Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Military Official Suggest Europe Defend Itself  
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

SALEN, Sweden, Jan 18 (Reuters) - The European Union's top military official suggested on Sunday that American and European forces should be responsible for their own territorial defence and only cooperate on major crises outside their regions.

Full story http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/STA853854.htm.

# # #

Amen. Bring our troops and our dollars home.

Paraphrasing from a few good men, "they sleep under the blanket of our protection but then criticize the way we do it."

Let's see how long a peaceful European subcontinent can exist without the US military's presence.

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

Sounds extremely stupid.

The US cannot without the EU, but the EU of course can't without the US.

Coöperation is what we need. This sounds more like something from an Euro-centric/nationalist (actually the same disgusting nationalistic reaction as some Americans have).


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Sabena 690, let me suggest something crazy here.

Let's say that China and Russia decide to invade Europe (don't ask me why they'd bother, but hey, this is a speculative scenario). You have Chinese manpower and Russian military expertise.

Europe would fold like a wet rag before them if the US didn't intervene. Sorry, but that's the truth. Then again, I guess passing a UN resolution condemning China and Russia would make them stop their invasion, right? They'd have much more trouble taking the U.K., but frankly Belgium would get stomped.

Continental Europe does not need to go the way of Canada. A report was just released that said that by 2015 Canada's military would literally cease to exist. Not a good thing.


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1076 times:

MD-90: I totally agree with your situation.

I'm very pro an EU-military. We are really 'outdated' when you compare our military with the one of the US. I don't say we have to become totally militarized, but we need a strong coöperation between all EU-countries and a stronger military in general.

For example the war in Iraq: we would be able to support the US in several tasks, but where the latest technology is needed, we would not be able to intervene.

First we need a European military, and this in strong coöperation with the US for general trainings, sharing of techniques,...

Frederic


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1070 times:

MD-90, if you´d just bother to actually read the article, you´d see that he merely advocated that Europe should shoulder its adequate part of the burden.

The de-facto-demilitarization of Germany was very much to the liking of the USA for several decades; After all, we were obviously destined to be the battleground should the cold war ever turn into a hot one.

When the planned Pershing II deployment in the early 1980s made it perfectly clear what our position would be in a conflict (namely one half of the country being the target of the new nuclear weapons deployed in the other half), the new peace movement emerged (which ultimately resulted in the founding of the same green party that´s now in government together with the social democrats).

American politicians often paid lip service to the demand for an increased military role of the european countries (mainly in order to reduce american deployment costs). On the other hand, however, the idea of an actual sharing of power that would have been the obvious consequence was always brusquely refused.

So with the end of the cold war and finally the Bush administration´s termination of the former transatlantic consensus, the necessary consequence must be that Europe has to start becoming independent with regards to its defense.

I don´t think that we´ll absolutely need cold-war-style "total anihilation" capabilities; But we do indeed need to assume much more responsibility on the one hand and release some of the burden the US taxpayers had borne for so long.

This would, of course, turn the previously just pro forma partnership into a real, substantial one in time. But based on the still existing common interests I think this is the way to go.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1064 times:

Sabena 690

Why do you believe the US needs the EU - at least militarily? I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to understand your point.

-76M


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 1060 times:

I don't understand your point. Why would the US want to have troops, tanks, planes, and missiles in Germany for all of those years to defend agains Soviet aggression? Surely NATO would've rather had Germany and continental Europe able to defend itself instead of relying on the US?

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 1050 times:

My personal feelings is that a US Military presence in Europe is not only justified is a neccesity for both the United States and Europe, the United States benefits greatly from having foward deployed assets such as the Ramstein Army Hospital in Germany.

US Soldiers injured in the Middle East/ Southern Asia/ Africa etc are that much closer to high quality medical care, which means by having a Modern hospital available in Germany means American soldiers seriously wounded in places like Iraq or Afghanistan are "hours" closer to modern medical facilities thus saving LIVES!

Also having units foward deployed in Europe means they are closer to "hot" zones where during a crisis they can be deployed much faster than Units in the Continental United States.

The EU benefits from having a large Military presence to boost their secuirty, which does not interfere with European politics and is respectful to their hosts. US Military installations provide good jobs to locals, more and more support work at US Military bases are now done by civilian locals whether in Germany, Italy or Kentucky.

And I can think of worse places to be based while in the Military than Germany, Britain or Itay!

I've spoken with many friends who have served in the US Army, most of which spent time in Germany and they all loved it so much they go back there on vacation even though they are no longer in the Military.

I support the OIF, but I would much rather see US troops "roughing it" from a warm barracks in Germany where the only danger they face is from drinking too much at the local pubs.

BTW..

Even though it's not as large as the US Presence in Europe, many European Countries such as Germany and Britain have bases in the US. Particulary the German Luftwaffe (sp?) have a base at Washington Dulles airport.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 1046 times:

STT757..that is EXACTLY the point!

Does anybody actually believe, that the USA would be a much safer place with all the armed forces stationed at your own borders??? Not really, I hope!

btw: Yes, your spelling of Luftwaffe is correct!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1029 times:

I also think that having the US military is to the benefit of both countries. STT757 pointed it out very well. The US should just teach their soldiers how to drive before they're let loose on the Autobahn  Smile

User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

N6376m: what do you prefer: putting the whole American army in America only, or coöperate with the EU for International Security in a multilateral way?

When the EU and US soldiers would train together, we would be able to act much better in a crisis situation. Now something I have difficulties with to say in English... in Dutch we say: om de militairen van zowel de EU als de US op elkaar in te spelen - a litteraly translation to English (hope you understand): to make that EU and US soldiers are played in on eachother.

When something would happen, one coördination for US and EU troops would be possible.

The first thing we have to do now is forming one EU army, and the second things is that aswell the EU as the US invite eachother for keeping big excercices.

Frederic


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

to make that EU and US soldiers are played in on eachother.

Frederic, were you trying to say that European soldiers and American soldiers should team up together? because the above sentence makes no sense at all.




When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Fred,
U.S. and Foreign troops have been training together for decades.


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

the above sentence makes no sense at all.

That's what I already feared...  Sad

What I mean: when US and EU soldiers work together often, both sides know what you can expect from eachother, how you react in certain situations, etc etc etc With a lot of training, EU and US soldiers can do missions together without having problems like for example: the one reacts different in situation X like the other, the one uses a different technique in situation Y than the other,...

It's only a vague explanation, but I don't know how to translate what I precisely mean...  Sad


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1010 times:

I want to intensifie that training, Jeff.

Before a good training is possible, we need a joint military first in Europe.

Like this, Poles will be able to work together with French, Spanish and US soldiers in one team under one coördination for example.

Frederic


User currently offlineMoPac From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 998 times:

U.S. forces would handle high-intensity operations involving terrorism and weapons of mass destruction while Europeans would concentrate on sustained low-intensity crisis management such as conflict prevention, he said.

WTF????

WORLD: "O.K., we have a major WMD detonation... America... go in and clean it up!"
USA: "Europe, did you bring the suits?"
EUROPE: "What???... Ce qui???... Was???... Che cosa???... Que???..."
USA: "&$^%#"
MEXICO: "Aqui, pierna de Santa Ana de la toma." ("Here, take Santa Anna's leg.")
WORLD: .......
EUROPE: "We'll have a beautiful spread laid out on your return. I'm thinking Ham with a fall Harvest theme."


Why do we get the $hitty jobs?


User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 986 times:

One question I would like to ask is that if there is a EU army and individual nations contribute men and women to that force, what if there is a similar situation to Iraq where the UK, Spain and Italy wanted to provide troops and the rest of the Eu didn't? If for example military EU decisions are made in Brussels and that decision goes agaisnt the will of other nations, surely those nations then have the right to pull their troops out of the EU military and use them as they see fit. For example there would have been no way the UK would not have provided troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom even if the EU had declared it illegal. Isn't this going to be a problem long-term or am I missing something?


I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 984 times:

MoPac: Why do we get the $hitty jobs?

Because you´re trampling over everybody else to be first at the scene, whatever the cost!


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 977 times:

MoPac.... do you really want those guys doing such work? Conflict prevention alone would probably tie them up in a knot..  Big grin

User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 969 times:

Sabena 690 -

I believe that the largest threat currently posed to the US comes from non-conventional sources (i.e. terrorist). Though our President has identified certain nations (the axis of evil) as being threats to the US, only N. Korea has any sort of weaponry capable of threatening the US. Iraq certainly could have served as a destabilizing influence in the Middle East that would have certainly affected US interest - but we took care of that problem.

Clearly, there was great disagreement over the use of force in Iraq and many nations exercised their sovereign right to refuse to participate in the action, with many more sending just token forces. Though there is no way to be certain, I would highly doubt that an EU military under EU (as opposed to individual country) control would actually participate in military actions with the United States against the risks the US faces.

This being the case, if the EU and the US are not going to actually fight together, why should they train together?

Until their is a resolution of the larger philosophical differences between the EU and the US (specifically is the best defense a good offense - like GWB has argued), then the likelihood of the US and the EU conducting any sort of significant military operations together are remote.

Even in the former Yugoslavia, the pretext of a joint NATO exercise was largely superficial as the matter wasn't addressed until the US got involved.

I find it very concerning that the US soldier is constantly confronted with cries of Yankee go home, yet when there's a problem in Europe's back yard, it's the US soldier that has to be the one who leads everyone into battle. I find it hypocritical.

If Europe wants to take control of its military responsibilities - I say let them. I'll be that within 50 years they'll be cries for the US to return.

-76M

[Edited 2004-01-19 18:21:00]

User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 961 times:

Klaus writes:

Because you are trampling over everybody else to be first at the scene, whatever the cost!

How much longer should we have waited in the Balklands before intervening? How long did Europe allow the genocide to occur in its backyard without doing anything to stop it? Please don't talk to me about sanctions. People were dying, your militaries had the capabilities and you stood idly by.

If anyone should have taken the lead to prevent the ethnic cleaning occurring on Europe's doorstep it should have been Germany.

I think that act would have been an excellent way of showing Europe that Germany's previous mistakes have no place in this day and age.

There are two types of crimes, crimes of commission and crimes of omission. Germany committed the former in WWII and was guilty (as was the rest of the EU) of the later in the 90's.

It's always easy to wait and see, but true leadership means that when there is a call to action, you lead and bear the consequences for doing so.

-76M

[Edited 2004-01-19 18:19:20]

User currently offlineMoPac From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 959 times:

Because you´re trampling over everybody else to be first at the scene, whatever the cost!

Ahhh.... I thought it was because Europe was trampling over everybody else while running away.  Big grin


Seriously though, I think it is high time that Europe bear a bigger share of the burden. I wonder if Europe isn't too comfortable to seriously address issues though. It seems to me that many on the continent are iron clad in their belief that international conflicts resolve themselves peacefully. Nothing would please me more than to see Europe's tether cut.


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 937 times:

more and more military spending! yay! bush doctrine applied to europe!
it is quite simple, europe is not threatened by anyone. military power is about one thing: the ability to project power. and europe needs to buildup its ability to project military power to a certain degree.
quit frankly, noone has a higher military capability in europe then the eu countries. china might have endless military power to fight wars on its soil, but very limited global projection capability.
every military today, with little exception smaller parts of the u.s. military, are still structured in the way they were suited for the hot war after the cold war.
that means european military has a massive focus on force projection in a european theater. that is why the european militaries all lack airlift capability.
in contrast, the u.s. has a huge navy and airforce in comparison to the army, due to the fact that the u.s. had to secure the REFORGER (REinFORceGERmany) seaways incase a certain defcon level had been reached from soviet attacks in addition to securing the pacific theater.
the pacific and north atlantic theater both call for massive air and naval power, also airpower is easier projected abroad.
i simply dont think that russia, india, china,japan europe and the u.s. can be taken over by hostile forces in the current situation.
all are able to project power on a local level in a way that an invasion would simply be doomed.
such a situation is totally different from the wars that we have seen since the russian afghanistan(where the chinese ability to deploy massive forces locally forced the current bordersituation because it was obvious that the UN could not counter that).
the 91 gulf war and the current colonization were both rather "easy" victories due to the fact that the emphasis on force projection through airpower is nowhere as good as in a flat desert. on the contrary in vietnam the lack of force projection during airpower caused the u.s. massive problems(which they tried to counter with agent orange etc).
i hope i was able to add few things to consider in the discussion.



10=2
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 928 times:

Zak,

I'd argue that the US is the only nation that could conduct offensive, opposed military operations against a nation which it didn't share a common border with. The last country to even try something like this without direct US involvment was the UK against the Falklands.

Look just how much trouble they had projecting force over a distance. I've read a couple books on the subject and the common thinking is that if the US hadn't given the Brits the Sidewinder and Argentina have a couple more of its bombs explode instead of being duds, the UK would not have retaken the islands.

I agree with you that China is strong, they might even be able to take Taiwan if the US didn't defend the ROC (though they'd take huge losses on an opposed attack to seize the island).

However, to the best of my knowledge no country other than the US has even the equipment necessary to conduct offensive operations outside it immediate regions.


User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 921 times:

Quote:
If anyone should have taken the lead to prevent the ethnic cleaning occurring on Europe's doorstep it should have been Germany. I think that act would have been an excellent way of showing Europe that Germany's previous mistakes have no place in this day and age.

What an unbelievable nonsense...do you have any idea about size, manpower, equipment etc. of the German military? No, definitely not, because then you wouldn't post such a nonsense. Just in case you forgot, this is the result of WW2, and correctly so: German military is no more able to attack another country. To go to Yugoslavia would have been suicide and would have resulted in a bloodbath. Is that what you would have liked to see?

There are two types of crimes, crimes of commission and crimes of omission. Germany committed the former in WWII and was guilty (as was the rest of the EU) of the later in the 90's.

What a bigot and dirty thing to say for an American. Of course it is true, but just in case you forgot: That same goes for the USA...remember Ruanda? Israel-Palestine? North Korea and its own citizens? Tibet?
Funny how the US of A chose NOT to step in...and YOU are accusing the EU of a crime of ommission?

Wow, talk about double standards!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
25 Zak : "However, to the best of my knowledge no country other than the US has even the equipment necessary to conduct offensive operations outside it immedia
26 Post contains images MoPac : it is quite simple, europe is not threatened by anyone Now you get it. Since your not busy... which mess do you want: you can run interference betwee
27 Donder10 : What a bigot and dirty thing to say for an American. Of course it is true, but just in case you forgot: That same goes for the USA...remember Ruanda?
28 Andreas : Donder: That is not what he said...he talked about crimes...and I still believe that it is completely irrelevant WHERE such crimes happen...btw, if I
29 N6376m : If you don't think that it's criminal for the leading nations of Europe to allow ethnic cleansing to occur on their doorstep, then I think that it say
30 FDXmech : One reasons it would be politically expediant for the U.S. to bring back much of its force structure is grassroot economics. After the Cold War ended,
31 Post contains images Klaus : A few points have been missing from the topic about the balkans war: a) None of you seem to be aware what the nazi occupation actually meant for Yugos
32 Post contains images JeffM : "tagged along on the tails of the Iraqi Liberation." Disaster is what they had before Klaus...
33 Klaus : JeffM: Disaster is what they had before Klaus... They certainly had oppression; Now they and the invaders have a disaster on their hands. I´m not sur
34 JeffM : I think people have been hoping for a "functioning" UN for more then a decade.. Long before the liberation of Iraq. "Lies, deceit and intimidation are
35 PHX-LJU : Klaus wrote: "When the first regions quickly seceded from the nation, the german Kohl administration with our foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher
36 N6376m : Later, US invasion tactics made the re-civilisation quite a bit more complicated than necessary (carelessly bombarding civilian targets, propping up l
37 JeffM : Don't let it get to you N6376m.... They have had the rear sled dog's view for so long...
38 Klaus : PHX-LJU: Hans-Dietrich Genscher did the right thing by recognizing Slovenia and Croatia; his courageous move, among other things, means that he will f
39 PHX-LJU : Klaus wrote: "Without a direct military backup, how much did the diplomatic recognition of the seceded states actually accomplish that could not have
40 Klaus : PHX-LJU: But the recognition in effect declared Yugoslavia, as it previously existed, dead and gone. So how did that on its own actually protect anyon
41 PHX-LJU : Klaus wrote: "By itself, it did not. As I have argued, it should have been backed up by a very real threat of force. But violence was already raging -
42 Klaus : We may never know how much external pressure would have prevented the atrocities we´ve seen. But when the only response is diplomatic, it should be m
43 PHX-LJU : Klaus wrote: "But when the only response is diplomatic, it should be much better than merely picking a side and leaning back to watch the events unfol
44 Klaus : At least the croatians, the muslims and the serbs committed major atrocities during the conflict. This automatically precludes the notion that any "si
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
America's Military Still Protects Europe! posted Sun Dec 17 2006 17:10:10 by OU812
Military: Does The US Use The EU Or Viceversa? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 22:42:00 by Derico
Will Europe Have A Unified Military? posted Sat Feb 11 2006 04:45:57 by AerospaceFan
Reuters: English To Be The Official Language Of EU posted Tue Feb 7 2006 19:49:08 by Jap
The Official France EU Consitution Vote Thread! posted Sun May 29 2005 12:25:32 by RootsAir
'Old Europe' Presses Ahead With Plans For EU Army posted Wed Apr 30 2003 06:13:46 by KAUSpilot
It's Official: The EU Is Expanding posted Fri Dec 13 2002 20:41:22 by PHX-LJU
Official Lanuguage Of The EU posted Mon Jun 24 2002 03:10:07 by Cba
English Only Official Language Of EU posted Fri Jan 11 2002 13:15:58 by Aviatsiya
Finland To Ratify EU Const. Treaty Today posted Tue Dec 5 2006 10:14:46 by Joni