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.

 

Calls for an EU army

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
"Once europe becomes unified as an islamic state under one caliph, there will be no obstacles to creating an agressive, nuclear armed, islamic EU force. The Bible predicts that the EU will be preeminent, for a short pathetic time, until the Lord himself utterly destroys it."

Bore off, wrong thread.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei

Who from Europe would join such an army out of "patriotism" ?
I am sure I won't. Even if I like France for example, if I would go to help them in a war I would not do it because they are in EU or something like that. My country is not Europe
So "they" will get an army of mercenaries , joining for the money.

Remember what happened to the EU constitution, they had to bypass the people's vote to get it implemented.
Maybe they will decide that each country's army should be part of the EU army, then when they need to impose NWO they just make sure they do not send natives from a country to police the same country.

Of course no country would accept foreign troops around imposing orders from EU - I mean no people, the leaders maybe but not the people, including me


This is exactly why it wouldnt work. People of european nations have no loyalty or patriotism to Europe/EU, let alone those faceless gits that make up the European Parliment. Can anyone here name their local Euro MP? I sure as hell cant.

Not to mention the language problems involved in such an enterprise. I know NATO has several nations speaking different languages but nationality/language wise it is miniscule compared to the behmoth of nations that now make up the EU. This doesnt include the nations that are waiting to join, including Turkey and some of the old 'soviet republics'. Jeez, even Israel could apply to join as it does qualify for Eurovision.

Logistically a EU Army would be a nightmare. There are too many different weapon platforms to sustain, too many different vehicles to fuel/maintain, too many languages, uniforms, ranks, standards of training, profesionalism etc etc.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBTBE
Funny this, I have been talking with a Tory MP about this sort of thing today, he said that if the Conservatives came to power there WOULD be a referendum on the EU


Don't get your hopes up. Until you hear David Cameron himself saying that, consider it a rumour at best. I think that particular MP was simply telling you what you wanted to hear... politicians do that.


And as to Britain stopping another European Dictator, we'll be waiting on our cold little Island so we can take him (or her, wolf in sheeps clothing perhaps?) down and reclaim our Empire. OR is that just hopeful thinking?


The empire has gone and it isn't coming back. We don't have the money, the people or the dominance we once had... and besides, what'd be the point in recreating it?

As for the EU Army, let's not lose sight of this one. It's the call of a single Polish member of the European Parliament (out of 785 MEPs), not present European policy. There are a whole range of problems (politically, culturally, logistically) and I'll throw one more into the mix: language. How do you command an army when the soldiers speak dozens of different languages? The Soviet Union was made up of many different peoples, and the only solution the Soviets found was to teach everyone Russian. I hardly think all the French will want to learn English, or all the Italians will want to learn German or whatever.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Rock Ape
 


I remember someone commenting, upon hearing the British were joining us in Iraq, saying that it was good because at least we'd have adult supervision. :-)



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

The empire has gone and it isn't coming back. We don't have the money, the people or the dominance we once had... and besides, what'd be the point in recreating it?



I as an American, don't really think it's completely a matter of having money, people or dominance. I think it's more about the sense of public support and moral that is more so required. Public moral is much more likely to come around if you have strong and compassionate leadership. I'm not talking about having a dictator but more of someone with charisma, fortitude and will like Winston Churchill did.
But of course such people are hard to come by anymore in this day and age.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


"NATO is dead.
The union in Europe killed off NATO. European nations already work as one bloc in NATO, America has accused Europe of creating a "second NATO" within NATO"

This statement is actually quite interesting as it was Javier Solana who split NATO during his time running the day to day operations back in the 90's. Its also interesting to note that he and he alone as the High rep for foreign policy controls the european branch, he also gave himself the ability while with NATO to declare wars from his current euro post that the USA wing is obligated to back, though this doesn't work the other way. In other words USA/NATO can't make EU/NATO help them. Also currently the current NATO administration has called to help Brussels in securing their own military wing, not to abolish the euro NATO but to make it stronger. Its also important to know that the WEU has complete control of any said military and in case of any declared emergecny the control is shifted to Solana and Solana alone. This was done through Recommendation 666. So while yes NATO is divided they are not powerless, just the USA no longer controls the power of the organization, Mr. Europe does.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
NATO is dead.
The union in Europe killed off NATO. European nations already work as one bloc in NATO, America has accused Europe of creating a "second NATO" within NATO.



This is an interesting statement as it was Mr. Europe, Javier Solana during his time running the day to day of NATO that split the faction. Its also important to know that it is his post of High Representative of Foreign Policy that controls EU/NATO. The current NATO administration has recently stated that they want to help the EU with the building of their military force, but heres the funny part. They don't want to abolish EU/NATO but strengthen it with a united Euro military force as opposed to each nations independent militaries. Which also by the way are to stay in tact. Mr. Solana also gave himself the ability to declare war in which the US/NATO is obligated to back him. How ever this does not work the other way, as in if the US/NATO makes war EU/NATO can stay home with no obligations. The WEU, the original ten nation Brussels treaty alliance controls all above said military functions. While Solana himself has the ability to declare an emergency, in which he would get complete control of said militaries with no one to answer to. This was given to him via Recommendation 666. Not to mention the fact that during said emergency all decision making is diverted to his office, with no new legislation being able to be passed without his say. So while it is true that NATO is divided they are far from dead. Its just the control no longer belongs to the body itself, it belongs to Mr. Europe.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by jdl79]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by jdl79]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I call for American bases to be removed from our member states.

Or.


We setup our bases in America. Fair is fair.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
believe has brought war, not a unification of europe.
you can read the bible over and over, but its a fact that its written by people who where on drugs.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I think it's just a defensive, emergency kinda situation force. To defend against China, Russia or USA and get rid of all the US bases.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
This sounds like a good idea in principle. But who is going to provide the forces? U.K France Germany Italy and Belguim have the only substantial military units perhaps along with Poland.

I don't believe in this whole grand conspriacy about the EU, it does a hell of a lot of good, like providing money for countires hit by natural disaters, the Erasmus scheme which provides uni students the chance to study in another country at very little cost.

I think the countries within the EU will always keep their independence.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Peruvianmonk]


Belgium has a substantial military ???? Their annual defence spending are just 4 billion...

Here is a real list of defence spendings of the more powerful EU nations: France $74 billion, UK $69 billion, Germany $45 billion, Italy $40 billion, Spain $16 billion, Netherlands $12 billion and Poland $10 billion.

The defense spendings of all EU members combined would be around $300 billion. What is large, but still about half that of the US...

An EU army would be strong in terms of manpower. The size of active service personel of the 27 EU members combined is over 2 million, remarkably larger then the 1.4 million of the US, and only slightly smaller then China.

Still, I don't see this happen. The second largest European power: the UK continues to go for a strong bilateral US relationship instead to go for Europe. To some extend Netherlands, Denmark and several others do the same. In case of an attack on EU mamber by a foreign power, all member states will certainly retaliate, but a true one military I don't see it happen...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOOmOO
I call for American bases to be removed from our member states.

Or.


We setup our bases in America. Fair is fair.


America leases the base. I can't think of why the U.K would want a base in the U.S nor doubt they could afford it. Seems pretty fair to me.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Excellent news. Maybe if all countries used their forces in Europe as one, we will have a better defence against the yanks when they decide to turn on Europe, which they will do.

However, being from Ireland, we are proud of the fact that our country remains nutural in times of War. It is in our constituation and we will not allow that to be broke.

Britan however, that is another story. They have broken that many international law along with the yanks that they would not join, they are hell bent on contolling the world with her friend America.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I think it's just a defensive, emergency kinda situation force. To defend against China, Russia or USA and get rid of all the US bases.


Couldn't agree more, America should not have bases in Europe. Why? Becasue they are the biggest threat to world peace that there has been in many a year. That in itself, leave Europe open to attack, for American crimes. No thanks, get ride of the now.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wow23
Excellent news. Maybe if all countries used their forces in Europe as one, we will have a better defence against the yanks when they decide to turn on Europe, which they will do.


You seem to say this as if it's a fact. Please tell me how you seem to know this? I'm in the other boat and feel our relations with the U.S will continue to grow, not deteriorate.


Britan however, that is another story. They have broken that many international law along with the yanks that they would not join, they are hell bent on contolling the world with her friend America.


This thread appears to have taken a split role, talking about the Government and her people. The UK may have broken international laws on Iraq and the like but many of the people are against the attack of a sovereign nation.

Now looking at Ireland, although the Government has taken no formal action as such I'm sure many of the people have condoned the attacks against UK troops stationed there. But I guess that's ok though?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Its biblical prophecy being fulled ... read Daniel 11

"Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. "



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights

Originally posted by mOOmOO
I call for American bases to be removed from our member states.

Or.


We setup our bases in America. Fair is fair.


America leases the base. I can't think of why the U.K would want a base in the U.S nor doubt they could afford it. Seems pretty fair to me.


They also uses the listening stations for INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE. This has been CONFIRMED publically to aid their INDUSTRIES AGAINST THEIR ALLIES.


Back STABBERS.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


The presidency rotates between all 27 member states, so the rest of your biblical nonsense is moot.

reply to post by SevenThunders
 


That's just utter crap. I've demonstrated in many previous threads that there will never be an Islamic majority in Europe. In France, for example, they have in place schemes to boost domestic birth rates and last year, they had 2.7 births per woman among ethnic French women. The same can be said for many other countries. In the UK, the muslim population is only around the 2.5% mark, so they have a LONG way to go to get a majority.

reply to post by yahn goodey
 


Germany only became an actual country in the 1880's, so spouting off some sort of stereotype about Germans being militaristic is wrong. The German militarism we saw in the early 20th century was Prussian in origin, who have a long history of military activity. The rest of the German people's didn't have much interest in war and now, they have even less interest.

The Germans are worse than Americans when it comes to dealing with casualties, even one dead soldier is enough to topple a Government!


Originally posted by Ste2652
So how will an EU force solve that problem? German forces will still be limited by their constitution regardless of whether they fight under a NATO or EU flag.


True, but it isn't too far fetched to see them amending their constitution over time.


Originally posted by Ste2652
Do you think an EU force will persuade the French, Germans, Italians etc. to actually get involved in conflicts (because, as you rightly say, the European countries doing most of the fighting in Afghanistan are the UK, Holland and Denmark)?


The French, to be fair, do actually get involved in quite a bit of "expeditionary" work. Albeit, mostly in Africa but they do get involved. I don't buy the whole "french are cowards" mantra.


Originally posted by Ste2652
I don't think it'll make a difference, and I don't want British forces at the beck and call of the EU. They're British, not European. The men and women who join do so to defend the United Kingdom and they swear an oath to the Queen.


We are all European citizens, including the Queen! Whilst not a British citizen, provisions in the Maastricht treaty make her a citizen of Europe and doesn't even recognise her as head of State!


Originally posted by Wotan
Logistically a EU Army would be a nightmare. There are too many different weapon platforms to sustain, too many different vehicles to fuel/maintain, too many languages, uniforms, ranks, standards of training, profesionalism etc etc.


Not true. If the country is a NATO member then training, equipment etc are interchangeable and standardised. Alot of the smaller countries use the same equipment from the big suppliers, namely the US, the UK and France, with some German tech popping up here and there.

The EU Rapid reaction force has recently just done a massive exercise in Southern Germany to further integrate command and control procedures, as that is the only area that needs sorting out. As for the man on the ground and his equipment, there is no real concern.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mOOmOO
 


Aren't there rumors on the net about NATO and UN bases being setup in different spots around the USA?
So, there are likely to be in some cases already foreign manned and managed bases here in the USA. And I'm not talking about support bases, I'm talking about combat stations with garrisons.
After 9/11, there were foreign ally aircraft flying patrols over USA soil.
I don't really see all the fuss about everything, the USA military bases don't really have much purpose other than acting as way stations and staging grounds. They don't have that much in the way of manpower these days, not since the first Cold War ended. And of course as was already mentioned, the bases are leased.
America already seems to be getting ready to leave Japan since Japan has been taking a more active role in world politics, they're sending their own military specialists to help in some places, and they're supposed to be developing their own nuclear arsenal.

PS. This is spec_ops_wannabe, I can't log in here since the place I was at wouldn't let me log in.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
In my view its good for europe to have an army.
Europe has to do whats right to defend its values.
But i hope an european army will be only used for peacefull operations, and not for policing the world.



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join