It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:32 PM
Is there really any point in the EU forming it's own military force,
are they doing it just to bring down NATO and strengthen EU power?

As i see it an EU military alliance will be led by EU politicians who simply don't have a clue. They only want to form this new ''european'' military alliance as the US and it's non-european allies won't be able to join

In my opinion the EU military alliance is doomed to fail and NATO should have our full support

Some interesting links:

like to hear opinions from both points of views

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:44 PM
Yes,they do need an independent military structure.

Up until even 5 years ago the U.S wanted Europeans to be able to act in places like Kosova without U.S help.This can only be done with a European Defence Force.

Seems rather funny to me that as a Briton you seem happy to have your military capabilities dictated by the U.S.A but you baulk at an EDF giving Britain an alternative dimension.

Currently Britain can act alone but fairly wealkly or with NATO soon we'll be able to work with our European allies also.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:49 PM

Currently Britain can act alone but fairly wealkly

Britain can go it alone (FALKLANDS)

So get rid of NATO, stuff that, people are ignoring NATO too much it's just a kick in the teeth for them if the EU creates a military force of their own
NATO should be there to stop wars as well as starting them, the EU wants military power to add to it's economic power as well

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
Agreed, John Bull. A unified European military would give the EU and it's member countries the flexibility to dictate their own policies without reference to the US. As an anti-federalist, UK Wizard, you must like that idea, no?

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:55 PM
yes, maybe

as i have said before on other thread i don't like all this power going to the EU so quickly.

I think maybe a non-EU european alliance would be better, one for all of europe rather than a EU members only one

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:56 PM
NATO should have been disbanded ten years ago. It costs us too much money, and it has outlived its purpose. Someone forgot to tell the idiot in office the cold war is over, its time to go home.

Kosovo was such an example. At that time, the mindset in the US military is, its a European affair, none of our biz, so what the hell we still doin here?

Europe does need its own defense force, even if the EU is the one to create it. NATO serves no more purpose, is terribly outdated, and we desperately need to free up the bases in Europe and bring them home anyway.

Commie Russia is gone, and more than liely, no more major military actions will occur in Europe, so yes, NATO needs to go. Followed by the UN.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:56 PM
I'm not suggesting ignoring NATO.

At the moment we have two choices.This will give us three.

What is wrong with that?

Next time something happens on the EU doorstep we should be able to deal with it ourselves instead of calling on the U.S which is vital to NATO structure to come and help us.

It about taking responsibility for ourselves.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by UK Wizard

I think maybe a non-EU european alliance would be better, one for all of europe rather than a EU members only one

Which European countries aren't in the EU now ?

Switzerland is militarily neutral and wouldn't join anyway.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:00 PM
looks like i've just got shot down..

ok i was wrong to snap at the EU

but a non-EU, european military alliance for ALL of european rather than just member states would be better

what u think?

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:07 PM
I disagree, John Bull. NATO should be disbanded. Its about as out of date in todays world as the confederate army would be. Its a pointless org now that the Warsaw pact has collapsed.

And yes, Europe should take more responsibility for its own defense without the US nannying or dictating it. Youre economies are string enough to handle it, and most of the military problems in Europe are smaller scale squabbles that can be resolved by smaller forces and diplomacy.

UK wizard, i understand the dislike of an EU military, but thats about the only other option, that, or each member state keeping its own military, and then if trouble threatens, collaberating with each other and deciding who does what.

But it looks like the only options you have are NATO, the EU, or total withdrawal from both. In one the US will dictate to you, in the other, The French and Germans will. At least you can tell the Germans and French to go piss off and die alot easier.

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:21 PM
NATO will be gone in five years. With the EU growing, there is no need for NATO and the EU has already overtaken it. France,Germany and Britian are too busy with the EU and couldn't care less about NATO. With NATO,there is way too much bitchin' going on between the US and the French, Europe is pulling itself away from the America. The French will probably be the first to ask for NATO to be disbanded due to the war of words with America, Germany will agree then NATO will fall apart

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:39 PM
i dont like the idea of the EU running our military.
frankly its impossible cause all of the countries cant agree
even if you try bow to thier wishes they will neve be happy
i think the UN and NATO should join together and frankly stop wars. screw this just moaning about sanctions, they should of went in and kicked ass and said "thats what happens when you cross the line"

[edit on 30-6-2004 by devilwasp]

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:57 PM
just wondering if anyone knows what the provisions are for the disbandment of NATO. NATO has always seemed more productive in the way of cooperation between the US and europe than has traditional diplomacy, particularly recently. i get the feeling that NATO is perfectly happy where it is, and none of the member countries seems to show much interest in disbanding it. indeed, the trend seems to be for countries to join NATO rather than opt out.

-koji K.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:14 AM
I think over time NATO will just evolve in to a Eu/NATO hybrid as the union forms a better bond between counties.There is to much mistrust at the moment and disunity for a Eu military yet the command would not be able to act with out a general consensus and i think a universal consensus is a long way off.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by dwh0]

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by dwh0
I think over time NATO will just evolve in to a Eu/NATO hybrid as the union forms a better bong between counties.

No comment on your serendipitous spelling . . .

Seriously though.

Most reporting on the EU is Franco/Germano-centric. Much of the old Eastern block (Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Baltic states, Balkans outside of serbia) see the new NATO as more dynamic than ever. Their biggest concern is a re-invigorated Russian expansion to the west, or of a Franco-German imperialism that dictates economic policy to the rest of europe.

I am involved in the european financial markets in a professional capacity, and for what it's worth, I'll tell you what I think most Americans and Brits overlook:

1. There's a definite convergence of German and French policy within EU legislation.

2. French and Germans have tilted economic policy so far in their favor that it is seriously destabilizing the Euro, as the financial picture in southern europe varies more and more from that along the channel.

3. In my contacts with citizens of the old warsaw pact, there is a lot of animosity to a centralized currency that perpetuates mercantilism, i.e. low cost raw materials from Eastern Europe, and expensive finished products from the west that the East must have in order to modernize. The supporters of UK/US in Iraq are Poland and the Baltic states. They are currying favor in what they see coming from Russian v. Euro expansionism.

Regardless of whether an 'independent' EU military force serves the interest of various parties, here's a couple of predictions that I will make:

A. The Euro as a unified currency will cease to exist within the next 7 or 8 years; about the time that UK finally gives in to it.

B. EU troops will be deployed in combat (either by individual nations, or jointly) WITHIN EASTERN EUROPE by 2010, and maybe a lot sooner. [if you think this is impossible, consider the yugoslav campaign in the 1990's.]

C. By 2010, the land that is now Iraq will belong to at least 3 separate states, or else to countries currently bordering Iraq. (Probably Turkei and Iran will have annexed portions, unless there are 1 or more 'Kurdistans')

D. Genocide as an imperialistic policy taking place in the "2nd World" of developing countries.

Americans (and Brits too, I'm afraid) have this idea that somehow we reached the end of history with the collapse of the USSR. On the contrary. We have begun a new phase of decentralization, in which new imperialist powers will begin to assert themselves. THis is exactly what is taking place in Africa, in the wake of genocide, just as it did with the breakup (decentralization) of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The hallmark of this neo-colonialism will be mass genocide, which I expect to see increasing in Africa, SE Europe, and the Malay peninsula.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:28 AM

No comment on your serendipitous spelling . . .

Wow you quoted my post before i could fix the spelling mistake nice effort

What i said in my first post still stands as what i think on this subject .

[edit on 1-7-2004 by dwh0]

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:12 PM
One must remeber Russia itself might become part of the EU.

I think its safe to say Russia is done with its expasionism, its having enough problems with rebelions within its own borders. I dont see it as being a major threat to the EU.

But Dr Strangecraft is right when explaining the Franco-Germanic commandeering of the EU. Something thats pissing the little guys off.

NATO is outdated though. The Russian communist monster is gone. We really dont need it anymore, as Europe should be taking care of internal matters on its own, now that it no longer needs to worry about external matters.

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by John bull 1

Originally posted by UK Wizard

I think maybe a non-EU european alliance would be better, one for all of europe rather than a EU members only one

Which European countries aren't in the EU now ?

Norway comes to mind.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 02:57 AM
Its hard to see Britain joining the EUor participating in it when it is dominated by the French you know do to past history and the British can act alone they just would rather be allies with the US rather than the French and Germans which by the way have never gotten along with each other but now they are on each others...

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by koji_K
NATO has always seemed more productive in the way of cooperation between the US and europe than has traditional diplomacy, particularly recently.(...)

I definitely agree with you koji_K. Besides that, I don't think it is good to misinterpret one thing for another. The future EU forces won't be in any way adversary to any other block or country, would it be NATO or US... EU forces anyway will be a part of NATO, just as any national forces now are. Also, NATO is not only Europe, and includes (at least now...) one country that's not in EU: Turkey.

By the way, isn't it better to join instead of seperating eternally? I don't think that it is that much outdated anyway. NATO has a far more impressive power as a team than any of the individual countries in it, and that's where it is useful to join.

Oh, and, UK Wizard, EU does not hate US. Maybe some people hate the US government, but it is frankly quite different. I have a lot of american friends, and it won't change if the government is different. I don't like Bush, but we're still friends you know?

Stop mixing the people and their government. Even if the government is "democratically" elected, it does not necessarily represent the majority of the people. Example? When Jorg Heider was elected in Austria a few years ago, the non voting people were a majority. Up to a point where he had enough percents of voters to win, but just a bit less than 20% of the population that could have voted. So implying that the Austrians were far righted was wrong. Their leader was.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in