If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
An EU DEFENSE FORCE.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/wl_nm/eu_defence_dc_2
Germany, Luxemborg, Belgium and France had a little meeting where they decided to create, what is needed in Europe, a modern, agile army and special ops force. Thing is #1 Spain, Italy and Britian weren't invited to this little meeting...."although we're sure members of the EU will want to participate." and #2, headquarters will be in Belguim. Wow? Is Belgium o.k. with the new jobs that will bring?
Anyway, read this article if you haven't heard of it yet. And tell me what you think. In another article about it, Blair was quoted as basically telling off France for undermining NATO and not including the UK in this meeting. France not being above board? Well, now I am shocked. :shocking:
Could be about France selling more aerospace stuff now that its Iraqi customer is gone.
Germany, Luxemborg, Belgium and France had a little meeting where they decided to create, what is needed in Europe, a modern, agile army and special ops force. Thing is #1 Spain, Italy and Britian weren't invited to this little meeting...."although we're sure members of the EU will want to participate." and #2, headquarters will be in Belguim. Wow? Is Belgium o.k. with the new jobs that will bring?
Anyway, read this article if you haven't heard of it yet. And tell me what you think. In another article about it, Blair was quoted as basically telling off France for undermining NATO and not including the UK in this meeting. France not being above board? Well, now I am shocked. :shocking:
Could be about France selling more aerospace stuff now that its Iraqi customer is gone.
0
Comments
I agree with that. I was wondering if this initative is what has gotten Clandestine so busy.:chin:
Firstly , they all speak different languages
Also , the French have been proved to be complete losers when it comes to the military and war , I wouldnt trust them with a bb-gun , let alone command of an EU defence force.
It is not in Britains interest to be in this alliance. Well stand back while it gets in a mess and sucks up huge amounts of cash , and keep our far more profitable alliance with America going.
They didn't invite Britian to the meeting. That's why Tony Blair was mad. I think it's a ploy by France to sell more of its military equipment and to isolate the US and maybe Britian from European protection/influence.
We want to stop being so bloody xenophobic about anybody who doesn't speak english; The Matadore and Ilson's comment would have us in a 51st state standing with the US - far less power than in Europe and far less profitable.
Since EU members don't have plans for world domination a mid-size, fast and modern European army would be everything we need. We have several carriers, a modern military machine including the best tanks on earth and are about to start receving units of the most advanced fighter plane ever built. We can handle ourselves without any outside help. To hell with NATO.
I'm not surprised Blair or Aznar have been invited. The two have been having enough cosy meetings of their own with Master Bush anyway. This project will take time and there will be further meetings, with more European leaders invited along.
Considering that French military equipment has proven to be only slightly more effective than Russian military equipment, that really relies on the buyers being stupid.
Typical of how you deal with military subjects, Aladdin. Rumor doesn't win battles or wars. The FFL are good troops...against third rate opponents. They don't have the training, leadership, equipment or logistical support to take on first rate opponents.
The worst problem for the French military? Their Officer corps.
But then...
It could be...
As was broached previously...
That with Sodamn Insane on the run, the clandestine-collaborator is scrambling around, in search of a paycheck...
However, the Palestinian apologist buys into the idea...
Must be a message in there, somewhere...
The truth is that we will not know whose special forces are best unless they engage in battle. Nor do this “my Special Ops guys are better than yours” rants really matter. Special Ops guys don't win wars- the bulk of the army does.
Like I said, you could do much worse than having the French on your side. They are perfectly capable of being part of a European army, and silly remarks about 'not trusting them as they will surrender at the first chance' are so ridiculous they don't deserve further comment.
France.
Key point. I believe this is about commerce...not just defense because France and friends were very quick to say they want NATO too. This year, France is going to break the debt limitation set by the EU 3% and its economy may shrink. It has to make up for lost sales to Iraq. What better way then to claim Europe as its sphere of influence and have a new European army supplied by France. There's much to do. The average age of the Belgian soldier is in the 40's. Any equipment they would use right now it dated too.
Greenhat also made a good point about the cost. Based on how much growth Germany and France, if any, are achieving, they must include other countries to pay for this. They sure as hell can't.
I think the idea would be to initially commit the troops and hardware needed from each country's own forces, to soften the financial blow. With time they can increase the number of planes, artillery, etc needed.
I presume that doesn't include Air Force and Navy etc?
Where did you get the information for your point from, I'm interested in WW2 and didn't realise France had best equipped army in europe in 1940
By best equipped do you mean, most modern equippment, most new equippment or most equippment or all of the above?
Like depending upon a San Francisco Gay Pride / Flower Power parade for your defense? :rolleyes:
Was this a joke - like the FFL allusion - or intended to be serious? Then again, you might find a greater will to fight in a Gay Pride - or a Flower Power - parade than in all of France...
Iraq had a more formidable military than France... I guess it must be a comparative thing, then?
Spain, perhaps?
Or perhaps Monaco?
Since it has not gotten better for France, one must presume the alternative...
Even Sweden looks better than France...
If one depends upon more than arrogance and treachery for their survival, one should look to other places than France.
And as for past defeats, do you think that Great Britain would have not been defeated by Hitler had it been part of the Continent?
And how exactly are the French treacherous? Because they refused to bow to the Master and dared to voice their opposition to this illegal, self-interest driven war on Iraq?
Let me put it this way: all these fallen American WWII soldiers people keep mentioning when talking about French ingratitude and treachery will be turning in their graves to see that their deaths defending freedom and a just cause are being used by a deranged, selfish warmongering US President and his band of cheerleaders. The concept of "fighting for America's freedom" has certainly changed a lot since WWII. :rolleyes:
One last thought: if it wasn't for the French you'd still be a British colony. Show more respect for your saviours please!
Why? Aren't there any other threats to the member states?
Remember that the WTC attacks were covered under the NATO articles
The hate campaign & boycott against France started in America and happily adopted by many will be seen by future generations as one of the most shameful and lowest points in America's history. God knows France is far from perfect and they are also protecting their interests but at the end of the day the extraordinary fit of rage shown by the US and the warmongers can only be seen as a reaction of outrage by the schoolyard bully who has just seen someone dare disagree with him.
The ''if it wasn't for the French...'' comment is little more than a tongue-in-cheek remark. But remember how many in America are quick to remind us that if it wasn't for them we'd all be Krauts now- which is equally absurd.
As for the relative military strengths of France... I can help but think that Thanatos (and sometimes others) only seems to value the goodness of a country by the size of its armed forces. As if anyone gave a shit anyway... Nonetheless, since he loves putting France down so much about its military I have just reminded him that France is a nuclear power, and if it chose to it could destroy the US (or as many cities as warheads France has, which probably a few hundred).
The US doesn't seriously listen to NATO unless it suits its own ends. Neitrher does anybod else. Surely a new European RRF would be fine and the Americans can carry on playing with their toys and blowing themselves up on their own.
(just so you know i'm addressing you!)
1) WWII is completely irrevelant to any modern discussion about warfare. Almost nothing is the same as it was then.
2) 'My special forces are better than yours' is a childs game. Who cares who can kill who the best? Shouldn't we be concentrating on how not to kill people rather than inventing new and more interesting ways.
3) You know you are horrendously stereotyping the French (I hope). If I said something in a similar vein about Israel I would be called Anti-Semitic. Why do you hate the French so much? They trade with us to a huge extent and are a valid nation.
Indeed, that is out of order.
We all know it should be "garlic-eating" (j/k)
Seriously Ilson, he has a point.
Since when? The only occasions when NATO has been called upon to act, are Kosovo (a Euopean issue I believe) and post-WTC. The only occasion when they have acted as a force was over Kosovo.
Oh, and the French didn't much like the Kosovo option either. Another of their oppressive dictator friends
They supported Slobodan? BS.
That was a comment on the meeting. I think many of the features of this new defense force are in proposals for a revamped NATO.
Very true. It would have to be under the auspices of the EU.
Armies, especially those that can undertake expeditionary operations, require logistical support. It isn't the weapons that will cost them the bucks, it is replacing the logistical support currently provided to NATO by the United States. None of the nations in Europe have those assets. BIG BUCKS. Your thoughts about "the idea" completely ignore that. I'm not surprised.