Munich security conference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

@Seamus Fermanagh. Strange..Very strange post.Dont really know from where to start. Have you no knowledge that you have singled out only NATO countries and most of their forces have been earmarked for NATO command structure?
Just to point out your example of Belgium. Their land component is composed of mechanized brigade called "Medium Brigade", which is part of NATO´s Eurocorps, which in turn comprises of 10th German armored division, 1st Spanish Mechanized Division, The French-German Brigade and and a Luxembourgian reconnaissance company. The other half of Belgian land component is a air mobile Brigade.
Do you think NATO has lost its meaning and should be disbanded? Or whats the case?

---

The discussion had moved towards Europe taking a more active role. Others above had asserted the need to do so as Europe, not as a group of countries. NATO could be such a framework, but I think you will find that many in Europe feel that NATO is superfluous now, and that some see it as counter-productive.

I was just suggesting that the examples above made no sense in light of the individual situations of the countries in question. As part of a larger integrated NATO command they do, I will grant you. That integration is all predicated on defending from an attack -- and still largely oriented on defending from an attack moving East to West. Is that still valid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The discussion had moved towards Europe taking a more active role. Others above had asserted the need to do so as Europe, not as a group of countries. NATO could be such a framework, but I think you will find that many in Europe feel that NATO is superfluous now, and that some see it as counter-productive.

I was just suggesting that the examples above made no sense in light of the individual situations of the countries in question. As part of a larger integrated NATO command they do, I will grant you. That integration is all predicated on defending from an attack -- and still largely oriented on defending from an attack moving East to West. Is that still valid?

---

Of course they do not make sense out of context, but the current context for reality concerning security is NATO for most of Europe and their militaries have been built accordingly. Ever since the cold war ended European NATO countries have been downshifting their armed forces away from large mechanized formations, towards more mobile forces with better equipment. What Europe is really only lacking is real blue water navies, but are those really a priority when US has 11 Carrier strike Groups, which can move their European allied forces pretty much everywhere on the planet?

Like i posted before. To me this whole issue is low priority. If US would take more isolationist stand towards World politics, then it would become an issue.

“Pacifism is a nice dream, but that is all it is. A dream.” It is not a dream, it is a nightmare. It is a dream for the aggressors. Peace is a dream, or a status to obtain through negotiation and treaties. Pacifism died in Auschwitz.

“But why not skip training a bunch of cannon fodder, and instead establish the guerilla force right now?” Strangely enough, this question was answered by Antoine de St Exupery in one of his book (War Pilot, if I remember well). The scene is in 1940, when the French lines are collapsing. Few pilots of Loire and Olivier 451 received their orders to attack a bridge heavily defended by the German Flack. So they asked the Squad Leader why to go (French soldiers always ask questions)? The Captain’s answer is: to show that we are not willingly been taken, that what is taken by force will be re-taken by force. The pilots saluted, answered “yes Sir”, climbed in the cockpit and never come back. And the bridge wasn’t destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Pacifism is a nice dream, but that is all it is. A dream.” It is not a dream, it is a nightmare. It is a dream for the aggressors. Peace is a dream, or a status to obtain through negotiation and treaties. Pacifism died in Auschwitz.

---

Ism´s are pretty damn hard to kill, no matter what kind those Ism´s are. You can kill the brain carrying an idea, but killing an idea completely is whole another ball game.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Ism´s are pretty damn hard to kill, no matter what kind those Ism´s are. You can kill the brain carrying an idea, but killing an idea completely is whole another ball game.:bow:

---

According to Stalin, all that was required was an expansion in the size of the game...not a new one. Probably had something to do with Joe's love of statistics....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

According to Stalin, all that was required was an expansion in the size of the game...not a new one. Probably had something to do with Joe's love of statistics....

---

For the record, Joe never said either.

I thought the "one death is a tragedy, one million a statistic" was his line? Numerous quotes sources claim it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

According to Stalin, all that was required was an expansion in the size of the game...not a new one. Probably had something to do with Joe's love of statistics....

---

Old Joe was plenty resourceful in the department of creating statistics, just like his old buddy Adolf and his cronies, but now come to think of it. Has any ism ever died out or been forgotten completely? This is big time thread derailing, which Beskie or Prole will most likely smack yours truly, but maybe someone has knowledge of such?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I thought the "one death is a tragedy, one million a statistic" was his line? Numerous quotes sources claim it so.

---

Uncertain. The context even more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Old Joe was plenty resourceful in the department of creating statistics, just like his old buddy Adolf and his cronies, but now come to think of it. Has any ism ever died out or been forgotten completely? This is big time thread derailing, which Beskie or Prole will most likely smack yours truly, but maybe someone has knowledge of such?

---

Heard any emotional speeches praising mercantilism lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Heard any emotional speeches praising mercantilism lately?

---

Yeah. but I have friends who are TEA partyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yeah. but I have friends who are TEA partyers.

---

Wat?

Aren't the teabaggers supposed to be opposed to government intervention in economics? How can they support a system based on tariffs and government regulation of goods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wat?

---

See there! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wat?

Aren't the teabaggers supposed to be opposed to government intervention in economics? How can they support a system based on tariffs and government regulation of goods?

---

Actually, a fair number of them are pro-tariff. Tariffs ARE part of the original Constitutional taxation power for the Feds. Some of them are even recycled Buchanan Brigaderos who are fine with out-and-out protectionism.

The TEA crowd loathe the 16th amendment and the advent of the direct federal income tax.

Yes, i admit that the "mercantilism" bit was exaggeration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, a fair number of them are pro-tariff.

---

Just when I think I have the loonies all figured out, something like this comes along and paints the picture in another shade of crazy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Just when I think I have the loonies all figured out, something like this comes along and paints the picture in another shade of crazy...

---

The TEA group isn't a European party with a fairly defined central philosophy and sub groups promoting variations on the central theme.

Its a largely spontaneous, USA right of center outgrowth of frustration with business as usual. So yes, their main theme is Cut government, reduce/alter taxation, & minimize the welfare/social safety net. But you also have members who are out and out isolationists, a few protectionists, libertarian pot should be legal types, etc. In short, they draw in quite a few different perspectives that tie into, but don't necessarily mesh completely with, the TEA party's espoused goals.

Happens when you have a nascent third party effort trying to sprout in an essentially two-party system.

Back to the OT:
Seems like our new government has an agenda here. Merkel just published an "interview"on her official site in which she calls for further cooperation with France, especially in defense and in military actions in Africa.
(Video is unfortunately in German, for those who know the language a little bit: You can download a text version there as well.)

I like the idea of integrating our militaries into a European one, maybe we can get the Belgians and Dutch in there as well.
But the main obstacle is definitely a political one: We lack the political institutions necessary for an integrated army. If we have one army, we need one command. Yet the German army is rather tightly controlled by the parliament and the problems of integrated units can already be observed in Mali. There is a system for sharing airlifting ressources amongst European countries. However, the Germans did not want to participate in Mali, and so our government assured the public, that "German transport planes are used, but they do not transport soldiers or arms."
Well, of what use is an integrated army, if both sides can easily veto its use by withdrawing there forces?
I think what we need stronger political integration in Europe. It has to be thoroughly democratically legitimised, however, even if we lose a number of countries in the process (the UK, for instance).

Back to the OT:
Seems like our new government has an agenda here. Merkel just published an "interview"on her official site in which she calls for further cooperation with France, especially in defense and in military actions in Africa.
(Video is unfortunately in German, for those who know the language a little bit: You can download a text version there as well.)

I like the idea of integrating our militaries into a European one, maybe we can get the Belgians and Dutch in there as well.
But the main obstacle is definitely a political one: We lack the political institutions necessary for an integrated army. If we have one army, we need one command. Yet the German army is rather tightly controlled by the parliament and the problems of integrated units can already be observed in Mali. There is a system for sharing airlifting ressources amongst European countries. However, the Germans did not want to participate in Mali, and so our government assured the public, that "German transport planes are used, but they do not transport soldiers or arms."
Well, of what use is an integrated army, if both sides can easily veto its use by withdrawing there forces?
I think what we need stronger political integration in Europe. It has to be thoroughly democratically legitimised, however, even if we lose a number of countries in the process (the UK, for instance).