today) responsible is just plain wrong. Although germany as a nation should be responsible for helping the survivors in anyway it can (Like britain and france still owe aid to most of africa as we made a good job of carving it up and enslaving the populus).
With that in mind if germany wanted nukes i really can't see a problem. That said (an like someone already posted) germany has pretty much the highest number of green and libertarian members of parliment than pretty much anywhere so i really cant see nukes getting passed, especially as germany has no enemies (not ones that need a nuclear deterent anyway).

This does however beg the question - is an EU owned nuclear solution possible? There would be massive advantages: Cost for one, not to mention if it had an ICBM elements it would give a ESA a massive kick up the arse and turn it into a much larger space agency. Although the cons would be pretty massive too: the EU is without doubt the largest bourocracy in the world - deciding who to nuke would never happen... Although if you ask me that a massive pro - Maintain the deterent but never have any chance of using it.

In essence Nukes work best when you don't use them at all.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I believe Germany should

Germany shouldn't. Not that I'd wouldn't allow THEM to have nuclear weapons, but nowadays they're not the ones deciding when to fight. The unelected European Commission does.

However, I do not dislike the Germans and even though we fought them during WWII, I don't think they're untrustworthy.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I believe Germany should

Germany shouldn't. Not that I'd wouldn't allow THEM to have nuclear weapons, but nowadays they're not the ones deciding when to fight. The unelected European Commission does.


So, the european commission decided it was ok to for us to go to Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or maybe when we went to Sierra Leone? Did the EC tell us to go then?

Don't be so smegging stupid. The commission doesn't even have the power to do what you say. The EC is soley focussed on internal matters within the EU, except where such things as trade are affected, then they might impose trade quota's and thats about it.

Oh dear...

You seem to have this severe hatred of the EU, why?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Before you call me stupid again, you should read the constitution of the European Union, to be exact, article I-12.

How old are you?



You seem to have this severe hatred of the EU, why?

I don't hate the EU, I just don't wish Britain to be a member of the European Union, nor do I want the EU to have nuclear weapons. Fortunately/unfortunately, France doesn't care about the NPT.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
Before you call me stupid again, you should read the constitution of the European Union, to be exact, article I-12.


Would this be the failed Constitution, by any chance?


Besides, I didn't call you stupid, I said don't be so stupid. Lets not argue over semantics though



Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
How old are you?


24, if you really need to know.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician


You seem to have this severe hatred of the EU, why?

I don't hate the EU, I just don't wish Britain to be a member of the European Union, nor do I want the EU to have nuclear weapons. Fortunately/unfortunately, France doesn't care about the NPT.


So, you want us to isolate ourselves and fail? How exactly do you propose we survive outside the EU?

And I don't think for a moment that the "EU" is even thinking about obtaining Nukes.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
So, you want us to isolate ourselves and fail? How exactly do you propose we survive outside the EU?

If we withdrew from the EU we wouldn't be isolated, just like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland aren't. These countries are Europe's 3 richest countries, and yet they're not members of the EU. They're the richest BECAUSE they're not EU members.

I'm not going to debate about it today, but I WILL suggest that you read these websites:

www.cibhq.co.uk...
www.brugesgroup.com...



And I don't think for a moment that the "EU" is even thinking about obtaining Nukes.

They already have 350 French nukes.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician

If we withdrew from the EU we wouldn't be isolated, just like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland aren't. These countries are Europe's 3 richest countries, and yet they're not members of the EU. They're the richest BECAUSE they're not EU members.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahem...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sorry.. What? Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are NOT the richest in the EU. Of that, there is no argument. Besides, the combined EU GDP is greater than that of the US.

Care to back your crackpot thinking up with anything?


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
I'm not going to debate about it today, but I WILL suggest that you read these websites:


Shame. I needed some entertainment whilst at work...


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician


And I don't think for a moment that the "EU" is even thinking about obtaining Nukes.

They already have 350 French nukes.


What? The French nuclear deterrent is an independant one. In fact, it is one of the reasons behind them withdrawing as a full member of NATO.

[edit on 26/12/06 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahem...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Young man, are you able to behave more politely or are you able to laugh while you are the person unable to understand other people's messages?



Sorry.. What? Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are NOT the richest in the EU.

Of course they aren't, as they're not even members of the European Union. I only said that they're the richest countries of Europe, and I was right. Read this:

www.brugesgroup.com...

and this:

www.cibhq.co.uk...



Besides, the combined EU GDP is greater than that of the US.


I don't know if it is, and even if it is, I don't care. America is not the richest country in the world.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
I'm not going to debate about it today, but I WILL suggest that you read these websites:




Shame.

Shame, indeed, the youngster doesn't want to read the relevant websites and learn. Instead, he will continue saying how powerful he wishes the EU to be.


Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
What? The French nuclear deterrent is an independant one. In fact, it is one of the reasons behind them withdrawing as a full member of NATO.

As I said, according to the EU's constitution, the member states' MODs are irrelevant. Also if you read the const., you'd know that the EU can mobilise the militaries of all of the member states if it wants to do so.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   


Young man, are you able to behave more politely or are you able to laugh while you are the person unable to understand other people's messages?


I am sorry. I could not contain the hysterical fits of laughter when I read that....



f course they aren't, as they're not even members of the European Union. I only said that they're the richest countries of Europe, and I was right. Read this:


What is it about old people and being pedantic. Substitute Eu with Europe, as was the context of the converstation. It was a typo.

As for your "facts", GDP per capita is misleading. For one, there populations are tiny. You could argue that Brunie or Saudi are the richest countries in the world, but why then do they have lots of poor, uneducated peasants?

Because it is an average.

GDP/capita includes the top earners as well as the bottome huggers. If you had 100 people and 1 man earnt £1 million/year, but the other 99 each earned just £10,000 a year, the "GDP/Capita" would be £19,900. Completely unrepresentative.

Another thing you miss is that countries like Norway pay HUGE amounts of tax for the social services they get. Prices are stupidly high. You might, on average, earn more, but you still have much less spending power, once you take out taxes and cost of living.

Iceland doesn't even have a military and up until this summer, were essentially a US protectorate.

Overall, the GDP of Norway, Iceland and the Swiss is pitiful when compared to countries like the UK, Germany and France:



Rank Country GDP (millions of USD)
— World 44,454,843
— European Union 13,502,800
1 United States 12,455,825
2 Japan 4,567,441
3 Germany 2,791,737
4 People's Republic of China 2,234,133 2
5 United Kingdom 2,229,472
6 France 2,126,719
7 Italy 1,765,537
8 Canada 1,132,436
9 Spain 1,126,565
10 Brazil 795,666
-----
18 Switzerland 367,571
-----
25 Norway 295,672
-----
90 Iceland 15,823





Shame, indeed, the youngster doesn't want to read the relevant websites and learn. Instead, he will continue saying how powerful he wishes the EU to be.


Continue to patronise me all you like, Old Man
, for I will continue to return the favour.

I am stating fact. Your basing off GDP/Capita which is a misleading statistic when taking at face value. Economics 101, my Geriatric friend.



As I said, according to the EU's constitution, the member states' MODs are irrelevant. Also if you read the const., you'd know that the EU can mobilise the militaries of all of the member states if it wants to do so


I'll say it again, in case your hard of hearing, with being old..

THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU CITE IS DEAD. IT FAILED. IT IS NOT RATIFIED AND IS UNLIKELY EVER TO BE



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



What is it about old people and being pedantic. Substitute Eu with Europe, as was the context of the converstation.

I'm not pedantic. Many European countries still aren't members of the EU.



GDP per capita is misleading.

No, it isn't. It is the measure of how rich are the citizens of a certain country. By your illogical theory, the US and China are the richest countries of the world. But GDP is earned by their vast populations. Divide $8 trillion by 1 billion. See how low China's GDP per capita is?



GDP/capita includes the top earners as well as the bottome huggers.

Yes. Are all the world's residents rich people or are some people rich, and some people not-so-rich?



Another thing you miss is that countries like Norway pay HUGE amounts of tax for the social services they get.

And so do we (Brown has increased taxes), and most Continental European nations.



Prices are stupidly high.

Ask those Europeans unfortunate enough to live in countries whose currency is the euro, dubbed by the Germans the "teuro" because it has led to huge price hikes.



Iceland doesn't even have a military

So?

Overall, the GDP of Norway, Iceland and the Swiss is pitiful when compared to countries like the UK, Germany and France

Already dealt with.





THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU CITE IS DEAD. IT FAILED. IT IS NOT RATIFIED AND IS UNLIKELY EVER TO BE

It isn't. I'd prefer it to be "dead", but it isn't. Don't believe ME, listen to the EU's leaders.

Wolfgang Schuessel: "The EU constitution is not dead."

DVP: "France didn't say no to Europe."

Jose Socrates: "I don't believe that the constitution is dead."

BTW, read this: www.openeurope.org.uk...



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   


I'm not pedantic. Many European countries still aren't members of the EU.


Not many, about 11, not including the new intake in 2007. But then, that also depends on your definition of European. The ones that are not EU members are:

Moldova
Ukraine
Switzerland
Croatia
Serbia
Montenegro
Bosnia
Albania
Norway
Iceland
Belarus

But, lets address each of them shall we?

Ukraine and Moldova, as well as Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan have all expressed a desire to join in the future.

Croatia is an official candidate country to join and started accession negotiations in October 2005.

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized as potential candidates.

Here is a snippet about your beloved "Rich 3":


The EFTA states of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the European Economic Area which allows them to participate in most aspects of the EU single market without acceding to the EU. Switzerland, the fourth EFTA state, rejected EEA membership in a referendum; however, it has established close ties to the EU by means of various bilateral treaties


Morroco is also interested in joining.

belarus won't because it is a dictatorship.

So, what was the issue again?



No, it isn't. It is the measure of how rich are the citizens of a certain country. By your illogical theory, the US and China are the richest countries of the world. But GDP is earned by their vast populations. Divide $8 trillion by 1 billion. See how low China's GDP per capita is?


Again, taking GDP/capita is pointless unless you weigh in other economic factors. Cost of living and taxation are two primary concerns. If you cannot understand that then it is pointless debating it.



Yes. Are all the world's residents rich people or are some people rich, and some people not-so-rich?


Some people are obscenely rich and others are dirt poor.



And so do we (Brown has increased taxes), and most Continental European nations.


No where near as much as in Scandanavia. They have good standards of living, granted, but it comes at a price.



Ask those Europeans unfortunate enough to live in countries whose currency is the euro, dubbed by the Germans the "teuro" because it has led to huge price hikes.


Er, that was local retailers profiteering from consumer ignorance. I think you'll find everything is back to how it was now. In fact, things seem so much cheaper everytime I go to the continent.



So?


So? The point is they cannot even afford one! So much with going it alone and being "Great Britain" again, hey?

As for the constitution, without serious overhauls, it will never pass. Presenting a 300 page legal document to the masses will never work. They need something simple, yet robust. They can't agree on how or what, so it is dead. Check back in 10 years. It will still be dead unless they change it dramatically.

[edit on 26/12/06 by stumason]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join