Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

European army backed

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Talk about twisting and turning....

You're the one who said there was no major wars between 1066 and the 18th century, when called on it, you then change your story to "there was no threat to our independence, though".

When called on that, you know want to know the relevance is?

You brought it up....
You tell me!

But to answer this question, I suppose the point I am making is we have faced threats to our country from the continent for 1,000 years (and even going back further than that all the way to the 1st Century).

Why should we then give up our own Armed Forces and surrender Sovereignty at the flick of a pen?




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by stumason
And I have no strong opinion either way on Scots independence. It's up to them, after all. I would prefer they stay in the Union, but it's not down to me.


And its up to the British people if they wish to further integrate into the EU, join an EU army or leave the EU all together.


Originally posted by stumason
Jesus man, I was thinking you and I could have a sensible, intelligent debate, but you really are clutching now.


I thought we were. Do you see what I was driving at now when I asked you about Scottish Independence? The parallels are quite striking.

Its up to the Scots if they leave the union. Its up to the British if they want to leave the EU or further integrate themselves into it.

A referendum should be called.




I think you'll find most agree on that apart from the politicians. Referendum on further integration or leaving will result in us leaving. Thats why they are too scared to have one.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I think you will find us all in agreement R.e. the referendum. I also think the Scots should hold a referendum too with an added extra, I think the rest of the UK should get to vote on wether they want Scotland to remain in the UK as a seperate vote, they can't have it both ways.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


It was only about 3% of the American colonials that rebelled against England. That was without a willingness to die for allah.

Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Actually, there is no parallel in the slightest and to be honest, i think trying to shoehorn one into the other is just a waste of time. There is a shared culture and language between Scotland and England, to a point. Certainly more so than with Europe and we have been in a Union for centuries over which time the two countries have gained quite a lot from each other. Despite what the Nats would have you believe, Scotland has done rather well out of the Union and very few actually want to leave.

It is an entirely different situation with the EU were we only joined a free trade area which, later on and without our consent, merged into a political Union.

I agree we need a referendum, but I don't hold out much hope we will get one, or at least one with the right question on it.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


The Redcoates would have probably won the war if they wern't too busy retreating due to the French threatening an invasion on our home soil. But that is ancient history anyway, what the USA has become in my opinion has been a posative on the UK.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by stumason
 


It was only about 3% of the American colonials that rebelled against England. That was without a willingness to die for allah.

Just a thought.




I'd hedge and say it was a little more than that, but it was a minority for sure.

That said, the rebellious colonials would have been crushed had it not been for the fact we were actually at war with France at the time who not only helped out the Yanks, but were kind of threatening invasion of the UK at the time. A modern parallel could be the US in Vietnam.. The US could have bashed them over the head into submission quite easily, but lack of political will and other things going on at the time distracted attention.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I think you will find us all in agreement R.e. the referendum. I also think the Scots should hold a referendum too with an added extra, I think the rest of the UK should get to vote on wether they want Scotland to remain in the UK as a seperate vote, they can't have it both ways.


As a Scot that prospect actually worries me. That the nationalists cause such a rumpus that even when we get around to voting no the damage is done and an ENP also seeking to dismantle the union arises south of the border.

Its all bull# buoyed on misplaced romanticisation of history and inflated belief in the nations remaining mineral wealth.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I'm all for Scotland staying in the UK by the way and I think the referendum is a good thing. Hopefully the referendum will put an end to the disdain that a significant number of Scots have towards the south as once and for all it will be the Scottish who do indeed Choose to be a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Muslims in the UK make up less than 3% of the population. It would take centuries of them having ten babies a generation for them to catch up. As it stands, in the UK, indigineous births recently have matched immigrant births (of all flavours) quite well.

Also, do not forget that 2nd generation immigrants and beyond tend not to follow their parents model and have many babies, simply because it is expensive and unnecessary.


What you say is largely true, however about half of all of UK Muslims are of Pakistani origin and their high birth rate of 3 children per female (Link) does not drop after immigrating to the UK. If anything it appears to grow. According to the 2001 census, Pakistani's made up 1.27% (747,285 residents) of the UK population (Link).

Even if this has since grown to about 1.7% or even 2% (the Telegraph estimates that the Pakistani population has grown to over a million (Link), according to David Goldman (2011, How Civilizations Die, p.83), British Pakistanis make up 3.4% of all UK births. So they do appear to be reproducing much in excess of the British average of 1.91 births per women (Link).

British Pakistanis appear to be having between 3 and 4 children per female.

The Telegraph estimates that by 2031 there will be at least 2.63 million people of Pakistani ancestry in the UK (Link).
edit on 22-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


I'm glad we'll never know.

I was merely pointing out history, trying to promote thought. Everything being discussed here has been tried at one time or another in Europe. Nothing new under the sun. Same script different actors.

Even this American Union They are trying to develope and shove down our throats in the States is unwanted and is using the same game plan the EU is using on those countries.

A fourth reich is happening right under Europes nose.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


But within two generations the British Pakistani's hopefully will be fully intergrated into British life. There is no problem with imigrants of any religion as long as they absorb British values and culture.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Actually, there is no parallel in the slightest and to be honest, i think trying to shoehorn one into the other is just a waste of time. There is a shared culture and language between Scotland and England, to a point.


I am surprised that you cannot see a parallel between Scotland having the right to leave the UK and the UK having the right to leave or further integrate into the EU.


Originally posted by stumason
Talk about twisting and turning....

You're the one who said there was no major wars between 1066 and the 18th century, when called on it, you then change your story to "there was no threat to our independence, though".


Did I?

Perhaps I expressed myself clumsily or perhaps you misunderstood due to picking up a conversation in the middle?

I apologize if you misunderstood.


Originally posted by stumason
But to answer this question, I suppose the point I am making is we have faced threats to our country from the continent for 1,000 years (and even going back further than that all the way to the 1st Century).

Why should we then give up our own Armed Forces and surrender Sovereignty at the flick of a pen?


Now you are starting to make a valid point rather than going off on a tangent, as interesting as a general discussion on military history is.

I agree that the UK should not lose its armed forces at the flick of a pen. A referendum should be called and the people should be allowed to decide.

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



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



My point? It does not take large numbers to create chaos. The muslims have a bigger agenda in mind.

England and US. Like two brothers fighting, yet they have each others back.
edit on 22-9-2012 by murphy22 because: sent before finished



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I'm not talking about the UK, but rather the continent.

But the trend is that immigrants are moving onto the continent and rather than assimilating, there are people who are demanding that their culture be accepted above the current laws in place.

No matter in the world where I have lived, I have always tried to live according that that countries laws and culture. And I always had a good time as the locals really appreciated it.

And I do understand that in most cases, the poorer the country, the higher the birth rate. But at the rate Europeons are now reproducing, they will be a minority in their own country at least by mid-century.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Being of Scottish descent, but a US citizen, I would like to see Scotland as our 51st State if they would accept.


Back on topic though, I think that the idea of a United States of Europe is a good idea in theory, but I also don't think it would work in practice.

They would have to adopt a common language and adapt laws similiar to the US Constitution for it to work and I don't see that happening.

Back to a EU Military. Who's tanks and personell carriers would be adopted, as well as fighters, trucks, communications equipment, not to mention the mounds of paperwork to get it all going.

The only commonality they all have is ammo.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Interesting discussion. Before the 2 WWs, it was the Brits and the Germans as allies against the French and Napoleon. So the alliances have switched around over time. The closets language to English is German. From my understanding, the Celts were a German tribe.

The original Brits were Picts, who were probably Basque. Then they were conquered by the Celts. Romans conquered England for a few centuries, and several centuries later the Danish conquered Briton for a few decades. The Normans were brought in by the English kings after they took back the Island from the Danish. Most likely the French are mainly the desendents of the Gauls, who were again a Germanic tribe.

If there was a European Military, then mainly it would be a uniting of Germanic tribes.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Freely ? we voted against the constition and hear about it much later, the treaty was signed and all.
Giving up ? There is nothing we can do, unless we all do it, at the same time and like minded convincement.

Britain is alreayde a group of nationed and you will be to late, when you realized the mess. Who cares anyway. By deffinition a Europe as one can oly be in our advantage, except when our leaders are misleading the people.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Didn't Germany try this in the 1930's and 40's?

Instead of bullets and bombs now they use spreadsheets and budgets.


Actually, Germany's population is projected to be surpassed by both France and the UK by 2060. The UK is predicted to be the most populous country in the EU, so it is unlikely that Germany will dominate Europe in the future.


The survey predicts that Britain's population by 2060 will increase by 25% from the current figure of just over 61 million to almost 77 million.

Germany is the biggest country in the EU, with more than 82 million people, but it is likely to shed almost 12 million by 2060, says the report. The widely praised family policies and support of working women in France means that the French population will rise to almost 72 million by 2060.

By 2060, the population of major European countries will be:

UK 77 million
France 72
Germany 71
Italy 59
Spain 52

The Gaurdian


The future of the EU isn't German.
edit on 22-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



Just a piece of advice: any 'projection' of what life may be like in 2060...forget it.
There are so so so many other factors that such lists do not even come close to taking into consideration.

I have yet to see any projection or prediction of what life will truly be like in 2020, much less 2060.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I'm with you against the Anglo-American coalition for world domination but I have to correct you. During the Napoleonic wars the UK did save the bacon of many crowned heads, one could argue if it was indeed a saving of the populace, if we wouldn't have benefited with a Napoleonic victory. In any case the will of the people then was not the same as it it today...

But much can be learned from the fall of the curtain...


Napoleon was imprisoned and then exiled to the island of Saint Helena in the Atlantic Ocean, 1,870 km from the west coast of Africa. In his first two months there, he lived in a pavilion on the Briars estate, which belonged to a William Balcombe. Napoleon became friendly with his family, especially his younger daughter Lucia Elizabeth who later wrote Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon. This friendship ended in 1818 when British authorities became suspicious that Balcombe had acted as an intermediary between Napoleon and Paris and dismissed him from the island.

Napoleon moved to Longwood House in December 1815; it had fallen into disrepair, and the location was damp, windswept and unhealthy. The Times published articles insinuating the British government was trying to hasten his death, and he often complained of the living conditions in letters to the governor and his custodian, Hudson Lowe.

With a small cadre of followers, Napoleon dictated his memoirs and criticised his captors—particularly Lowe. Lowe's treatment of Napoleon is regarded as poor by historians such as Frank McLynn. Lowe exacerbated a difficult situation through measures including a reduction in Napoleon's expenditure, a rule that no gifts could be delivered to him if they mentioned his imperial status, and a document his supporters had to sign that guaranteed they would stay with the prisoner indefinitely.

In 1818, The Times reported a false rumour of Napoleon's escape and said the news had been greeted by spontaneous illuminations in London. There was sympathy for him in the British Parliament: Lord Holland gave a speech which demanded the prisoner be treated with no unnecessary harshness. Napoleon kept himself informed of the events through The Times and hoped for release in the event that Holland became prime minister. He also enjoyed the support of Lord Cochrane, who was involved in Chile's and Brazil's struggle for independence and wanted to rescue Napoleon and help him set up a new empire in South America, a scheme frustrated by Napoleon's death in 1821.

There were other plots to rescue Napoleon from captivity including one from Texas, where exiled soldiers from the Grande Armée wanted a resurrection of the Napoleonic Empire in America. There was even a plan to rescue him with a primitive submarine. For Lord Byron, Napoleon was the epitome of the Romantic hero, the persecuted, lonely and flawed genius. The news that Napoleon had taken up gardening at Longwood also appealed to more domestic British sensibilities.


From Wikipedia's article on Napoleon





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join