Europe

[LittleGrizzly]

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?

Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...

Unless were talking about Napoleon and Hitler, but i don't think i need to point out how they were slightly different.. or do i ?

Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

A United Europe would control europe in the same way a United Britian would control Britian

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself.

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not. Have you ever, maybe, considered that American bases are in many of those countries at the invitation of the government of that country or not asked to leave because of benefits they bring? Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

[Beskar]

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.

"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

I mean, why bother with Europe, we already have our best buddy America telling us what to do anyway, I mean, any hope of sunshine away from American Imperialism is just simply evil. let's worship America. I mean, we don't even need a military, don't we have captain America to protect us all, they seem to have all their bases all over our lands, I mean, it's not like it's a Godwin-ism there.

Really, it is really amusing. Speak of a European Federation with democracy and elections... BOOOO!!! but speak of American Imperialism and look at them go to protect poor America's feelings and saying there is nothing wrong about it. Hypocrites.


@Sarmatian
According to this - http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf
There are around 823 overseas bases, apparently.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hypocrites.

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

[LittleGrizzly]

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

[Beskar]

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not.

LOL

Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

[Beskar]

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

I am getting the same feeling as watching Boris Johnson reading your posts. You have no clue what you are on about.

[Beskar]

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

I am glad you see that blaring fact. I was starting the think people are going blind.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Of course Britain will have a part, but now Britain controls all of its foreign policy. Under Europe it will control less than a twentieth.

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

You realize that a unified Europe still won't have a say in America's decisions, right?

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

Not the point.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

Right, because when Canada refused to go into Iraq America did...

...next to nothing aside from expressing some disappointment, actually. So no, you're wrong.

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

Have you read my previous two-ish posts?

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Sorry, I should've said that American "imperialism" is only a "fact" to the usual anti-American leftist crowd which can't be bothered to look up actual facts.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

You would say that most Britons are pro-EU?

LOL

Sorry, America has no control over Germany.

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Hate to break it to you, but America does not run Germany. As Furunculus said...

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Mine wasn't the only post not comprehended then...

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

I'm not implying, I'm saying you get a choice now. You have a choice. Britain is not a satellite of America, it does not need to follow America, and it doesn't always follow America. Britain follows America in some areas through Britain's own choices. It has an option - it can say yes or no.

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

[Beskar]

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?
How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

Answer: Zero


Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?

Actually, there are foreign units stationed in America. But that is irrelevant, because when most of these bases were established, who was going to defend who?

How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

NATO comes immediately to mind.

Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

Ask America to leave her bases if you want. You're aware, also, that America would come to the aid of Britain as Britain has come to the aid of America, right?

It is an alliance. America is more powerful than Britain, but Britain is no puppet of America.

[LittleGrizzly]

Of course Britain will have a part, but now Britain controls all of its foreign policy. Under Europe it will control less than a twentieth.

At the moment we have full control over this decision. Follow American policy or not. Under EU we would have control of less than a twentieth of actual policy making rather than full control over whether to follow a bigger countrys policy...

You realize that a unified Europe still won't have a say in America's decisions, right?

Its not a say in America's decisions i want, though we could much more easily persuade them to our views as a unified nation, or at the very least not be small states swayed easily by the much bigger states (USA or in future China)

Not the point.

So when you said "making us all the same is not a con ?" in response to medilil's pro EU post you didn't actually mean that a single european goverment would make us all the same ?

[Beskar]

Actually, there are foreign units stationed in America. But that is irrelevant, because when most of these bases were established, who was going to defend who?

Troops do visit America but there are no foreign bases on American soil. So my point still stands. Also, who will defend them from America? For some-one who apparently dislikes the idea of outsider control, you have no problems with foreign military bases all over your country.

NATO comes immediately to mind.

You mean the treaty which is basically controlled by America, which was created against the threat of the USSR? I see much resistance there from the American Satellite club.

It is an alliance. America is more powerful than Britain, but Britain is no puppet of America.

It is a puppet, it is pretty much a well known fact, hell, it's been in our own media enough times the cartoons of Blair and Bush for example. Blair will got the lapdog award from Bush himself.

Just google image search "Blair Bush" and you will see lots of results.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

At the moment we have full control over this decision. Follow American policy or not. Under EU we would have control of less than a twentieth of actual policy making rather than full control over whether to follow a bigger countrys policy...

You know full well that isn't the case.

Its not a say in America's decisions i want, though we could much more easily persuade them to our views as a unified nation, or at the very least not be small states swayed easily by the much bigger states (USA or in future China)

You don't have to be swayed, controlled, or unified.

So when you said "making us all the same is not a con ?" in response to medilil's pro EU post you didn't actually mean that a single european goverment would make us all the same ?

People aren't the same. I don't want to run the risk of us becoming the same.

Troops do visit America but there are no foreign bases on American soil. So my point still stands.

There are no bases as such, but there are foreign installations and forces stationed in America (by the way, America only has bases in 39 nations, not the 130 that you claimed).

Also, who will defend them from America? For some-one who apparently dislikes the idea of outsider control, you have no problems with foreign military bases all over your country.

I'm not actually a fan of the bases, but they don't intrude on our sovereignty because they are there on our perogative.

You mean the treaty which is basically controlled by America, which was created against the threat of the USSR? I see much resistance there from the American Satellite club.

Doesn't change the fact that we are in NATO out of our own free will. And America still doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

It is a puppet, it is pretty much a well known fact, hell, it's been in our own media enough times the cartoons of Blair and Bush for example. Blair will got the lapdog award from Bush himself.

Blair is not Britain. Britain had the choice to make.

You're ignoring the point. Britain has the sole and complete choice to make where it wants to go with foreign policy. Whether Britain wants to go with America or not is entirely Britain's decision. If Britain follows, it follows - but it was Britain's decision to follow if it did. In the EU, Britain simply wouldn't have this choice.

[Beskar]

There are no bases as such, but there are foreign installations and forces stationed in America (by the way, America only has bases in 39 nations, not the 130 that you claimed).

39 were listed, the rest come under "Other states" which is around 300 installations.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In addition to my earlier post, many nations, from Britain to Canada, have had or have bases in Germany. America is by no means the only one. Also, today in Germany there are more former than current US Army bases.

Then there is Russia, which has military bases in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Ukraine and so on.

39 were listed, the rest come under "Other states" which is around 300 installations.

From your link:

The real property portfolio managed by the Department of Defense encompasses a worldwide footprint to include all 50 States, seven U.S. territories, and 39 foreign countries...

[Tribesman]

if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

Tell that to Fidel

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression

Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

[LittleGrizzly]

You know full well that isn't the case.

It pretty much is, we can make some small scale decisions on our own, maybe a bit more aid or aid for something specific. But in terms of real foriegn policy actions there's very little we can do by ourselves, this usually leaves us just going along with what America's doing... With the EU we could have a very meaningful foriegn policy, completely dictated in our terms rather than by a larger power...

Democracy FTW!

You don't have to be swayed, controlled, or unified.

No we don't, but we usually end up swayed, or controlled. So we may as well unify and control our own destiny rather than be swayed or controlled by outside powers..

People aren't the same. I don't want to run the risk of us becoming the same.

I agree with the first statement. The second statement is strange... what risk is there of us becoming the same if every single goverment in exisistance presides over people who are all different...

What about the EU goverment that doesn't exsist in a single goverment anywhere else in the world will make people the same ?!?

Whereas say the German goverment cleverly avoids making all Germans the same...

[Beskar]

Admittedly, I googled around and it mentioned different kinds of numbers, that one seemed constant.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But in terms of real foriegn policy actions there's very little we can do by ourselves

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves.

With the EU we could have a very meaningful foriegn policy, completely dictated in our terms rather than by a larger power...

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU. The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

No we don't, but we usually end up swayed, or controlled. So we may as well unify and control our own destiny rather than be swayed or controlled by outside powers..

Unification by definition is giving your destiny to someone else. Right now you can take whatever course you want as a sovereign nation. Under a common foreign policy you would have some influence, but no more than that.

Whereas say the German goverment cleverly avoids making all Germans the same...

It hasn't. But in most cases people value the nation over the region. For me, the nation is the ideal level, and anything above it is too much.

[LittleGrizzly]

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves.

I suppose technically your right, we could hypothetically set in motion policy now which in the future would result in us having the means to carry out major foriegn policy by ourselves. Realistically speaking your wrong, our heyday is behind is and unless things change direction the meaningul influence we can have on foriegn policy (small as it is) is only going to shrink

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU.

But we will be that larger power, or to be exact, a part of it. So we will be dictated to by the larger power of ourselves.Rather than the larger power of someone else. To follow your argument to its conclusion would imply that Scotland, England, Wales and Northenrn Ireland have thier own foriegn policy dictated to them, whereas the fact is they dictate thier foriegn policy in unison.

The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

The point actually is that right now we have 100% control of a yes/no choice to go along with what another major power is doing or not. Under the EU we will have less than 5% control of doing whatever we want...

To me less than 5% of whatever you want is a lot better than 100% of only going along with others if you want to...

And TBH the fact is alot of thinking on foriegn policy overlaps in Europe so its not as if Britian is going have its less than 5% against the other 95% all the time.

Unification by definition is giving your destiny to someone else.

So when a couple unify (or marriage as its called) do they both give away any decision making right to some mystical entity called marriage ?

Or does it merely mean there is now 2 people involved in the decision making process rather than just 1 ?

Right now you can take whatever course you want as a sovereign nation.

Technically we can do whatever we want, realistically speaking we can't. The actual situation is of much more concern to me that what we could hypothetically do by ourselves...

Under a common foreign policy you would have some influence, but no more than that.

As i have said, some influence over an independent foriegn policy is far better than complete authority over whether to go along with some other major powers plan...

It hasn't.

Your going to have to provide me a definition of what you mean by making Germans the same...

Our British goverment must be much better than i thought then... from region to region britian is different, cross the border from Wales into England and people will not tire of telling you how different the Welsh are to the English... this despite having the same goverment for hundreds of years...

Though in all honesty i think people worldwide are pretty similar, then there are slight differences even as you go from one village to a neighborouring village... if your worried about people being the same globalisation and the internet are your enemies, simply living under one goverment doesn't eradicate differences as shown by Britian. The internet and globalisation are doing far more work to make us one people... also American cultural influence... again a far bigger eradicator of our differences in europe than one goverment would be...

Unless you mean silly differences like different currencys or different plug sockets...

For me, the nation is the ideal level, and anything above it is too much.

What level is the nation level ?

The EU would be smaller (population wise at least) than India and China, are these not nations ?

What about America ? surely that is too big ?

[Sarmatian]

But as a sovereign nation you can change that by yourselves.

Can you really? Let's take a not so hypothetical situation. Germany doesn't want Ukraine or Georgia in NATO, because of the simple fact that it will worsen relationship with Russia. Doesn't matter if it is right or wrong or if you agree with it or not personally with this German policy, this is a point where German government and American government disagree. Yet, America is pushing and inviting Ukraine and Georgia at NATO summits, having NATO exercises in Georgia and blah, blah. Naturally, this worsens German and Russian relationship, precisely what German government didn't want.

Europe wants alternative sources of natural gas and oil. Not just because of the political reasons but diversifying your suppliers base is always good. The only country in the vicinity with enough gas is Iran. Europe wants it, US says no. Instead Europe is forced to wait for the eventual Nabucco (which would be US sponsored and controlled), which might never happen as there aren't enough reliable sources of gas.

You may think it's all worth if it will keep America on your good side or that America deserves some leniency because they are investing so much in NATO or whatever but don't kid yourself. By being in NATO and by being dependent on American foreign policy, European countries already surrendered part of its sovereignty, which you treasure so much and are worried that EU will steal from you.

There are only two truly sovereign countries in the world - USA and China. Russia comes close, then come other bigger countries, like India. Then there's a decent gap and then larger European nations come into play. And with how things are developing in 21st century, that gap will become bigger and bigger.

No, your entire foreign policy will be dictated by a larger power - the EU. The point is that right now you have a choice whether you want to go with America or not, and under the EU you will have none.

That's true somewhat. Now you don't have a say in what will happen but you can agree or disagree, which will be duly noted and archived and it will still be happening, whether you like it or not. That's in the case of bigger European countries. In the case of smaller countries, even that is not true. Czech politicians openly admitted that the main reason Czech recognized Kosovo is immense pressure from the US. In the case of a strongly federal EU you will have less freedom to agree or disagree but you will have a say in what's gonna happen.

[Beskar]

Hypothetically, since the EU would be represented from all the nations, democracy dictates it would probably have to be like a 60% majority out of all of Europe for something to happen.

If you look recently, Europe as a whole has pretty much said "No" to wars (especially France and Germany) with like UK being the exception and a couple of other countries having to make a "contribution" or gets tons of flack from the USA.

So judging European foreign policy as a whole, Europe would probably very much end up being very to it-self while America runs around playing World Police.

Anyway, as I said, you could try to ensure Europe becomes the democratic paradise we want it to be, or sit in the a corner with fingers in our ears and go "lalalala" while the forces that don't want that make it so.

[Incongruous]

I just told you.

Because this world is unforgiving, my friends. I am amazed that I have to remind someone like Fragony of that; I am supposed to be the dreamer, remember.

How many times have the Americans asked us to pull our weight in international affairs? And how many times did we have to answer that all we had was a dead weight, a community of lazy, inward-looking shopkeepers. And yes, the Napoleon reference is intentional.

Unforgiving, as in lets follow the U.S and reign in any of those idiots in the developing world who pose any sort of threat to us? Yeah sounds great, looking foreward to more Afghan type adevntures then are we? Pulling "our" weight, and "international affairs" so that translates as commiting acts of agression and U.S foreign policy...

A nation of shopkeepers sounds good to me, better than a nation of peace keepers, at least.

[Furunculus]

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.

do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

@Furunculus"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is utter nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

[Furunculus]

Tell that to Fidel

because germany = cuba, right?

[Furunculus]

Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

for anyone else that is interested in a masterclass in pointless obfuscation that dodges every relevant issue in the debate with incorrect nit-picking, i give you Tribesman:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=61

why?

why should britain let fear of a changing world warp its mentality?

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

our trade is split 50/50 between the EU and the rest of the world

we have security alliances with our neighbours and the major anglosphere powers

for what reason does britain need to be a part of a federated EU?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=64

don't you mean 4th , after America China and errrrr.....France.
But don't worry you also spend a smaller proportion of your GDP on defence than France.
What you should be aiming for is defence spending like Ireland , that comes in as 147th in the world .
Or even better go for Icelands approach and spend absolutely nothing

You have the 2nd largest external debt

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=65

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia. i did in fact state that in the original post, but i edited out precisely because i knew i could have so much fun with careless nitpickers, and guess who showed up.

and so what? i'm not saying its great, but times are tough you know and we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=77

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=80

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

again, so what? how does that relate to having a vast public debt which derives from annual additional public spending which amounts to £200+ billion each year since 97?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=81

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

somehow this is an adequate response to the issue of how defence budgets can be compared............
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=82

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

[edit] and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further. [/edit]

good going.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...5&postcount=83

Wrong?
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=84

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

really Tribesman, you do yourself no favours, as surely i am not the only one to notice that the majority of your debating style is to spout ridiculous and irrelevant nonsense, and smothered in smileys, in the hope that no-one looks to deeply at your 'response'.

you're intelligent enough to debate very well on your own merits, you should try it sometime. :)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=101

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=107

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression, but yes, that's exactly what i said too:

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

that is because you still haven't figured out that comparing national figures of what they consider to be their defence spending is not relevant, but i did try:

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but to return to the core question; what is the point of your pointless (and incorrect) nit-picking, are you leading somewhere with this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

you are either trolling for fun, or thoroughly deficient of understanding, either way I am happy for you to continue as long as you don't derail the thread, i am having quite enough fun as it is.

[Furunculus]

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?
Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...
Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.
Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

but WHY do it? why take this grand experiment with the welfare of the future world when there is zero need. i just cannot shake the impression that transnational progressivism is the very foolish.
free-trade does not equal political union, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
the two nations of england and scotland do not compare to the 27 nations of the EU.

Have you considered that i do not want to tell european nations what to do? equally i do not want them telling us what to do. i simply do not desire that control, and certainly not at the expense of watering down britains ability to choose her own course.

[Furunculus]

Unforgiving, as in lets follow the U.S and reign in any of those idiots in the developing world who pose any sort of threat to us? Yeah sounds great, looking foreward to more Afghan type adevntures then are we? Pulling "our" weight, and "international affairs" so that translates as commiting acts of agression and U.S foreign policy...

A nation of shopkeepers sounds good to me, better than a nation of peace keepers, at least.

i cannot escape the impression that those who argue here for being a counterweight to the US, collective force etc, combined clout in the face of china and russia, are doing so because they fear the future, and despise what they consider their underdog past.

what they don't realise is that europe doesn't punch at its weight because europe isn't prepared to throw a punch, and its adversaries know this. this is not the lack of a unified army, it is a lack of will-power.

[Tribesman]

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

Yeah it displays that you were talking bollox.

But hey you are still at it
Looky.....

because germany = cuba, right?

....more bollox.
Given what people have said about your warped views and how you form them it does appear that my comment the mods deleted was indeed spot on.