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.


European army backed

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:50 PM
LOL.....people are assuming the European Union is going to survive. It will be broken from the PIIGS.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by purplemer
It is about time this happened. Europe has a shared and very bloody history.It would be nice to see us working together. The US made a sham in Kosovo it would be good to see such matters dealt with internally..

Actually the EU made a sham of Kosovo. The US only came in to clean up their mess, back then there was talk of a EU Army and the USA thought "great, finally some help". Shortly afterwards the EU proved how inept it was and America began looking towards China as a future global partner.

Didnt the USA hit the chinese embassy with a cruise missile? I`m sure I read that happening arround about that time.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:18 PM

So, the EU would hardly contend for overtaking the US as the worlds top military power if a single army was implemented, unless defense spending were doubled. Doesn't seem likely in the context of budget problems.

However, there would be an advantage against other powers, namely Russia.

Even, so, it is probably in America's interests to oppose this because of the imperial history of Europe. If a single EU military were to happen, I'd imagine a worldwide cringe would take place (especially in Asia and Africa). History shows that Europe is willing to be aggressive towards foreign nations.

edit on 9/22/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/22/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

European military will not be build as an offensive force towards other powers. It will be used for defense of course. Mostly it will be used for international cooperation. It will get used to strike down internal problems'They will be the most important and first things that will be needed to stopped.W e will not go and colonize new areas. We have already done that before and it backfired.

Finally they army is under control of a single government and will be freed from bureaucracy and complex command structures contradicting each others

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I wasn't implying that it would be used aggressively, just that there might be that perception. Probably should have been more clear on that.
edit on 9/22/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

I don't see how the individual members of the nation states could sit by and allow this to happen. This is ridiculous. Another power grab by the few in charge.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:13 PM
Britain has stood alone against various European nations throughout the last millenium.
France, Spain, Germany,Austria, Germany, Turkey ,ect ect ect ect.
The Russians are vultures waiting, waiting.
God Save Britain.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:44 PM
Good that means there no need to nato or the UN bout time they stopped outsourcing their own defense,

Let them have at it.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:01 PM
never expected this to happen lol (sarcasm)

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:50 PM
Maybe they are thinking more along the lines of an army to secure resources to use on the chess board, say something similar to America (Middle eastern resources) and China (Pacific islands and Africa).
Maybe the 'leaders' are tired of being boxed in and want to fill their Swiss bank accounts with resource acquisitions from a 'EU peace-force'

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by Dr Expired

Yes it did. It was an empire worthy of respect.

Yet now it doesn't stands against a European nation. Europe is working together, and very soon even as one.
We live in a different age and a lot will change. Hopefully for the best.

The European people didn't really accepted it just like that... France the Netherlands and Ireland all voted NO
But our governments simply pushed it down our throats. Keeping things low key until it's way to late.

Life is just a ride, and our ride just got a detour. That doesn't mean we can't get to enjoy it.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:41 AM
Cool #, bro! I can't wait to see it in action. Hell, if I wasn't moving to the US I'd join up myself.

And toes are meant to be tread on. China and the US will have to suck it up.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:02 AM
All of Europe does not have enough power to project globally especially since America has not left a void to fill and China continues to rise while Russia continues to be relatively powerful in the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Remember that Britain and France had to borrow missiles and bombs from the US as they ran out during the Libyan campaign. If they can't subdue a country of 6,000,000 with a poorly trained and small army, they won't ever be projecting much clout.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Only out of curiosity could you post a link that shows specifically Britain and France needing munitions from the USA, I know some of the other partners did, as they also needed fuel ext, but as far as I am aware Britain and France used their own inventories of American made munitions but also used munitions produced in Europe such as the Storm Shadow Cruise missile.

My concern at the adventure you point out is that the UK and France seems like they where testing their own interoperability and seemed to me to be operating outside of the rest of the partners, such as using their inflight refueling and supplies.

However I've not read everything on the topic, so if you could post something that supports your statement I'd be really grateful

On the flip side does it not concern you as this seems to be marrying up to the BAE/EADS merger (merged army merged arms industry) BAE currently (for example) make American APCs (Bradly) and service American Tomahawk Cruise missiles etc would it really be in Americas interest that new entity was answerable to Brussels?

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:59 AM
Just wanted to add, if this merged army/union took place it would incorporate all the overseas territories of EU member states.. which dotted around the world would give this new power a huge global reach.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:43 AM
reply to post by thoughtsfull

To me, this is even more reason to do it. Not only would it make Europe militarily strong and able to stand its own against the US and China in negotiations as well as on a possible battlefield. With all these overseas territories, it would actually make the European Union a military superpower easily rivalling the US and China. That notion kind of tickles my fancy.

Especially so with the troubled times that lie ahead of us. Some people think that war will continue to manifest itself in the way it has during the War on Terror - first world nations attacking third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't. I suspect that, if not the time of war between great nations like the US and Russia, is returning, then at the very least, the time of the Cold War is returning. And if that's true, then we definitely want a European superpower to hold its own.
edit on 23-9-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:10 AM
Sounds like the rise once again of the once great Roman Empire. This will be interesting to watch develop.

Originally posted by ollncasino
GERMANY, France and nine of Europe's most powerful countries have called for European army, an elected European Union president and an end to Britain's veto over defence policy, in radical vision for the ''future of Europe''.

The plan was backed by Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal

The proposals also demand an end to countries being able to veto initiatives, aimed at preventing the UK which opposes a European army being able to block its creation.

In order to ''prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives'', a reference to British opposition to a European army, the German-led group demanded an end to existing national vetoes over foreign and defence policy.

This would give the EU the power to impose a decision on Britain if it was supported by a majority of other countries.

Sydney Morning Herald.

The EU has the largest economy in the world, has a population of 500 million people and is the largest trading block in the world.

A European army would allow it to protect its interests globally and translate its economic power into real geo-political leverage. I'm British but with the waning global clout of individual European nations, I feel such a move is long over-due.

A new superpower on the block however may tread on the toes of both China and the USA.

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

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:54 AM
Sounds very 1984 to me.

All European countries will cease to exist in their own right and it'll be controlled by 1 group of people.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Sounds very 1984 to me.

All European countries will cease to exist in their own right and it'll be controlled by 1 group of people.

100% correct. A European army goes with political and financial unification. There are positives to this of course - just as there are positives to a one world order. But the downside to both is that control is centralised - there are less checks and balances and if you or me fall foul of the state, there are less places to go to.
Plus the EU is not about to break up. It might change but it won't disappear. Ffs wake up and smell the coffee! Further and ongoing union will be touted as the salvation to financial disaster and the bogeyman of Eurpoean conflict. It's already happening. Plus - I suspect that the cut backs in the UK forces are due, in part, to recognition that this is happening and WILL happen.

edit on 23-9-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:18 AM
i think we the UK should become the 51st state joining america rather than Europe ..

we have more in common with the USA than our European neighbors ..lets face it ...when have we ever seen eye to eye with France and Germany .. im betting France will be pushing for french to be the main language in Europe with in a few decades ..

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by sitchin

How about just being British - why do we have to join with anyone and try to be something we aren't?

I'd oppose becoming the 51st of America even more than I do the move towards European unification.

Closer links with Australia, New Zealand and Canada and maybe one or two other Commonwealth nations is about as far as I'd go.
edit on 23/9/12 by Freeborn because: clarity

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in