|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 15 2017 19:39 Nixer wrote:
You missed my point entirely.
NATO and an EU army in the same space does not make sense so you've got one thing right for once, but I don't see NATO losing its grip on these countries completely any time soon. As for your fantasy of the EU army to be an offensive force in places of interest.. Well, that's indeed just fantasy and a preposterous statement.
No, it's not. Not at all. I have perceived the same mockery that XMZ mentioned when discussing a common EU army ("it will never happen", "don't be ridiculous", "it will be vetoed", etc). I don't understand why some of you are attempting to deny this occurred.
I am absolutely in favor of common defensive EU fighting force, and have been for a while. Mostly precisely because I'm hoping that it will allow us to redefine the relationship between the EU, the US and NATO. One where the US is not the dominant force of NATO but rather an equal partner. Perhaps even, eventually, the abolishment of NATO if that redefinition of the working relationship as it stands now does not happen. Hopefully, considering that the notion of this common EU army took you off-guard, you will realize that things that you do not predict may in fact happen and should not be casually dismissed like that.
I think we (EU citizens and politicians alike) must maintain a constant vigil to make sure that we do not suffer the same fate as the US. We can't let -- over the course of the next 50 years, mind you, this is a long-term thing -- militarism become part of our culture as it has in the US. We can't let the military-industrial complex grow as it has in the US (with all states wanting to make weapons to "create jobs", etc).
France has indeed been a proponent of military intervention akin to that of the US. It's not quite as bad as the US, but it's definitely there in their political culture. This is undeniable. If that mindset is allowed to to spread within the EU political sphere over the next 20-30 years, then that could be highly problematic given a potentially well-funded and well-armed common EU army at that time.
These are real and genuine concerns, and if we do not constantly guard against them, then it is entirely possible that these things will happen. Saying otherwise is being short-minded, foolish and naive. It is deeply concerning to me that you would outright dismiss this.
|
On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 06:06 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2017 02:39 xM(Z wrote:
i remember me pitching this EU army as a reality months ago and especially the germans were in total denial and very aggressive in shutting that slim possibility down ; well damn dudes ... shit came full circle and now everyone is embracing it.
now, all the liberals and libertarians should wrap their heads around this - you use an army to kill people, there's no way around it. whomever agrees with it now is an accessory to murder.
also, someone mentioned a proposed or alluded 2% spending; let me fill you in on what's the plan there: EU will leave NATO and that 2% is just masked under/in parallel with the required NATO contribution. they'll just transfer it over. No, we laughed at your conclusion. It went like that: - The EU will create a european army under the lead of the germans - the germans are trying to get their empire back after they failed in the 20th century. - Europe under germany will then start to attack neighbours, because that's what empires do. The European nations already have armies, coordinating logistical and training effects does not suddenly increase the threat this army poses. If the european countries can save money by not maintaining 40 different tanks, great. Afterwards they can still park the now existing 3 tank types in their barracks like they do it right now. Imperialistic pigs with their standing army. you forgot the note/disclaimer at the end of your post: this post contains fictional and dramatic reenactments; reader discretion is advised.now let me tell you a story: 1)- me: EU wants an an army men. -you(as in, your whole clueless side): Fuck off dude, EU is an economic union only. 2)-me: EU officials have statements on record about wanting an army/how better it would be with an EU army. you: Fuck off dude, that means nothing or you're misreading/taking things out of context; it'll never happen because veto exists and agreements are needed and ... economical-sociopolitical unity only WTF!. 3)-me: the germans the duch and the czechs started unifying brigades and tank divisions then centralized commands of <various military units> to use as a base for an eventual EU army. -you: ... 4)-me: EU builds an army. -you: fuck yea, it's about time!. 5)-me: ??? but, the actual problem with your whole side is the failure to see the (natural)progression from 1 to 4; you dudes always(and this is unbelievable to me) see those as separate/distinct points(in time and fucking space, to go full SF here) with no connection to each other then treat them as such. i'm perplexed by the ability of the liberal to not follow a simple causal link, be it logical or factual. + Show Spoiler +there's also the see the causality but never admit it here even when lives depend on it, but that's for another time @the 2%: there are countries who do not want to give NATO 2% because it's US controlled and limited in its attributions(doesn't serve their interests); an EU army provides them with the perfect excuse to increase their defense spending, make those MICs happy and achieve their dreams. countries already with 2%@NATO will give nothing more(monetary wise) to the EU army. also, 2% has/is a familiar value by now(psychology on the masses) since it was used so many times in conjunction with NATO spending, that people got used to it. Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?. the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc.
can you link any of those comments from german people in here who according to you said EU armee was never going to happen or that it was never the plan?
Because I know for sure that I myself at least always kept saying that I'd only like increased german military spending/action if there was a unified EU armee or whatever else. Mostly arguing that with german history I don't think anyone, neither germans nor other people in Europe, want to see Germany spend more on militar unless it's a group thing.
I would assume saying EU armee to push economical interests or any other kind of offensive idea would have gotten you a lot of headscratching from people in here but the idea of EU armees integrating is fairly popular in Germany I'd say.
So I don't think you'd get a lot of people arguing against money savings from combined R&D instead of 5 nations all doing their own things. Neither today nor 5 years ago.
tl;dr: I think you're mistaking people ridiculing your idea of EU armee being something to conquer foreign nations as people generally being against a more combined EU armee simply because in your mind it is just that and nothing else.
|
2774 Posts
On November 15 2017 20:33 Pr0wler wrote:
Because no European country ever sent it's armed forces abroad to defend economic interests. 100% of the EU always used their army as a defensive and deterring force.
Because the entire idea behind an EU army is a posture for defense and deterrence. This pact is literally about defence co-operation.
On November 15 2017 20:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 19:39 Nixer wrote:
You missed my point entirely.
NATO and an EU army in the same space does not make sense so you've got one thing right for once, but I don't see NATO losing its grip on these countries completely any time soon. As for your fantasy of the EU army to be an offensive force in places of interest.. Well, that's indeed just fantasy and a preposterous statement. No, it's not. Not at all. I have perceived the same mockery that XMZ mentioned when discussing a common EU army ("it will never happen", "don't be ridiculous", "it will be vetoed", etc). I don't understand why some of you are attempting to deny this occurred. I am absolutely in favor of common defensive EU fighting force, and have been for a while. Mostly precisely because I'm hoping that it will allow us to redefine the relationship between the Europe, the US and NATO. One where the US is not the dominant force of NATO but rather an equal partner. Perhaps even, eventually, the abolishment of NATO if that redefinition of the working relationship as it stands now does not happen. Hopefully, considering that the notion of this common EU army took you off-guard, you will realize that things that you do not predict may in fact happen and should not be casually dismissed like that. I think we (EU citizens and politicians alike) must maintain a constant vigil to make sure that we do not suffer the same fate as the US. We can't let -- over the course of the next 50 years, mind you, this is a long-term thing -- militarism become part of our culture as it has in the US. We can't let the military-industrial complex grow as it has in the US (with all states wanting to make weapons to "create jobs", etc). France has indeed been a proponent of military intervention akin to that of the US. It's not quite as bad as the US, but it's definitely there in their political culture. This is undeniable. If that mindset is allowed to to spread within the EU political sphere over the next 20-30 years, then that could be highly problematic given a potentially well-funded and well-armed common EU army at that time. These are real and genuine concerns, and if we do not constantly guard against them, then it is entirely possible that these things will happen. Saying otherwise is being short-minded, foolish and naive. It is deeply concerning to me that you would outright dismiss this.
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said.
On November 15 2017 21:09 TheDwf wrote:
Yeah, all armies are for defence. Which makes you wonder why there are armies in the first place, since apparently no one ever attacks?
When did I ever imply that all armies are? Are you really this stupid?
|
On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 20:33 Pr0wler wrote:
Because no European country ever sent it's armed forces abroad to defend economic interests. 100% of the EU always used their army as a defensive and deterring force. Because the entire idea behind an EU army is a posture for defense and deterrence. This pact is literally about defence co-operation.
Yes, and now some people in the US are saying they must "defend" against North Korea by pre-emptively invading, just like they had to "defend" against terrorists by invading Iraq and bombing the hell out of Muslims in their own homes throughout the Middle East.
Don't be naive. Be vigilant.
Edit:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said.
Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing?
|
On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 20:33 Pr0wler wrote:
Because no European country ever sent it's armed forces abroad to defend economic interests. 100% of the EU always used their army as a defensive and deterring force. Because the entire idea behind an EU army is a posture for defense and deterrence. This pact is literally about defence co-operation.
Yeah, all armies are for defence. Which makes you wonder why there are armies in the first place, since apparently no one ever attacks?
|
2774 Posts
On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing?
On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc.
It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it?
|
On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it?
Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. It doesn't mention a timeline or anything, merely alludes to the possibility and refers to a recent event to back it up.
|
2774 Posts
On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched.
Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant?
When you talk about a distant reality or possibility that's barely even close to being real in a way that implies that it is indeed a certainty don't expect not to be called out for it.
Now, do you need more hand-holding?
|
On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding?
It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense.
On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:
When you talk about a distant reality or possibility that's barely even close to being real in a way that implies that it is indeed a certainty don't expect not to be called out for it.
I think it becomes a legitimate concern the very second that they signed this agreement. A concern that will grow at the same rate as the level of cooperation grows. Mocking him for raising the concern is not the way to handle this. I don't think it's as distant as you seem to think it is - EU countries have done military interventions since 1945, and they will do so again in the future. Constant vigilance is the only way to prevent an unjust intervention.
|
2774 Posts
On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense.
What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it?
|
The way he phrased it, he pretty much said that this was the one true goal of this.
|
On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 06:06 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2017 02:39 xM(Z wrote:
i remember me pitching this EU army as a reality months ago and especially the germans were in total denial and very aggressive in shutting that slim possibility down ; well damn dudes ... shit came full circle and now everyone is embracing it.
now, all the liberals and libertarians should wrap their heads around this - you use an army to kill people, there's no way around it. whomever agrees with it now is an accessory to murder.
also, someone mentioned a proposed or alluded 2% spending; let me fill you in on what's the plan there: EU will leave NATO and that 2% is just masked under/in parallel with the required NATO contribution. they'll just transfer it over. No, we laughed at your conclusion. It went like that: - The EU will create a european army under the lead of the germans - the germans are trying to get their empire back after they failed in the 20th century. - Europe under germany will then start to attack neighbours, because that's what empires do. The European nations already have armies, coordinating logistical and training effects does not suddenly increase the threat this army poses. If the european countries can save money by not maintaining 40 different tanks, great. Afterwards they can still park the now existing 3 tank types in their barracks like they do it right now. Imperialistic pigs with their standing army. you forgot the note/disclaimer at the end of your post: this post contains fictional and dramatic reenactments; reader discretion is advised.now let me tell you a story: 1)- me: EU wants an an army men. -you(as in, your whole clueless side): Fuck off dude, EU is an economic union only. 2)-me: EU officials have statements on record about wanting an army/how better it would be with an EU army. you: Fuck off dude, that means nothing or you're misreading/taking things out of context; it'll never happen because veto exists and agreements are needed and ... economical-sociopolitical unity only WTF!. 3)-me: the germans the duch and the czechs started unifying brigades and tank divisions then centralized commands of <various military units> to use as a base for an eventual EU army. -you: ... 4)-me: EU builds an army. -you: fuck yea, it's about time!. 5)-me: ??? but, the actual problem with your whole side is the failure to see the (natural)progression from 1 to 4; you dudes always(and this is unbelievable to me) see those as separate/distinct points(in time and fucking space, to go full SF here) with no connection to each other then treat them as such. i'm perplexed by the ability of the liberal to not follow a simple causal link, be it logical or factual. + Show Spoiler +there's also the see the causality but never admit it here even when lives depend on it, but that's for another time @the 2%: there are countries who do not want to give NATO 2% because it's US controlled and limited in its attributions(doesn't serve their interests); an EU army provides them with the perfect excuse to increase their defense spending, make those MICs happy and achieve their dreams. countries already with 2%@NATO will give nothing more(monetary wise) to the EU army. also, 2% has/is a familiar value by now(psychology on the masses) since it was used so many times in conjunction with NATO spending, that people got used to it. Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?. the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc.
First, to make this clear, i am not talking here to anyone on your side, i am just talking to you. But feel free to lump anyone that disagrees with you together because this must make your world so much easier 
Second, i did dig up your post:
On May 30 2017 16:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 04:29 Artisreal wrote:
It's not like we don't have smart minds that want to waste their brainpower on how to make nukes and missiles. And historically speaking people can work really fast if need arises.
Thankfully they were slow to finalise the V2 back then.
Anyway, my impression is that other nations want Germany to become a stronger force militarily rather than the country itself. Both politicians and populace. that is the definition of head in sand. - politically: statement from German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen: "Our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army,"; but maybe you want to read up on its legal setting Show nested quote +Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union provides for substantial military integration within the institutional framework of the union.[2] Complete integration is an option that requires unanimity in the European Council of heads of state or government. For now it remains politically gridlocked considering the critical stance of the United Kingdom in particular. Article 42 does also provide for a permanent structured cooperation between the armed forces of a subset of member states. As of 2015 this option has not been used, despite calls by prominent leaders such as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt for a common defence for the Union.[3][4][5] However the debate has intensified by the standoff between the EU and Russia over Ukraine. With new calls for an EU military by EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and by other European leaders and policy makers like the head of the German parliament's foreign policy committee Norbert Röttgen, saying an EU army was "a European vision whose time has come".[6][7] Article 42 was invoked for the first time in November 2015 following the terrorist attacks in Paris, which were described by French President François Hollande as an attack against Europe as a whole.[8][9] . - as far as the populace goes, i don't think anyone cares about them as long as their heads stay buried(but ~37% of germans did want an army last year). by the end of this year, the EU will have an army sponsored and backed by yours truly: Germany and France. calling it a defense force or an army is a matter of semantics at this point. Edit: and if was needed, Germany = EU.
This was met with the needed skepticism, because you already implied sinister motivations, so you clarified what you meant:
On May 30 2017 17:06 xM(Z wrote:
i know you have problems with defining things but: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
in that context thou, i'm actually on the side of Germany is acting on its own and wants its share of the world spoils.
there was a vid. posted recently(forgot on which topic) on pre-WWI war settings and its exactly what happens right now(imo): Germany(EU), as a new emerging world power, wants its share of the loots.
So basically, you say a defense, logictics and r&d cooperation that 25 states have volunteered for are actually a tool for germany to finally become an empire again. And this is were "the other side" started to laugh you out of the room. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have a real federal government in Europe with current states giving most of their indepence away, because i am not sure how many european nations actually share enough with the political consensus in germany. Just as i would not want to have a federal goverment of germany and the usa. What you call a european army is not this though and it is also no slippery slope in to that direction and certainly no sign that France and Germany are now building an empire on the back of romania and the other EU states.
|
Complaining about the integration of EU military forces now because there is the potential that decades from now we might use it for something that we did not intent it for seems.... pointless.
Anything and everything we do might be misused x amount of years into the future. Probably should stop doing anything at all.
|
On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it?
xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here.
But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so.
We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc.
|
On November 15 2017 22:14 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it? xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here. But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so. We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc.
Sorry, I was playing devil's advocate so it's a bit unclear.
Personally I feel like it's necessary to start pushing this even if NATO is in place. However it's not going to be completely implementable for quite a while. We're ways away from that I think. You could see this as the EU preparing for a (complete) collapse in NATO relations, or something similar. I mean that's pretty much what it is.
|
The EU had to deal with Bush lying and dragging us into wars we didn't want for the sake of being allies. Trump exposed that the 'flaw' in the US was more systematic and that out biggest ally is not as reliable as we had depended on.
An EU army is a logical response to Trump threatening NATO and an aggressive imperialist nation nearby (Russia).
|
On November 15 2017 23:36 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:14 Toadesstern wrote:On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it? xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here. But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so. We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc. Sorry, I was playing devil's advocate so it's a bit unclear. Personally I feel like it's necessary to start pushing this even if NATO is in place. However it's not going to be completely implementable for quite a while. We're ways away from that I think. You could see this as the EU preparing for a (complete) collapse in NATO relations, or something similar. I mean that's pretty much what it is.
yeah I agree with that. Sry I didn't quite get that while reading mid-loadingscreen 
|
On November 15 2017 22:14 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it? xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here. But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so. We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc.
If you ignore the rhetorics they (Merkel and your interpretation of xM(Z) both mean that Germany doesn't like the US anymore and wants to play global politics with its own toys.
|
I think it is more along the lines that the EU needs to be prepared to fill the power vacuum if the US continues its current course of being a less than reliable partner.
|
On November 16 2017 01:22 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2017 22:14 Toadesstern wrote:On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it? xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here. But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so. We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc. If you ignore the rhetorics they (Merkel and your interpretation of xM(Z) both mean that Germany doesn't like the US anymore and wants to play global politics with its own toys.
You have to put a quite hefty spin to Merkel's words to arrive at that conclusion, rhetorics or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
