Discussion
powerstroke said:
MarshPhantom said:
Seems to me the Tories have made some major f
k ups over the years but people get annoyed with the individual rather than the party itself.
Odd.
Unlike Labour and Immigration, Labour and War in Iraq etc...
The word is some !!! Labour is one big fk ups over the years but people get annoyed with the individual rather than the party itself.Odd.
Unlike Labour and Immigration, Labour and War in Iraq etc...
k up !! for instance have they ever held office and not fked up the economy ???Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
MarshPhantom said:
The Spruce goose said:
it would be interesting if the EU army was used against a member state.
I think the project is starting to feel like the new German empire.
Are you not more bothered about The Doughnut having his (tiny) hands on the nuclear button?I think the project is starting to feel like the new German empire.
Nope, they'll be far too busy grabbing Pussy.
don'tbesilly said:
JawKnee said:
eharding said:
amgmcqueen said:
Why is it needed?! The people of Europe do not want a fking EU army!
Who exactly elected you as the arbiter of what the people of Europe want?king EU army! king concerned about an EU army being formed then maybe he should have thought about that when deciding to give up this country's EU veto.We are still a member of the EU, and even once we invoke A50 we will continue to be a member for at least two years as a minimum.
The EU will ignore the veto even if triggered,and have said as such even when the UK said they would veto the plan, so it shows just how corrupt the EU is, and further demonstrates why the vote to leave was very much the correct decision.
No doubt you will say it's no surprise the EU will ignore something agreed with the UK, as the UK had the temerity to vote to leave a failing and corrupt organisation, but that shows you up for the sort of person you are, rather than a condemnation of the person asking why a EU army is needed, or whether the people of the EU countries asked for it.
don4l said:
I agree.
It is no longer any of our business. We are Leaving.
We should mind our own business and allow them to carry on on the path to self destruction.
We've agreed on something! I'll die a slightly happier man.It is no longer any of our business. We are Leaving.
We should mind our own business and allow them to carry on on the path to self destruction.
MarshPhantom said:
powerstroke said:
MarshPhantom said:
Seems to me the Tories have made some major fk ups over the years but people get annoyed with the individual rather than the party itself.
Odd.
Unlike Labour and Immigration, Labour and War in Iraq etc...
The word is some !!! Labour is one big fk ups over the years but people get annoyed with the individual rather than the party itself.Odd.
Unlike Labour and Immigration, Labour and War in Iraq etc...
k up !! for instance have they ever held office and not fked up the economy ???Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
k, the obsession to meddle in the st hole that's also known as the middle east is hard to fathom.....JawKnee said:
don'tbesilly said:
JawKnee said:
eharding said:
amgmcqueen said:
Why is it needed?! The people of Europe do not want a fking EU army!
Who exactly elected you as the arbiter of what the people of Europe want?king EU army! king concerned about an EU army being formed then maybe he should have thought about that when deciding to give up this country's EU veto.We are still a member of the EU, and even once we invoke A50 we will continue to be a member for at least two years as a minimum.
The EU will ignore the veto even if triggered,and have said as such even when the UK said they would veto the plan, so it shows just how corrupt the EU is, and further demonstrates why the vote to leave was very much the correct decision.
No doubt you will say it's no surprise the EU will ignore something agreed with the UK, as the UK had the temerity to vote to leave a failing and corrupt organisation, but that shows you up for the sort of person you are, rather than a condemnation of the person asking why a EU army is needed, or whether the people of the EU countries asked for it.
don4l said:
I agree.
It is no longer any of our business. We are Leaving.
We should mind our own business and allow them to carry on on the path to self destruction.
We've agreed on something! I'll die a slightly happier man.It is no longer any of our business. We are Leaving.
We should mind our own business and allow them to carry on on the path to self destruction.
End of days, right here.
MarshPhantom said:
The recent invasion of Libya has also been a disaster, typically it doesn't get a lot of coverage and Cameron's doing, not the Tories.
Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
Invasion ?Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
Deptford Draylons said:
MarshPhantom said:
The recent invasion of Libya has also been a disaster, typically it doesn't get a lot of coverage and Cameron's doing, not the Tories.
Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
Invasion ?Which is pretty much what I talking about
Also, why do you only care about the economy? Team Brexit certainly weren't too bothered.
EU army is entirely logical and not particularly scary.
Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
- Improved capabilities to respond to Russian little green men on the borders most probably under a NATO article 50 response.
- Deployment on a major operation like Iraq or Bosnia
- Provision of peace keepers
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
Talksteer said:
EU army is entirely logical and not particularly scary.
Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
Wouldn't that just lead to more doubling up of NATO stuff, and wouldn't the economies of scale be greatly reduced by the need for countries to keep the ability to act independently? Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
- Improved capabilities to respond to Russian little green men on the borders most probably under a NATO article 50 response.
- Deployment on a major operation like Iraq or Bosnia
- Provision of peace keepers
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
Talksteer said:
Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
They don't, they don't even meet their obligated GDP spend to NATO.This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.
He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.
jsf said:
They don't, they don't even meet their obligated GDP spend to NATO.
This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.
He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.
And it makes perfect sense for him to challenge this IMO.This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.
He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.
Also...when people start pointing at what other countries spend on "nice" stuff and cry into their beer about why we don't, they need to consider charts like that. Other countries spend on different things for their own reasons (they are ALL different with different balances to sort). Defence is just one.
The EU army is a terrifying prospect. Not all EU countries interests are aligned. Imagine another Argy invasion of The Falklands, and then having Spain veto a decision to send forces to liberate them. Let them carry on with it, but fortunately it won't involve us anymore.
WRT NATO, it has been irrelevant since the fall of the wall and it's subsequent expansion East. Do you really think any POTUS would have sacrificed NY or DC for Latvia, or any other ex-WARPAC state? NATO is irrelevant, and doubly so since most members don't even come close to meeting their 2% spending condition as the above graphic clearly illustrates. Germany barely even has an airforce nowadays. The UK only just scrapes in. IMO membership should be automatically revoked for all these countries anyway.
WRT NATO, it has been irrelevant since the fall of the wall and it's subsequent expansion East. Do you really think any POTUS would have sacrificed NY or DC for Latvia, or any other ex-WARPAC state? NATO is irrelevant, and doubly so since most members don't even come close to meeting their 2% spending condition as the above graphic clearly illustrates. Germany barely even has an airforce nowadays. The UK only just scrapes in. IMO membership should be automatically revoked for all these countries anyway.
Mothersruin said:
Talksteer said:
... and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
...by some very deluded people.It is entirely scary.
jsf said:
They don't, they don't even meet their obligated GDP spend to NATO.
This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.
He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.
And on that chart you can be sure that Greece might be spending a lot of money, but it won't be providing any real defence. It'll be hosed on managers and pensions and bribes.This is why Trump is pissed off, the USA has been paying for Europes defence since WW2 whilst Europe wont pay their own way.
He is a business man and has looked at the numbers.
paulrockliffe said:
And on that chart you can be sure that Greece might be spending a lot of money, but it won't be providing any real defence. It'll be hosed on managers and pensions and bribes.
Much of the Greek military spending was on massively overpriced submarines which were never delivered.Have a guess who was supplying them....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/10895239...
Talksteer said:
EU army is entirely logical and not particularly scary.
Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
I see a flaw in the an EU army. I joined the British Armed forces, I would not have joined a Euro Armed force.Collectively the EU spends a phenomenal amount on defence and fields a large number of men.
However they lack a number of capabilities particularly in terms of rare full spectrum stuff like ELINT, transport, expeditionary stuff, HQ and comms systems.
They replicate plenty of capabilities in small inefficient penny packets.
Chipping in for these capabilities at an alliance level makes sense so does common procurement.
The EU military command is only going to be able to command troops provided by members and will only be able to deploy with some complicated decision making.
Feasible uses for the EU army.
- Improved capabilities to respond to Russian little green men on the borders most probably under a NATO article 50 response.
- Deployment on a major operation like Iraq or Bosnia
- Provision of peace keepers
It's not going to be used to attack other members anymore than NATO would nor will members be obligated to provide men. Like NATO it also wouldn't have had any prohibition on members acting independently.
As an aside the rest of the EU really wanted the UK to lead it as the EUs biggest defence spender and most belligerent member.
I was happy to be a part of NATO and to work with other nations armed forces, but I would not join a single EU armed force.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff