European army backed

Originally posted by stumason
In which case, what's wrong with NATO and the Commonwealth?

Why the need to dissolve a national institution to placate the French and Germans who, once they have managed to get us to acquiesce to that, they can get us to do anything....

The Commonwealth? I wish it was a strong institution but it isn't. The Anglo-Saxon nations should work closer together but the trend for the last 60 years has been them moving apart.

NATO? The UK will always be nothing more than America's vassal. Perhaps that is the road the UK should follow but when US and British interests diverge, America comes first.

We saw that recently with the Falklands.

In Europe, the UK gets a seat at the head of the table. Dealing with the USA, what do they say, 'alliances with the powerful are never to be trusted?

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, we can level China in half an hour, should the need arise and they know it. They would be mad to start throwing their weight around to the point we needed to go to War with them.

You perhaps over estimate the capacity of the UK's nuclear arsenal.

reply to post by ollncasino

In the past Germany and France posed real threats. Nowadays those threats come from outside Europe.

Exactly where from outside Europe?

Yet you agree that this is just another attempt by the Franco-Germanic alliance to dictate to individual nations and dominate Europe - isn't that a 'real threat' to the UK and possibly it's interests and security?

The UK should have a referendum. The ruling elites in the UK and Europe are however opposed to giving people a democratic choice.

And why do you think that is?

Of course we should have a referendum.
All the major political parties have at one point or another pledged to hold a referendum only to later renege on their pledge.
The majority of Brits want a referendum - but because Cameron doesn't think it's 'right for Britain' he denies us our right to self-determination.

Churchill was an advocate of a united Europe so it is unfair to characterize European unification as insulting those who had fought to preserve our independence from Germany.

I didn't just mean WWII - our history stretches far further back than that.
I honestly don't see how it's relevant what Churchill believed.
But I'm sure his vision of a United States of Europe wasn't anything like the amoral and corrupt entity that exists today.

I personally could possibly support some sort of Federal Union that protected individual nations and their unique identities within a federal framework - but what we have now is an affront to all free thinking people.

Originally posted by Foppezao

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ollncasino

 

In which case, what's wrong with NATO and the Commonwealth?

Why the need to dissolve a national institution to placate the French and Germans who, once they have managed to get us to acquiesce to that, they can get us to do anything....

Besides, we can level China in half an hour, should the need arise and they know it. They would be mad to start throwing their weight around to the point we needed to go to War with them.

I think if you look at the wars in former Yugoslavia (specially Bosnia) NATO had to wait until the US intervened. And for instance Srebrenica, decision making went way too slow, our troops asked for air support and didn't got it, the result was genocide..An initiative such as the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) would handle these situations much better and much quicker..Europe should respond just as quick as US forces do, and we have a long way to go...

It just wouldn't work. 23 different languages, 27 different Generals looking after their regional forces. We'd spend more time arguing with who was going to do what than actually "defending" (more like bullying other smaller nations). Bomb grid square 8 in french would translate to grid square 7 in German where the friendlies were. Man this is a catastrophy waiting to happen.

Originally posted by Foppezao
I think if you look at the wars in former Yugoslavia (specially Bosnia) NATO had to wait until the US intervened.

For Bosnia, it was actually very much a case of getting UN approval for NATO to act, which they did very swiftly. It is also worth noting that the UK is and always has been chomping at the bit to intervene in such scenarios but are often prevented from doing so by "diplomacy" and the UN.

Originally posted by Foppezao
And for instance Srebrenica, decision making went way too slow, our troops asked for air support and didn't got it, the result was genocide..

Well, you did get it, albeit a tad late. In fact, your own fighters did the bombing supported by the Brits. No Yanks involved. In any case, lessons were learnt from that period which led to a far better response in Kosovo, again spearheaded by British forces on the ground, with NATO air support.

Originally posted by Foppezao
An initiative such as the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) would handle these situations much better and much quicker..Europe should respond just as quick as US forces do, and we have a long way to go...

A joint command structure is one thing and I have no issue with it, but this is something else. Dissolving national Armies and having a Unified military with a unified political body as well? That's a super-state matey and we don't want any part of it.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by Foppezao

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ollncasino

 

In which case, what's wrong with NATO and the Commonwealth?

Why the need to dissolve a national institution to placate the French and Germans who, once they have managed to get us to acquiesce to that, they can get us to do anything....

Besides, we can level China in half an hour, should the need arise and they know it. They would be mad to start throwing their weight around to the point we needed to go to War with them.

I think if you look at the wars in former Yugoslavia (specially Bosnia) NATO had to wait until the US intervened. And for instance Srebrenica, decision making went way too slow, our troops asked for air support and didn't got it, the result was genocide..An initiative such as the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) would handle these situations much better and much quicker..Europe should respond just as quick as US forces do, and we have a long way to go...

It just wouldn't work. 23 different languages, 27 different Generals looking after their regional forces. We'd spend more time arguing with who was going to do what than actually "defending" (more like bullying other smaller nations). Bomb grid square 8 in french would translate to grid square 7 in German where the friendlies were. Man this is a catastrophy waiting to happen.

Maybe i don't get it, we've worked together for more than 50 years to prepare for a war with the Soviet Union, don''t you think we already solved problems like language barriers the moment Russians tanks role in?
I think we all speak English on the battlefield, hell i am even sure Dutch troops speak English to each other in some occasions, though i wouldn't be surprised if the French want something changed as the time comes

reply to post by glen200376

Do you seriously believe it would save money?

Yes it will safe money. For example it has been agreed that France and the UK will share Aircraft carriers in the future. That reduces the cost of hardware and streamlines forces..

reply to post by ollncasino


I am sure that if Europe ever faced a mutual threat from outside the continent then appropriate alliances would be formed and a co-ordinated strategy developed and actioned - the same can be said about any possible threat posed by an emerging rogue nation within Europe.

There is no need to compromise our ability to independantly defend our own borders and to hand control of our Armed Services to foreign powers.

reply to post by Foppezao


I admire the Netherlands and alond with Denmark are the two European countries I wish we had closer ties with. But Britain will always be Britain, we are a proud nation and do not take kindly to orders from outside parties. The European Union is currently being presided over by a bunch of politicians that were never voted in, the current president knew he was getting the job 2 years before the actual vote in the parliment. The whole think stinks of communism dictatorship. It must not be allowed to happen.

Originally posted by Freeborn

Exactly where from outside Europe?

China. See my post above. We sailed around there in the 19th century and did what we pleased. History has a habit of repeating itself, but not exactly as before.

Originally posted by Freeborn

And why do you think that is?

The elites refuse to allow a referendum because they don't care what the people think. They would also probably lose.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I didn't just mean WWII - our history stretches far further back than that.

France in the 19th century also threatened the UK. I can't think of anything much in between since 1066.

Originally posted by Freeborn

I honestly don't see how it's relevant what Churchill believed.

A greatly respected statesman who fought to prevent German domination of Europe in two world wars and to maintain the British Empire was a believer in a united Europe.

His beliefs are relevant, as you appeared to characterize a united Europe as betraying those who fought to maintain Independence.

Clearly, Churchill's views as a advocate of a united Europe undermine such an assertion.

Originally posted by Freeborn

But I'm sure his vision of a United States of Europe wasn't anything like the amoral and corrupt entity that exists today.

I suspect you are correct.

Originally posted by Freeborn

I personally could possibly support some sort of Federal Union that protected individual nations and their unique identities within a federal framework - but what we have now is an affront to all free thinking people.

Again, I agree with you. But is the alternative better?

The UK outside of Europe? I'm not sure it is.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by glen200376

 

Do you seriously believe it would save money?

Yes it will safe money. For example it has been agreed that France and the UK will share Aircraft carriers in the future. That reduces the cost of hardware and streamlines forces..

Do we get to share their supply of white flags too? We will be needing them if we start pooling resources with France.

reply to post by stumason

And, to add, I am not European. I am British by birth and English by the grace of God

12000 years ago the UK was covered in ice. It was settled upon by European immigrants.. How can you not be European...?

The US had been pushing Europe to this before but, it always fails. Europe has cut its military so much that such a force would require alot of spending or it would have to depend on the US still. The other reason it has continued to fail is that nobody can agree on anything. When to do something, how to do it, who sends what etc. Perhaps if Russia would return to its former military power or if the US were leave NATO then you would see some action on this. Until then it will coninue to be a pipe dream.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by stumason
In which case, what's wrong with NATO and the Commonwealth?

Why the need to dissolve a national institution to placate the French and Germans who, once they have managed to get us to acquiesce to that, they can get us to do anything....

The Commonwealth? I wish it was a strong institution but it isn't. The Anglo-Saxon nations should work closer together but the trend for the last 60 years has been them moving apart.

NATO? The UK will always be nothing more than America's vassal. Perhaps that is the road the UK should follow but when US and British interests diverge, America comes first.

We saw that recently with the Falklands.

In Europe, the UK gets a seat at the head of the table. Dealing with the USA, what do they say, 'alliances with the powerful are never to be trusted?

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, we can level China in half an hour, should the need arise and they know it. They would be mad to start throwing their weight around to the point we needed to go to War with them.

You perhaps over estimate the capacity of the UK's nuclear arsenal.

edit on 22-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

Its not conceivable that the UK would ever find itself alone against an opponent such as China. Therefore its a nonsense to say we need to surrender control of our armed forces to a foreign body to defend against it.

We are still (despite cuts) capable of handling anybody we are likely to face alone.

We should remain independent but co-operate in collective defence agreements as prudent. Thats as far as we need go.

reply to post by michael1983l

Do we get to share their supply of white flags too? We will be needing them if we start pooling resources with France.

The only thing that stopped the UK from being invaded in the war was the channel... Yes France was invaded in the war. But the people of France continued to offer a strong level of resistance against the German occupying forces... That does not make us any better or worse than the French..

Originally posted by ollncasino
The Commonwealth? I wish it was a strong institution but it isn't. The Anglo-Saxon nations should work closer together but the trend for the last 60 years has been them moving apart.

If push comes to shove, the Ozzies, Cannadians and the UK always flock together. As you mentioned China, the Ozzies should know we have their back.

Originally posted by ollncasino
NATO? The UK will always be nothing more than America's vassal. Perhaps that is the road the UK should follow but when US and British interests diverge, America comes first.

We saw that recently with the Falklands.

And we took care of that nicely on our own and can do so even better today.

Originally posted by ollncasino
In Europe, the UK gets a seat at the head of the table. Dealing with the USA, what do they say, 'alliances with the powerful are never to be trusted?

Hahah, a seat at the head of the table? Doesn't mean we get to join in with the conversation though and by removing our veto, we will become something even worse than "America's vassal" as we would have no say at all, being outvoted by the Franco-German bloc every time.

Originally posted by ollncasino
You perhaps over estimate the capacity of the UK's nuclear arsenal.

Perhaps you underestimate it. China's strength lies in a relatively small number of highly industrialised cities, remove those and they become nothing more than a marauding mass of rice farmers. We have more than enough nuclear capacity to ensure that if China want's to play rough, we can remove pretty much their entire industrial base overnight. Then there's the French, Germans and Russians too who would also take umbridge at the Chinese getting pushy.

Our nukes are actually amongst the worlds most powerful, dialable warheads which can reach the 50MT range, more than enough to cause a few cases of severe sunburn.

Gone are the days of big set-to Wars, so China is not really able to get that pushy without risking a great deal. They also have growing social problems which, if left unresolved, will cause the Chinese enough problems to keep them busy for a long while.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by stumason

 

And, to add, I am not European. I am British by birth and English by the grace of God

12000 years ago the UK was covered in ice. It was settled upon by European immigrants.. How can you not be European...?

By that logic we are all Africans. :-)

Obligatory 2nd line.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its not conceivable that the UK would ever find itself alone against an opponent such as China.

Therefore its a nonsense to say we need to surrender control of our armed forces to a foreign body to defend against it.

The problem is, we are just small fries these days.

Originally posted by purplemer
YWes it will safe money. For example it has been agreed that France and the UK will share Aircraft carriers in the future. That reduces the cost of hardware and streamlines forces..

Not true and I have pointed this out before. No one is "sharing" carriers. The agreement is for one to be on duty while one is in dock, it's not sharing the carriers at all.

Originally posted by ollncasino
China. See my post above. We sailed around there in the 19th century and did what we pleased. History has a habit of repeating itself, but not exactly as before.

China cannot do that today or in the future, in fact, if the US were hostile even they would have a hard time of it too.

Originally posted by ollncasino
France in the 19th century also threatened the UK. I can't think of anything much in between since 1066.

Then I am afraid to say you clearly have no idea about British history.

Originally posted by purplemer
12000 years ago the UK was covered in ice. It was settled upon by European immigrants.. How can you not be European...?

If you're going to try and be smart, I'd do my homework. The people in Europe 12k years ago are not the same people who now occupy Europe from France eastwards. The people of present day UK are largely (something like 69% gentically) of the same group that was here Pre-Roman times with the bulk of the continental population having migrated after the fall of the Empire in c600AD

reply to post by ollncasino


Only when compared to China (and even then only in terms of numbers - their training, doctrine and equipment are crap) or the US and even then, the US values the British as we have particular talents and equipment they simply don't have.

Compared to the rest of the world, however, and we're still a mean machine. We're something like the 4th largest defence spender and the 3rd or 4th largest arms exporter.

If the need arouse where it was Total War against China, do you not think we wouldn't mobilise and have a 3 million man army like in WW2 (piror to which we had an Army of about the same size as today)

Originally posted by stumason
China's strength lies in a relatively small number of highly industrialised cities, remove those and they become nothing more than a marauding mass of rice farmers.

True 30 years ago. Not true today.

By the way, the USA having Nuclear weapons didn't prevent China attacking the USA in North Korea. I suspect that you over-estimate the geo-politcal influence of nuclear weapons and the Chinese attitude to their opponents possessing them.