EU army

[Kagemusha]

Should EU nations create EU army from their current militaries?In EU every country has an army created for Nations self defence.Should we convert these Nationalistic armies into one big EU army?

[Ja'chyra]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

[Kagemusha]

It would be unworkable at the minute, it would take decades to get that kind of thing in place.

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time. :bow:

[Franconicus]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

[Kagemusha]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

If Britain wouldnt join it would shrink the capacity of such army very much ,because GB has the most powerfull army in EU area.
Btw what restrictions German Army still has?

[Ja'chyra]

Tell me why?National Armies already have their active command structures.You would have to create only new HQ.Ofcourse shaping those military structures would take time. :bow:

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

[CBR]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII. :bow:

[King Ragnar]

. GB will not.

We hopefully wouldn't, i would see no advantage in doing this, it would cost to much and wouldnt be up and running anytime soon, and there would be to much dissagreement on how it would work ranking etc.

[Redleg]

They should and they will! Although I do not believe that all EU countries will join. GB will not.
There is a cooperation of Germany, France and the BENELUX already.
First of all you must have rules what this army should do. As you know Germany has some selfrestrictions.
Second, they need a common foreign policy as well.

That is exactly why it won't work. Some nations have their own restrictions for what the military can be used for. To merge say the German Army into an EU army would create the necessity to ignore the German Constitution or to have the Constitution amended.

Second common foreign policy for all nations in the army would be required - and I don't believe Europe as a whole can formulate a common foreign policy.

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

Cooperation is different then a unified command - common cause must be the formost consideration for such a force - and once common cause is missing the force become irrevelant because it will disengrate from within.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't see that working either, the training disparities would be enormous as would the capabilities of each army group, also who else would appoint the command structure.

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

[Ja'chyra]

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

I'm sure you mean Britain. :duel: ~:grouphug:

[Kagemusha]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

I wasnt against stronger EU.I was against federal state of EU.
I wiew EU army like monetary Union.Our National armies doesnt anwer the purpose of novadays threads.I wouldnt object that if some country wouldnt like to be part of certain operation ,it coud deny their troops partipication in that operation.Like monetary union,our individual currencies were weak,the same thing could be sayd about our individual armies.The main benefit would be that it would both save both money and resources. :bow:

[Redleg]

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII. :bow:


They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

[Kagemusha]

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

You are right the first phase would be like NATO.You cant create an Army in one day.

[Al Khalifah]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

[Kagemusha]

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

It has been sayd before that NATO has served its purpose because the Cold War is over and there is now Warsaw pact anymore.The problem with EU countries that arent in NATO is that they will never join it as long as USA is in it.I think its about time that European countries would stand for themselves in defence matters.It would also benefit USA because they could release their troops from Europe.I think while NATO could be abandoned it wouldnt worse therelationship with Europe and USA.In matter of fact,i think this would benefit us both in the long run. :bow:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine ~D

[Kagemusha]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

As i stated before in first phase it would be only commanding structure. :bow:

[Al Khalifah]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

[Kagemusha]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine ~D

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror. :bow:

[Kagemusha]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

It would be only the first phase and it wouldnt lead to an situation that the chain of command would be breached.The overall command could only use troops fro countries that would agree to join certain scenario.In the long run we could strip lots of troops from our national Armies that have had been planned to use against eachothers armies and with that money we could create more advanced troops and weaponry together.It would be a long road tough. :bow:

[Marcellus]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

[Kagemusha]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

If we would create an European High command structure,we could do that. :bow:

[Al Khalifah]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

[Kagemusha]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

Then let them do so.How i see it the first priority of EU army would be to defend Europe.As i have stated before im not an federalist.I see EU army as an another opportunity to better work together. :bow:

[Ja'chyra]

Anyway, I'm sure that the EU isn't considered qualified to comment on military matters.

Kapo

If we could get a unified European superstate I would think it would be the premier superpower, but you were right the UK has the best military.

[Ja'chyra]

Then let them do so.How i see it the first priority of EU army would be to defend Europe.As i have stated before im not an federalist.I see EU army as an another opportunity to better work together. :bow:

An invasion of Europe would see an armies from all of Europe joined in a common cause, it would also sort out the all the red tape as it just wouldn't matter like it would in peacetime.


You are right the first phase would be like NATO.You cant create an Army in one day.

What's the next phase, the first phase would and should be the last until Europe becomes one state, if it ever does which I don't know if I like.

[Kagemusha]

An invasion of Europe would see an armies from all of Europe joined in a common cause, it would also sort out the all the red tape as it just wouldn't matter like it would in peacetime.



What's the next phase, the first phase would and should be the last until Europe becomes one state, if it ever does which I don't know if I like.

The next phase would be to strip of some units from our Armies that are overlapping eachothers and using the money wich comes from that to develop more advanced troop types,basing from the experiences that united efforts would eventually show us.As i stated couple times before.I dont believe that EU will turn to an one huge country,and i wouldnt support that kind progress anyway.What i do believe in is,i believe EU is a great opportunity to us to co operate in many issues. :bow:

[Meneldil]

As I said in another thread, it would have been possible 50 years ago, when there was only 6 'EU' (although it was called EU back then) countries that shared a same view of Europe, had the same interest (being able to defend themselves against the bad red guys from USSR) and were somehow willing to create a kind of European super-state.
Unhappilly, the EDC was rejected by the French parliament (in 1954 I think).

Now, I don't see 25 (soon to be 27, and probably 29 or 30 soon) countries that have different interests and views on Europe (basically, Germany, France and a few others want a political EU, while UK, Poland, Irland and a few others want a trade union) creating any European Army.

But then, there's already some kind of project, once again led by France and Germany, of European military cooperation, but it's really not an European army.

Too bad, because an European army could probably achieve what the US can't : defeating a few desert savages.

Edit : I voted yes, but it's never goona happens now, except if EU crumble, and if a few wealthy countries start a new union from scratch.

[Husar]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we? ~;)

[Al Khalifah]

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?
So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

[Meneldil]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.


Yeah, that's right. And that's why it will never work without an european super-state (which wil never exist anyway).
In 1952, when the EDC was proposed, it was supposed to be a step in favor of a super state. Now, a super-state would be a step in favor of an european army.

[Kagemusha]

So British troops could be made to go to war despite the fact that the people of Britain are completely opposed to the war in question?
Would this be a qualified majority vote or would it need to be a unanimous vote? Either way you are going to get problems.
With majority voting, only slightly more than half of the population of Europe would need to be in favour of military action, yet the army of every member state would have to commit. With unanimous voting, the disaproval of, for example, Malta could stall the war machine of all Europe.

There's one place democracy does not belong and that's in the armed forces. Questions, due process, debates, fair play, discussions, votes get people killed.

You are right.It wont work with Democratic decision making.I think every country should decide itself whether or not get involved in certain conflicts.For lets say a local conflict that would need to be adressed European countries wouldnt even need to use that much force.Only operation that would accuire total mobilization ,would be to defend Europe itself. :bow:

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

I'm against military in general, but I think EU must acquire it's own army. I'm afraid this is the only way to break of dependance from the warlike US.

[bmolsson]

Sure, if needed. I have a hard time to see any actual threat that require a sizeable European Army.

[Viking]

As long as they don`t pull Norway in, I`m fine.

We`re engaged in enough EU non-member crap as it is thanks to that deal(don`t know it`s english name, sorry).

[Boohugh]

You guys really need to do some research on the EU military:

http://www.eurocorps.org/site/index.php?language=en&content=home

The first stage of what Kagemusha is suggesting basically exists. Even the second stage,of cooperating on research projects, etc, also exists (the Eurofighter project is the best example). The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively, although it is very useful for reconstruction work (e.g. after the Kosovo conflict).

I voted 'no' for a European army because it would mean having a common foreign and defence policy, which just isn't feasible. It couldn't work on a "join in if you want" basis because if the UK didn't want to take part, the other countries would be unable to mount any sort of successful military operation (the logistical support just doesn't exist in other armies, even if the fighting formations do, and that includes the French and German armies).

The military cooperation on research doesn't necessarily work either. The Eurofighter is, again, a good example of this. It is heavily delayed and massively over-budget because there were disagreements over its specifications, due to differing needs between nations (which caused the French to pull out of the project and develop their own plane, the Rafale) and disagreements over who will build which parts.

Just a few things to think about...

[Al Khalifah]

The only problem is the Eurocorps can't do very much offensively
That is pretty much the only purpose of a combined European armed forces. The suggestion that a foreign power would initiate a conventional arms assault on an EU member state is somewhat farcical. There just isn't a nation in proximity that could execute such an assault and from a logistical perspective, there isn't a nation in the world that could conquer a united Europe.

[Boohugh]

That is pretty much the only purpose of a combined European armed forces. The suggestion that a foreign power would initiate a conventional arms assault on an EU member state is somewhat farcical. There just isn't a nation in proximity that could execute such an assault and from a logistical perspective, there isn't a nation in the world that could conquer a united Europe.


Yes, it is a farcical idea that someone would attack Europe, but the reconstruction work carried out in Kosovo shows that there are other roles for the military other than offensive and defensive operations.

The Europcorps is good for this kind of reconstruction work, but i wouldn't want its role to extend to offensive operations for the reasons stated in my first post (that of common foreign policy, etc).

[PanzerJaeger]

Im against the EU so of course im against the idea of an EU army... not to mention it would cause more problems than solutions.

[Kagemusha]

Im against the EU so of course im against the idea of an EU army... not to mention it would cause more problems than solutions.

Good old Panzer.Explain why it would create more problems?

[PanzerJaeger]

I think others have already spelled that out but off the top of my head there would be conflict with training, language, equipment, manpower, money, command, and a host of other issues.

As someone else stated, the EU does not speak with one voice even - What would that EU army do in the case of Iraq where Britain and Italy went in but France and Germany did not?

Europe is not as united as you think...

[Kagemusha]

If you read my posts carefully,You can see i adressed that thing earlier EU army wouldnt mean that parts of EU couldnt make independent decisions.If Italy and Britain would like to be in Iraq,other EU countries couldnt say nothing about it. :bow:

[bmolsson]

As someone else stated, the EU does not speak with one voice even - What would that EU army do in the case of Iraq where Britain and Italy went in but France and Germany did not?


I guess it would have been rather lonely for the GI Joes ..... ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

If you read my posts carefully,You can see i adressed that thing earlier EU army wouldnt mean that parts of EU couldnt make independent decisions.If Italy and Britain would like to be in Iraq,other EU countries couldnt say nothing about it.

~:confused:

You dont see any problem in having different parts of the army following differnet foreign policies?

Whats the point in making a EU army if the member states have autonomy over their armies anyway?

[Franconicus]

Quote:
And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.
I'm sure you mean Britain.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join ~D

This is why we need an European army:

1. This will boost the integration. A common army will force the EU to a common policy
2. It will keep the balance. To secure peace you have to integrate Germany as much as possible. Today everything is fine. But only if we get our European identity the balance in Europe will be there for a long time. I know that some nations think they will loose influence in a European State. Completely wrong. If you have a European democracy every single individual has the same influence. If you have not, the big nations rule.
3. The US only respects military strengh. So if we want to get influence on the international politic we must increase our military strenght. We must have our own CIA, our own spy satelites, our own GPS.
4. If we want to reform the UN to a real powerful organisation we can only do this from a position of strength, military strenght, not only moral.

To the standards: Most European nations are member of the NATO and so have common standards. I know that Poland spend a lot of money to introduce them. There is already a command structure. There is no need that every unit uses the same trucks. France has to be integrated. There is even a kind of European army, the Western European Union.

GB:
I guess the strength of the British army is overestimated. They reduced their military spendings as much as any other European nation after the cold war. I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US). That is o.k.. It is their decition. Europe will be stronger without them being half in half out. I think the other big ones will join: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, also some of the smaller ones. Maybe the northern and eastern states will join too.

[JAG]

I am a huge advocate of an EU army, I believe it solves so many problems.

An EU army will allow each country in the EU to specialise their military expertise, which will allow not only less money to be wasted on individual states armed forces, but a better level of defence in the EU. With less money spent on the military by each nation they can focus more on their domestic priorities, it is win, win.

[King of Atlantis]

A unified army would probably be better for you guys, but you aren't nearly united enough for it to work.

[Al Khalifah]

I guess the strength of the British army is overestimated.
Compared to ? It's still the world's 4th most powerful armed force.

I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US).
Britain is now so integrated into Europe, I think they would struggle to leave. It would be a messy disassembly process and would involve a lot of politicians having to admit that they were wrong (which politicians do not like doing). As for becoming the 51st state of the US - that just will not happen. The people of Britain wouldn't want it and it would not be practical. Plus I doubt the people of America would want Britain to be their 51st state - just consider the effect it would have on the election system having a state with over 100 electoral college votes.

Most European nations are member of the NATO and so have common standards.
The difference in standards between the British military and for example the Polish military is too large. The shear superiority in logistics, technology, systems, equipment, training is unbelieveable. When the British Army goes into a combat situation, the battle is already won and that is not an exageration.

[Franconicus]

Compared to ? It's still the world's 4th most powerful armed force.
Do you have a source for that? :book:

[Al Khalifah]

There's no scientific index for the measurement of such an attribute, but realistically given Britain's level of military development compared to other world nations the only true argument could be over whether it is infact still superior to the French armed forces.
So 4th or 5th.
Given the superior quality of Britain's non-combat sector and logistical network, as well as the quality of the equipment they use, I personally would rate Britain above France although the gap is narrowing.

[Meneldil]

I do not believe that the British will join the army. I think it is more likely that they quit Europe (maybe try to become 51st state of the US).

Believe it or not, but UK is actually one of the best 'european student'. It almost always adopts EU laws, spends a lot of money for the EU institutions, etc.
The only thing they could be blamed for about EU is rejecting the Euro (although a whole lot of shops accepted the european currency last time I went to Scotland) and being basicaly anti-EU ~;)

[Franconicus]

They are welcome! ~:cheers:

[Ja'chyra]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]Quote:
And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.
I'm sure you mean Britain.
No, England is right. I guess the Scots, Irish and Welsh will join ~D

[QUOTE]

Was that a joke? If so I don't get it.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

considering what rabid Europhiles many Scots, Welsh and Irish are I think there is a great deal of truth to that suggestion (assuming that U.K. citizens could sign up for the Euro army even if the U.K. were not involved).

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror. :bow:

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys. ~:cheers:

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

[CBR]

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

We got the E but we're still looking for damn elusive U ~:)


CBR

[Redleg]

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys. ~:cheers:

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?


I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Yes by all means let Europe defend itself - it will interesting to watch, and they might even get it right this time, after how many years of trying and failing in the accomplishment of defending themselves as a contientent?

[CBR]

I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Well what are US troops doing in Europe anyway. I dont even see much use of them anymore now that the good old Cold War is history. I thought it would be easy for you guys to close the bases. Perhaps some airbases would be nice but that would be it?


CBR

[Redleg]

Well what are US troops doing in Europe anyway. I dont even see much use of them anymore now that the good old Cold War is history. I thought it would be easy for you guys to close the bases. Perhaps some airbases would be nice but that would be it?


CBR


It should be real easy to close them - but it isn't because of politics and international relations between the United States and host countries in Europe. Host country being the nation in which the base is.

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/

While BRAC deals soley with closing and restructuring of bases in the United States and its terroritories (SP) - it decision making cycle is influnced by the
Global Force Posture Review.

An interesting speech that might give some insight into the politics of the situation.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2005/sp20050512-secdef1442.html



Good afternoon.

In 1961, President Kennedy took office and found a U.S. defense establishment that was still largely arranged to re-fight World War II. He ordered an extensive consolidation of bases to meet the challenges of the Cold War that was then flaring into a somewhat dangerous phase. Subsequent presidents have continued to refine U.S. military infrastructure as the threats to our country have evolved.

And today the Department of Defense again is in need of change and adjustment. Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.

At the direction of the president, and with the support of the Congress, this department has undertaken several initiatives to address our new circumstance, including, as you know, we've been:


Changing the U.S. Global Posture,
Forging new partnerships to fight extremism,
Transforming U.S. military to a more agile Joint Expeditionary Force,
And reforming the way the department does its business.
Tomorrow, at the direction of the Congress, the department will present another component of that strategy -- its recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission for changes to U.S. military installations. This is an important process. Consider the array of issues of concern to this department:

Making sure the troops have proper equipment,
Relieving stress on the force,
Improving the ability of the forces to cooperate jointly, and
Protecting forces stationed at vulnerable bases and locations across this country and around the world.
If one thinks about those priorities, it clearly makes sense to do all that one can to identify and remove whatever excess exists, to be able to better address those pressing needs, and by so doing, the American taxpayer benefits. This, in essence, is the logic -- and the imperative -- of BRAC.

Let me make a few comments about that process that has been undertaken over the past two and a half years:

First, as required by law, the primary factor in each BRAC recommendation has been an assessment of an installation's underlying military value. Indeed, military judgments have played the key role from the outset -- and properly so. In a time of war, whenever we can find ways to increase support for military needs -- to help the warfighters -- we should do no less.
Second, the previous four BRAC rounds, in 1998, (sic) [1988], 1991, 1993 and 1995 -- over time have eliminated some 21 percent of then- excess U.S. military infrastructure, and reallocated many billions of dollars to pressing military needs. This year's recommendation, if approved by the BRAC commission, approved by the president, and ultimately approved by the Congress of the United States, should result in some $5.5 billion in recurring annual savings -- a net savings of $48.8 billion over 20 years. When combined with the proposed changes to U.S. global posture, that projected 20-year net saving increases from $48.8 billion to $64.2 billion, or some $6.7 billion per year;
Third, for the first time, these deliberations took place with an emphasis on jointness. The military recognizes that operating jointly reduces overhead costs, improves efficiencies; and facilitates cooperative training, research and operations. Importantly, these consolidations also free up personnel and resources to reduce stress on the force and improve force protection. The department also considered potential contingency and surge requirements, and possible increases in active-duty troop levels.
The current BRAC effort began more than two years ago with the development of a 20-Year Force Structure Plan and an exhaustive top- to-bottom inventory of U.S. facilities worldwide. In fact, one might say that the process started even earlier -- with the global posture review that we began in 2001 -- now some four years ago. Indeed, the considerations related to global posture fed into the BRAC analysis -- allowing the department to anticipate and prepare for the return of tens of thousands of personnel and their families, and the knowledge gained by the two-year global posture review has informed the BRAC deliberations in important ways.

Through extensive consultation with the service secretaries, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, a panel of high-ranking military and civilian officials developed stringent criteria and conditions and matrices to assess the military business and support operations of the department, as well as every facility and military base in the country -- taking into account lessons learned from previous BRAC rounds.

The word "base" of course includes much more than one traditionally thinks of, of a military base. It includes ports, airfields, industrial and research facilities, lease space, and the like.

A word about the criteria used. In addition to assessments of military value, the department also examined other key factors, including:

The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations;
The extent and timing of potential costs and savings;
The ability of existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; and
The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to environmental restoration, compliance, and waste management.
I'm advised that during these deliberations:

Senior military and civilian leaders invested thousands of hours, and their staffs expended tens of thousands of hours to this important work;
They examined an estimated 25 million pieces of data; and
They considered some 1,000 different scenarios.
The analysis used certified data under a process monitored by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense's inspection and audit agencies.

The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated, due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops through our global posture review, and also due to decisions to reduce lease space by moving activities from lease space into owned facilities.

Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities -- communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years, indeed, in some cases decades. The department will take great care to work with these communities, with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance.

With the strong support of the president, the Department of Defense and other departments of government, are prepared to

Provide personnel transfer and job-training assistance, in collaboration with the Department of Labor;
Provide local economic adjustment assistance through the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment;
Use our authorities to accelerate and support reuse needs; and
Work with the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to assist local economic recovery.
More information on economic assistance -- as well as other information relating to BRAC -- can be found on the department's website, which I believe is shown up there. http://www.defenselink.mil/brac

It's helpful to note that many local economies impacted by previous BRAC decisions successfully found ways to get positive results out of a situation that at first must have seemed dire -- which, of course, is a tribute to the ingenuity and resilience of the American people. For example, I've never been through a BRAC before, so this is my first time; that occurred after I had left the department many years ago. But I'm told that:

Within a decade of the base's closure, the community around Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire employed an aggressive economic development plan to generate more than a thousand percent increase in civilian jobs.
In Arizona, Williams Air Force Base became the Williams Gateway Airport -- and has attracted many civilian jobs, and its education center is bringing in thousands of students.
And many cities have turned shutdown Navy bases into new business centers with thousands of new jobs.
All affected communities will not be able to replicate such positive results, of course, but every effort will be made to assist.

With the submission tomorrow, the Defense Department will complete its statutory role in the BRAC process. All further decisions, deliberations and analysis will occur under the auspices of the statutory BRAC commission, and ultimately from the commission to the president of the United States, and then to the Congress of the United States.

Because the BRAC commission can assess more information and will have the opportunity to hold hearings and learn from potentially impacted communities, it's possible that the commission may make some changes to these recommendations, as have prior BRAC commissions. I'm told that prior BRACs have made some 10 to 15 percent changes in what was recommended.

I do want to thank the BRAC commissioners for agreeing to serve our country, and for undertaking this important assignment. It's a difficult one. And we appreciate it.

One final note. I want to thank the many civilian and military personnel in this department, including Chairman Dick Myers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are here; Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who chaired the Infrastructure Executive Council; the service secretaries; Undersecretary Mike Wynne and his very able team, some of which are sitting over there, who have devoted countless hours to developing these recommendations. The department has relied heavily on their judgment, analysis and recommendations, and believes that the process put in place was fair and deliberative. I have full confidence that all of those who have participated are dedicated to the very best military interests of our nation and to the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform.



For a complete transcript, including questions and answers, please visit:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html


Nope having United States pull its bases out of Europe - is not as easy as one would image - both in realistic terms of moving the people and equipment, cleaning the facalities, or event the politics of the move. Moving the divisions out of Germany during the 1990's give proof to that. Now the economic costs to the host countries are often offset quickly by their own governments because they now have the use of already established infrastructure and buildings for other uses. For instance several closed bases in the United States were immediately convert to satellate college campus, and I beleive Germany converted one to help transition the East Germany collaspe into one nation.

[Meneldil]

Yes by all means let Europe defend itself - it will interesting to watch, and they might even get it right this time, after how many years of trying and failing in the accomplishment of defending themselves as a contientent?

When did we fail to protect ourselves as a continent ? ~:confused:

Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

[Redleg]

When did we fail to protect ourselves as a continent ? ~:confused:

The mongol invasion, The Collaspe of the Roman Empire, the treat of Napealon, the Cold War, - several little historical tidbits that can be used to back up my sacrastic comment



Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Again not completely true - Mongol invasion, the advance of Islam by the sword, and a couple of others that once again can be used to give creditablity to my caustic sarcastic comment about European defense. Your two notable ones from the last century were concluded because a nation not of Europe happened to interven in both. Now given WW1 was going to wind down by the time American came in - Canada and Austrilia were involved way before then. However Europe failed to protect itself during WW2 from its own internal threat.

But then again I was being overly sarcastic because of statements like these.

I'm afraid this is the only way to break of dependance from the warlike US.

Too bad, because an European army could probably achieve what the US can't : defeating a few desert savages.

I to can play the little caustic comment game.

[PanzerJaeger]

Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Do you count Russians and slavs as Europeans?

[derF]

A European Unified Armed Force (EUAF) is inevitable. It is simply a matter of time. There are several benefits this could bring:

- Greater step toward globalisation.
- European military campaings and operations will greatly supercede quality and success in comparison to todays best leading military force, U.S.
- Virtually un-corruptable.
- Greater potential rapidity in executing operations.
- Numerous consequential benefits.

Having said that, there are a few problems too:

- Communication.
- Equipment standardisation. Who will supply? What will happen to un-selected suppliers?
- There is a chance that because each country is very different, there will never be total consent regarding proposition of actions.

The knock-on benefit effects are very important too:

- Eventually, non-EU countries will become attracted to the EUAF and sign-up to begin the Global Defence Force (GDF).

Conclusion: Todays general Eurpean Economic system provides a major stumbling block for this concept to go forward even into consideration. This problem is that regarding what will happen to Military manufactureres that are not selected for standardisation. Europe has many suppliers, the main ones of which being; Steyr, Beretta, Fabrique Nationale, GIAT, Heckler & Koch etc... So suppose FN are selected as the manufactureres of the standard issue assault rifle for the entire EUAF, will all other manufacturers gladly bend over and recieve a monumental financial shafting? No.

This is just one of the major problems. But as i said, its inevitable. I predict about 5 generations from now there will be major talks about implementation.

[Husar]

What about manufacturers working together? Or just ordering weapons from different manufacturers, it worked with the Eurofighter and the US have more than one manufacturer for rifles and planes as well... At least concerning aircraft and missiles, european companies are working together already, though some countries still want to push forward their own projects.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

how does a European army imply the following:

- European military campaings and operations will greatly supercede quality and success in comparison to todays best leading military force, U.S.
- Virtually un-corruptable.
- Greater potential rapidity in executing operations.

These are all possible but it all depends on the sort of European military that is established. If current political attitudes towards the military do not change then there is no chance in the world that the first two would be accomplished.

What exactly would the global defence force be? A global army?
Wouldn't a global army exacerbate every single potential problem that has been raised about a common Euro Army?

[Al Khalifah]

The mongol invasion, The Collaspe of the Roman Empire, the treat of Napealon, the Cold War, - several little historical tidbits that can be used to back up my sacrastic comment
Is that what passes for teaching history in the US these days? Your argument is spurious at best and nonsense at worst failing to take into account that the majority of the populations mentioned merged into the European culture and effectively became European themselves. The Mongols did not pass Hungary, so they hardly 'conquered' Europe. The Russians are European. If you're not counting the slavs and eastern Europe as European, then the sucess of the Mongol invasion against Europe argument dies a death. Napoleon was defeated by other European powers (internal strife settled). The Cold War - Russians.
By your theory, the Americans have never sucessfully defended their nation either, since the native Americans were defeated and the current rulers of the US are not native Americans. Is there even a native American congressman or senator? It was the Europeans that won the war of sucession against other Europeans.


the advance of Islam by the sword
Oh dear, a tiny area of land near Greece is owned by an Islamic power. Europe is surely doomed. Shall we ignore the Reconquista here?

By all means, block caustic comments, but try not to make such bizarre accusations. Europe is the continent that has made modern history and shaped the world.

[Redleg]

Is that what passes for teaching history in the US these days?

Nope it sure doesn't - however it does pass for a sarcastic blast at Europeans in the same manner in which they wish to blast at America.



Your argument is spurious at best and nonsense at worst failing to take into account that the majority of the populations mentioned merged into the European culture and effectively became European themselves. The Mongols did not pass Hungary, so they hardly 'conquered' Europe. The Russians are European. If you're not counting the slavs and eastern Europe as European, then the sucess of the Mongol invasion against Europe argument dies a death. Napoleon was defeated by other European powers (internal strife settled). The Cold War - Russians.

No, its completely sarcastic - just like the comments that were stated by others. However its not a spurious arguement nor is it complete nonsense. Since I didnt say conquor as your attempting to do so in your counter, your actually being a hypocrit in your attempt at counter my sarcastic comment. The statement that spured the sarcastic response was. Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.
That statement does not entail only outside invasions - but all conflicts on the European Continent.

The mongols halted their advance - and became Europeans after their attack, their advance, and yes even taken parts of Europe before they became part of European culture themselves. The people of Europe did not defeat them or push them out of Europe as the orginal poster would have you believe in his statement.

Russia - was the cold war - Europe did not defend itself during the Cold War - but had a lot of help from the United States. I guess in your attempt to defend the European contient - you failed to understand the sarcastic response. Nor do you know history as well as you think you do - and you attempted to be sacrastic with your little comment - showing your own lack of knowledge.

Napolean - conquored a lot of Europe and then got beat - not because of some massive uprising by Europeans - but because he over-extended himself, got beat in Russia by the winter, (killing a lot of his troops) and a few other factors - however it wasn't because of some neblous thing like someone alluded to now is it? Especially given that others joined in with Napolean



By your theory, the Americans have never sucessfully defended their nation either, since the native Americans were defeated and the current rulers of the US are not native Americans. Is there even a native American congressman or senator? It was the Europeans that won the war of sucession against other Europeans.


Again not a theory at all - it seem Europeans like to make accusations about America - be sarcastic about America - but don't like the game played back at you. However lets explore your little attempt at BS here. The United States has indeed successfully defended itself - just like Europe has defended itself several times - however once again Europe has never done this Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent especially given that many times its Europeans that have threatened themselves, and several times in recent history - its been outside peoples that have rescued you poor Europeans from yourselves, the Canadians, the Austrialians, many of the nations of South America, India, Africa and other nations all outside of the European COntinent coming to save you warlike Europeans from yourselves.

Hell look at WW2 - where many European nations not only bent over for Hilter's Germany - they even joined Germany in its war. Yes how great Europe is in Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent Laughable and deserving of the ridicule that I have given that statement. Just as laughable as your attempt is also.



Oh dear, a tiny area of land near Greece is owned by an Islamic power. Europe is surely doomed. Shall we ignore the Reconquista here?


Try reading your own history of Europe - Most of Spain was at one time in the hands of the Islam conquores - who did so not by peaceful spread of the religion but by the sword. Again you Europeans did not mass to defeat the invasion - your ancestors allowed something else to happen instead. ANd then lets talk about Bosnia and Kosovo - another situation where you fine outstanding Europeans refused to do anything to help a threat within your own continent.



By all means, block caustic comments, but try not to make such bizarre accusations. Europe is the continent that has made modern history and shaped the world.

Bah - when you make the same arguement to Europeans who make such comments about other parts of the world and other peoples - then you can lecture me on not doing so - until then, try countering the caustic sarcasm with logic - instead of your own distorted verision of history. Hell you didn't even understand the comments before you jumped on the lets defend Europe from the outsider. How ironic is that.

[Al Khalifah]

Russia - was the cold war - Europe did not defend itself during the Cold War - but had a lot of help from the United States.
Perhaps Britain could have provided a more effective defense for the rest of Europe if America hadn't stripped it of its capacity to do so by wanting pay-back for the assistance America gave in WW2. I fail to remember when Europe was actually attacked by the Soviets during the Cold War.

Nor do you know history as well as you think you do - and you attempted to be sacrastic with your little comment - showing your own lack of knowledge.
Where did that come from?

Napolean - conquored a lot of Europe and then got beat - not because of some massive uprising by Europeans - but because he over-extended himself, got beat in Russia by the winter, (killing a lot of his troops) and a few other factors
Such as.... the British defeating Napoleons navy preventing him from establishing a European trade hegemony or the British invading Spain. And I still don't see how the Russians aren't Europeans.

The United States has indeed successfully defended itself - just like Europe has defended itself several times - however once again Europe has never done this
Wait a minute, read that one by me again: Europe has sucesfully defended itself several teams, however Europe has never done this? Well, way to contradict yourself within one sentance.

especially given that many times its Europeans that have threatened themselves, and several times in recent history
So the American Civil War didn't happen?

its been outside peoples that have rescued you poor Europeans from yourselves, the Canadians, the Austrialians, many of the nations of South America, India, Africa and other nations all outside of the European COntinent coming to save you warlike Europeans from yourselves.
Wait a minute, what did Canada, Australia, India and many African nations have in common a while ago? Oh yes, they were part of the British Empire and Commonwealth. It would've been pretty stupid if Britain hadn't drawn on such a resource in a time of need to defend itself. What would be the point in having an empire if you allow the motherland to be captured?

[Redleg]

Perhaps Britain could have provided a more effective defense for the rest of Europe if America hadn't stripped it of its capacity to do so by wanting pay-back for the assistance America gave in WW2. I fail to remember when Europe was actually attacked by the Soviets during the Cold War.

You would be incorrect - the Marshall Plan had a lot to do with what was going on also. And that plan was solely funded by the United States.



Where did that come from?


I fight fire with fire Is that what passes for teaching history in the US these days? Your argument is spurious at best and nonsense at worst failing



Such as.... the British defeating Napoleons navy preventing him from establishing a European trade hegemony or the British invading Spain. And I still don't see how the Russians aren't Europeans.

Never said Russians were not Europeans - once again the statement made was Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. Several times in recent History - Europeans have been their own worst enemies.



Wait a minute, read that one by me again: Europe has sucesfully defended itself several teams, however Europe has never done this? Well, way to contradict yourself within one sentance.


Again try reading the sentence again - this might help you a little - this is what Europe has never done. Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.



So the American Civil War didn't happen?


And the United States won did it not. Again the comment was direct at Europe not the United States - I could say the exact same thing about the United States - but that is not the subject of the discussion. Try staying focused on the subject at hand - it will help you counter the arguement. Again I have never stated the United States has done this either - Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. Just insert the United States for Europe.



Wait a minute, what did Canada, Australia, India and many African nations have in common a while ago? Oh yes, they were part of the British Empire and Commonwealth. It would've been pretty stupid if Britain hadn't drawn on such a resource in a time of need to defend itself. What would be the point in having an empire if you allow the motherland to be captured?

And again the colonies were not Europeans. Its a simple little word game, and one you which you trapped yourself into with your kneejerk defense to my sarcastic comments.

Its a little game you Europeans like to play on us Americans - but it seems you don't like it played on yourselves or your continent now does it?

Its really rather simple english that I use - the arguement is not all that hard to follow - unless your just doing a knee jerk defense of Europe.

Europe and you Europeans have never done this in your entire history Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. And in fact Europe has been more warlike in the last 250 years of history then the United States.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The only thing I can see coming out of this is an EU army that sits in its bases doing squat - because of the diverging interests of member states. It'll also cost money, so more taxes for you poor Europeans. And more political hay for anti-EU politicians across the continent.

Have fun! ~:cool:

[Kagemusha]

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys. ~:cheers:

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

Thanks Don. ~:cheers: About your question:We really dont have a deacent European UNION,but we have Europe.I first started this poll to see what you guys are thinking about this idea.Infact EU has had an central military comitea for few years now.I think many American patrons have somekind of superiority complex over Europe,and lots of European members have an minority complex tooAbout WWI US did tip the balance,but no means you did win the war.It was those hundreds of thousands british and French troopers that died and exhausted the Germans.I would also like to state that after WWII people are looking at WWI like that the Germans were somekind of similar like Nazis in WWII.They werent,the WWI was an escalation that needed to happen.About WWII many of our American patrons seems to believe that US won the war in Europe.How du you back that up?If you count the number of divisions in the Eastern front and compare that to the western front,you must be kidding.Russians did the work and you take the glory.And my country was in the wrong side in that war.But we didnt have a choice.My grandfather fought together with the germans in the Northern Finland ,and he sayd that Germans sayd that if they would be moved to the western front in France or the Italy.It would be like picknic compered to the Eastern front meatgrinder.I say it once again it would benefit us both that EU could do even something about cricis management. :bow:

[Redleg]

And just to show you that a Native American did defeat the United States and retained his tribal lands - even though the United States later violated the treaty. A short bio on the one of the men I consider important in American History.


Makhpiya-Luta
(1822-1909)
As a warrior and a statesman, Red Cloud's success in confrontations with the United States government marked him as one of the most important Lakota leaders of the nineteenth century.

Although the details of his early life are unclear, Red Cloud was born near the forks of the Platte River, near what is now North Platte, Nebraska. His mother was an Oglala and his father, who died in Red Cloud's youth, was a Brulé Red Cloud was raised in the household of his maternal uncle, Chief Smoke.

Much of Red Cloud's early life was spent at war, first and most often against the neighboring Pawnee and Crow, at times against other Oglala. In 1841 he killed one of his uncle's primary rivals, an event which divided the Oglala for the next fifty years. He gained enormous prominence within the Lakota nation for his leadership in territorial wars against the Pawnees, Crows, Utes and Shoshones.

Beginning in 1866, Red Cloud orchestrated the most successful war against the United States ever fought by an Indian nation. The army had begun to construct forts along the Bozeman Trail, which ran through the heart of Lakota territory in present-day Wyoming to the Montana gold fields from Colorado's South Platte River. As caravans of miners and settlers began to cross the Lakota's land, Red Cloud was haunted by the vision of Minnesota's expulsion of the Eastern Lakota in 1862 and 1863. So he launched a series of assaults on the forts, most notably the crushing defeat of Lieutenant Colonel William Fetterman's column of eighty men just outside Fort Phil Kearny, Wyoming, in December of 1866. The garrisons were kept in a state of exhausting fear of further attacks through the rest of the winter.

Red Cloud's strategies were so successful that by 1868 the United States government had agreed to the Fort Laramie Treaty. The treaty's remarkable provisions mandated that the United States abandon its forts along the Bozeman Trail and guarantee the Lakota their possession of what is now the Western half of South Dakota, including the Black Hills, along with much of Montana and Wyoming.

The peace, of course, did not last. Custer's 1874 Black Hills expedition again brought war to the northern Plains, a war that would mean the end of independent Indian nations. For reasons which are not entirely clear, Red Cloud did not join Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and other war leaders in the Lakota War of 1876-77. However, after the military defeat of the Lakota nation, Red Cloud continued to fight for the needs and autonomy of his people, even if in less obvious or dramatic ways than waging war.

Throughout the 1880's Red Cloud struggled with Pine Ridge Indian Agent Valentine McGillycuddy over the distribution of government food and supplies and the control of the Indian police force. He was eventually successful in securing McGillycuddy's dismissal. Red Cloud cultivated contacts with sympathetic Eastern reformers, especially Thomas A. Bland, and was not above pretending for political effect to be more acculturated to white ways than he actually was.

Fearing the Army's presence on his reservation, Red Cloud refrained from endorsing the Ghost Dance movement, and unlike Sitting Bull and Big Foot, he escaped the Army's occupation unscathed. Thereafter he continued to fight to preserve the authority of chiefs such as himself, opposed leasing Lakota lands to whites, and vainly fought allotment of Indian reservations into individual tracts under the 1887 Dawes Act. He died in 1909, but his long and complex life endures as testimony to the variety of ways in which Indians resisted their conquest.


http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/i_r/redcloud.htm

Notice the highlighted sentence - it kind of demonstrates that your statement of



By your theory, the Americans have never sucessfully defended their nation either, since the native Americans were defeated and the current rulers of the US are not native Americans. Is there even a native American congressman or senator? It was the Europeans that won the war of sucession against other Europeans.


Oh and I just read your last sentence - again you would be incorrect - Native Americans also fought in the Civil War - to include a Regiment of Cherokee fighting for the South. And it seems you discount the service of serval black regiments that fought and died for the North in the conflict. Those who fought in the Civil War - while there were some regiments of immirgants formed to fight for the Union - it was primarily fought by men who were born in the United States. However nice attempt at word play there.

Like I have already pointed out - I never said Every time America was threatened, Americans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

And you attempted to accuse me of Your argument is spurious at best and nonsense at worst failing to take into account

Like I have already stated - I made a sarcastic rebuttal to the ridiculous and completely untrue claim that ]Every time America was threatened, Americans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

And yes indeed Native Americans have been in the Senate

Native American Indian:

Charles Curtis (R-Kansas), 1907-13; 1915-29 (Kaw)

Robert Owen (D-Oklahoma), 1907-1925 (Cherokee)

Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado), 1993-2005 (Northern Cheyenne)

[Redleg]

Thanks Don. ~:cheers: About your question:We really dont have a deacent European UNION,but we have Europe.I first started this poll to see what you guys are thinking about this idea.

A good tread until a few Europeans took the opporunity to take cheap shots at the United States



Infact EU has had an central military comitea for few years now.

Yep and they still use NATO for their primary command and control.- at least the last time I checked into it did - but it might have changed in the last 2 years.



I think many American patrons have somekind of superiority complex over Europe,and lots of European members have an minority complex

No problem with Europe and its desires - until someone decides that its necessary to take a cheap shot - because of their own minority complex.



tooAbout WWI US did tip the balance,but no means you did win the war.

Did anyone in this tread say the United States won WW1. Try finding where I stated that.



It was those hundreds of thousands british and French troopers that died and exhausted the Germans.

And Canadian, Austrilian, Algerian, Africans, and other peoples. However it seems you want to only give two nations and its people credit for winning the war.



I would also like to state that after WWII people are looking at WWI like that the Germans were somekind of similar like Nazis in WWII.

What are you trying to say? And again where did anyone say that or even close to that in this thread?



They werent,the WWI was an escalation that needed to happen.

And you would be incorrect. WW1 escalated because of the politics of the time - not because it needed to happen.



About WWII many of our American patrons seems to believe that US won the war in Europe.How du you back that up?

Again who said that America won the war in Europe - what I have said that many peoples and many Nations won the war in Europe - not just Europeans.



If you count the number of divisions in the Eastern front and compare that to the western front,you must be kidding.Russians did the work and you take the glory

Again - you might want to check the makeup of the Russian Army - its not all European now is it. Again jumping to conclusion because you want to beleive someone said Americans won WW2. Again try actually reading the actual words that were written. It might just enlighten you.

several times in recent history - its been outside peoples that have rescued you poor Europeans from yourselves, the Canadians, the Austrialians, many of the nations of South America, India, Africa and other nations all outside of the European COntinent coming to save you warlike Europeans from yourselves.

Would you care to see the order of battle for the Allies - it includes more then France, England, and other European nations that fought for the Allies - about 60 other nations were also involved. It seems you Europeans fail to realize your own history.




.And my country was in the wrong side in that war.But we didnt have a choice.

Sure you did - you could of stayed neutral - after kicking the Russians ass - however you country didnt.



My grandfather fought together with the germans in the Northern Finland ,and he sayd that Germans sayd that if they would be moved to the western front in France or the Italy.It would be like picknic compered to the Eastern front meatgrinder.I say it once again it would benefit us both that EU could do even something about cricis management. :bow:

Again I would of been perfectly fine with the normal discussion about the benefits and the shortfalls of a European Union Army - however like I have already stated - several of you Europeans decided to take cheap shots at the United States - well two can play that game.

Any EU army is doomed to failure until the EU formalizes it constitution and its political makeup.

[Devastatin Dave]

Yes, only if it has a French commander...

[Al Khalifah]

So the American Civil War didn't happen?

And the United States won did it not.
It would've been very disappointing if it hadn't. That's the point of a civil war.


And again the colonies were not Europeans.
Were they natives? While I'm sure there were aborigines and maoris in the Australian and New Zealand armies that fought in WW2 on the British side, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these armies would have been composed of only recently resettled Europeans.
Fair enough they didn't actually live in Europe. You are correct there, but since they were part of the British Empire, they would be expected to fight. You are making an unreasonable statement by picking the difference. All subjects of the British Empire would be expected to fight for the crown, so in a way, doesn't that make them British by proxy (and hence European)? The British Empire couldn't possibly have sustained itself so large and so long if it depended entirely on soldiers born and raised in Britain. The only distinguishing feature between an Australian soldier in WW2 and a British solder in WW2 would be that the Australian soldier had lived in Australia.


Europe and you Europeans have never done this in your entire history Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. And in fact Europe has been more warlike in the last 250 years of history then the United States.
While I wouldn't agree with your initial wording (which seemed crass and didn't get the point across) I will agree that the point you were trying to make is true after some explanation. I think it's a rather unfair comparison in that the fundamental difference between Europe and America is that one is not a single nation but a series of nations. The nations in Europe up until the last 50 years have also been Empires that relied on foreign labour and soldiers to sustain themselves. Bordering nations inevitably go to war. If by Americans, I meant all those who live in the North American continent, then there have been great internal struggles there too and not all wars in America were settled just by Americans. The War of Independence could not have been won without the French and the North could not have won the Civil War without the Irish immigrant soldiers (do they count as Irish if they were born and lived most of their lives in Ireland?)

[Redleg]

It would've been very disappointing if it hadn't. That's the point of a civil war.
Were they natives? While I'm sure there were aborigines and maoris in the Australian and New Zealand armies that fought in WW2 on the British side, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these armies would have been composed of only recently resettled Europeans.

You might want to check the data a little more closely - in WW1 and WW2 most of the Australian and Canadian Armies consisted of citizens of those two nations and many were born there, not in Europe.

This site lists several of the allied nations -

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/anecdotes/stats01.html


The First World War helped to foster a sense of Australian nationalism, even though national feeling was expressed within an Imperial framework. Western Australian troops identified with their fellow Australians, taking pride in their achievements and sharing a sense of common identity distinct from that of British soldiers. Australian troops compared very favourably in physique and stature to the average English soldier, showing initiative and a disrespect for authority which the British High Command often found difficult to accept.

http://www.liswa.wa.gov.au/federation/fed/040_wwar.htm


The colony of Western Australia was granted a constitution by the British Parliament in 1890. At that time it contained less than 50,000 colonists and an unknown number of Aboriginal inhabitants. It was a remote backwater, isolated by hundreds of kilometres of sand and sea. Connected to the rest of Australia by a single telegraph line from 1877 and a steamship service which braved the Southern Ocean, the colonists looked across the Indian Ocean towards Great Britain for trade, investment and guidance.


Australia became a Nation in 1890 by a measure passed by the British Parliament. So while part of the commonwealth - Australia is its own nation.

And that is just the first one by the Alphabet of the former colonies - that fought for the British. Should I continue?




Fair enough they didn't actually live in Europe. You are correct there, but since they were part of the British Empire, they would be expected to fight.

Again that was not the point of the orginial comment by that individual.
Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Those individuals that fought under the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and 60 other nations fought under their own flags, for the allies - and because of where they came from they were not European.



You are making an unreasonable statement by picking the difference. All subjects of the British Empire would be expected to fight for the crown, so in a way, doesn't that make them British by proxy (and hence European)?

Not at all - it makes them only members of the British Commonwealth. So the Grukra's are European now? They fought with honor in both wars, how about the Indian Troops that fought in both wars for the british, are they also European?

Once again the unreasonable statement that needed to be ridiculed was Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.



The British Empire couldn't possibly have sustained itself so large and so long if it depended entirely on soldiers born and raised in Britain. The only distinguishing feature between an Australian soldier in WW2 and a British solder in WW2 would be that the Australian soldier had lived in Australia.


Someone needs to study their history a little more.



While I wouldn't agree with your initial wording (which seemed crass and didn't get the point across) I will agree that the point you were trying to make is true after some explanation.

I treated the comments I was addressing exactly the way they deserved - with crass and ridicule.



I think it's a rather unfair comparison in that the fundamental difference between Europe and America is that one is not a single nation but a series of nations.

Not at all - the individual made that way when he made the statemetn of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. its a false statement and deserving of the ridicule in which I treated it. Once again it seems you Europeans like to point out and ridicule things about the United States, however don't like your little area of the world criticized in the same way. If you accept Europeans doing this exact same thing to America - but reject it when it is against Europe - well your arguement is hypocritical.



The nations in Europe up until the last 50 years have also been Empires that relied on foreign labour and soldiers to sustain themselves. Bordering nations inevitably go to war.

Hence the comment of Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. is false even under that standard. However once again foreign labour and foreign soldiers - does not mean Europeans are doing it now does it?



If by Americans, I meant all those who live in the North American continent, then there have been great internal struggles there too and not all wars in America were settled just by Americans. The War of Independence could not have been won without the French and the North could not have won the Civil War without the Irish immigrant soldiers (do they count as Irish if they were born and lived most of their lives in Ireland?)

Again I have never stated such a ridiculous statement of Every time America was threatened, Americans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent. I am fully aware of the help the United States recieved in its revolution from England, and the help during the Civil War from immigrant soldiers (not just the Irish - they were just the major immigrant group that became soldiers during the civil war - there were others to include a German immigrant regiment.)

[Al Khalifah]

Hey Red, recognise when someone is agreeing with you.

[Ja'chyra]

Oh look, another pissing contest.

Sorry Kage, looks like your threads ruined.

[Redleg]

Hey Red, recognise when someone is agreeing with you.

Agreeing would mean you did not need qualifiers.


Oh look, another pissing contest.

Oh look another idiotic comment from the peanut gallery.


Sorry Kage, looks like your threads ruined.

Yep it got ruined almost from the start by cheap shots at America on a thread about the European Union forming an Army. To bad you didn't recongize that aspect of it now isn't it.

[CBR]

Yep it got ruined almost from the start by cheap shots at America on a thread about the European Union forming an Army.

And lets not forget Kaiser of Arabia's brilliant post that could be seen as the start of the usual EU v US drivel.


CBR

[Al Khalifah]

Agreeing would mean you did not need qualifiers.
I was merely explaining myself.

Oh look another idiotic comment from the peanut gallery.
I laughed out loud and that and I don't know why. What does it mean?

[Franconicus]

And lets not forget Kaiser of Arabia's brilliant post that could be seen as the start of the usual EU v US drivel.


CBR
And as usually everybody was happy to have an oportunity to make a fool of hisself ~:confused:

[Redleg]

I was merely explaining myself.

I laughed out loud and that and I don't know why. What does it mean?


Another American saying - it basically means that


peanut gallery
n.
1. The hindmost or uppermost section of seating in a theater balcony, where the seats are cheapest.
2. A group of people whose opinions are considered unimportant: "Pressure is building ... to force ... Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates and pump up the money supply. [He] has politely ignored these catcalls from the peanut gallery" H. Erich Heinemann.

[Al Khalifah]

Ah you mean 'the gods.'

Yeah I can see why the American term works better here.

Anyway... back on topic....

I still don't think we should have an EU army.

[Redleg]

And lets not forget Kaiser of Arabia's brilliant post that could be seen as the start of the usual EU v US drivel.


CBR

True but I long ago learned to ignore his posts. And most of the comments I just ignored also. However this one just had to be ridiculed to the point that I did.

Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

I just found it interesting though that some from Europe would like to think that this is the truth - when history has shown over and over again that it so far from reality as Kaiser's initial statment in this thread.

[Redleg]

Ah you mean 'the gods.'

Yeah I can see why the American term works better here.

Anyway... back on topic....

I still don't think we should have an EU army.

I think Europe is not ready for an EU army yet. Will in time the politicial structure of the European Union allow for the successful intergation of an European Union Army - time will tell.

Like I said in my initial post - it would be an interesting development. Even if it fails - the lessons learned by the creation of such a force - can be valuable for allied intergation of forces - or the later formulation of such a force.

Its been tried twice already in different forms - and NATO become stronger in its command and control capablities because of those attempts.

[IliaDN]

Do you count Russians and slavs as Europeans?
No.

[Franconicus]

Why? They aren't Asians!

[Ja'chyra]

Oh look another idiotic comment from the peanut gallery.

Struck a nerve did I. Do whatever you like but the backroom seems to be dissolving into meaningless arguments lately.

[Al Khalifah]

I think Europe is not ready for an EU army yet. Will in time the politicial structure of the European Union allow for the successful intergation of an European Union Army - time will tell.
I agree entirely for all the reasons I outlined a while ago.

What would be a good idea, that has been tossed around the ideas room for a while, is the creation of an Elite EU regiment/division drawing on all nationalities.

[Franconicus]

Please look at post 40 ~;)

[Redleg]

Struck a nerve did I. Do whatever you like but the backroom seems to be dissolving into meaningless arguments lately.

Didn't stike a nerve at all.

However it seems you are adding to the problem in which you are protesting against.

your just doing another case of the pot calling the kettle black it seems to me.

adding fire to the meaningless arguements that is.

:charge:

[Al Khalifah]

Please look at post 40
The Eurocorps is only composed of soldiers from France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain. The Eurocorps is also more of a tool of NATO and those nations. It is not subordinate to the EU.

I would like it to be much more than this.

[Redleg]

The Eurocorps is only composed of soldiers from France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain. The Eurocorps is also more of a tool of NATO and those nations. It is not subordinate to the EU.

I would like it to be much more than this.

If I remember correctly this was what was developed after the NATO rapid deployment force concept was deemed a failure.

[Kagemusha]

I just counted together roughly all EU militaries land and airforces.Pretty intresting result. ~;)

Land forces:

Active soldiers: 1 831 320
reserves: 3 213 742
Main battle tanks: 11236
other avf´s: 39422

Airforces:

Attack airplanes: 2993
Attack helicopters:1259

Nice pile of troops and equipment.As a source i used Finnish military web pages www.mil.fi. :bow:

[The Stranger]

and that of amrica is

[Al Khalifah]

Nice pile of troops and equipment.
Much more significant than this, consider the HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance. With each carrying 16 Trident II missiles, containing up to 12 warheads each, this is the true punch in Britain's arsenal.

[Boohugh]

Don't forget the French have their own nuclear force as well (it may even be bigger than the UK's, but not 100% sure). These 2 nuclear forces are the sole reason nobody would invade Europe, not because of almost 2million active troops.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with you guys Al khalifah and Lord Hugh.The reason why i gathered those figures is,that i believe we dont need this much.If we would work together. We could drop the amounts and increse quality. :bow: