Should the EU create it's own army and leave NATO

[storealex]

Hey Marla, this is how I would like things to be:

NATO kept as it is, US leadership and European contribution. NATO will always be lead by US, which is fine with me. We need a Western alliance in what will become an increasingly multipolar world, with growing threats from multiple directions.
However, NATO is not sufficient in all matters. Sometimes, EU and US will be too split to be allies in certain subjects, or under certain Presidents. In these cases, we need a EU who can stand on it's own legs, with it's own rapid reaction force, and with larger troop contingents available if necessary.

 

[Zarn]

Alliance does not mean unwavering unconditional support and if it does then why did the USA stab Britain, France and Israel in the back during the Suez crisis?

The issue for many ordinary Europeans with Iraq wasn't support of Saddam, or leftist anti-americanism it was support of the principles of international law and order.

I'm giving you the US viewpoint. Keep that in mind, when responding.

Suez: Long time ago

Also, you were the international opposition. That's how Americans see it. Are you going to tell me, Hussein obeys international law? If Europe agreed to engaging in conflict, it would most likely be under the UN flag, which means with international law. Since Europe was against it, it was against international law. Basically, Europe decided if it was lawful or not, without even hearing the US out first.

 

[storealex]

Oh come on Zarn, you lied to your own allies, giving us false reasons to go to war. And many of us still complied and send you troops. And for what? Certainly not for WMD's, that's for sure. What about the link to Al-Qaeda, ups not either. What are we fighting for exactly, oil? How can you possibly count on anything than our opposition now?

If you had just come clean and said:

"Hey man, Saddam is evil and kills his own people, let's take him out because of this."

Then even France would have supported you!

 

[Hotpoint]

I'm giving you the US viewpoint. Keep that in mind, when responding.

Not easy to forget it

Suez: Long time ago

But more recent than WWII and that doesn't stop all those jokes about France

Seriously though I was just giving an example. If you want something more recent how about Reagan stating publically that in the event of WWIII breaking out the US planned to keep the nuclear exchange confined to Europe... thanks Ronnie

Also, you were the international opposition. That's how Americans see it. Are you going to tell me, Hussein obeys international law? If Europe agreed to engaging in conflict, it would most likely be under the UN flag, which means with international law. Since Europe was against it, it was against international law. Basically, Europe decided if it was lawful or not, without even hearing the US out first.

It isn't for Europe to decide whether it was legal or not but rather the UN Charter and there simply wasn't a good enough case for invading Iraq to meet the criteria laid down by that document.

 

[Zarn]

Oh come on Zarn, you lied to your own allies, giving us false reasons to go to war. And many of us still complied and send you troops. And for what? Certainly not for WMD's, that's for sure. What about the link to Al-Qaeda, ups not either. What are we fighting for exactly, oil? How can you possibly count on anything than our opposition now?

If you had just come clean and said:

"Hey man, Saddam is evil and kills his own people, let's take him out because of this."

Then even France would have supported you!

1) I never lied to you. I doubt the administration has lied, too. We honestly thought WMD were there. So did many people in the entire Western world.

2) We will never count on your support in Iraq. I was thinking more or less on areas outside Iraq like Ukraine (no military action required). Europeans and Americans generally agree there. Why not be united at least there.

3) I personally never wanted to go into Iraq for WMD or Al-Qaida alone. The one (WMD) was a very possible reason as well as the liberation of 20 million. I never believed in Al-Qaida links, although I wouldn't be surprised if Hussein did cooperate with a or some terrorist groups.

 

[Zarn]

Not easy to forget it



But more recent than WWII and that doesn't stop all those jokes about France

Seriously though I was just giving an example. If you want something more recent how about Reagan stating publically that in the event of WWIII breaking out the US planned to keep the nuclear exchange confined to Europe... thanks Ronnie



It isn't for Europe to decide whether it was legal or not but rather the UN Charter and there simply wasn't a good enough case for invading Iraq to meet the criteria laid down by that document.

I make jokes about France? I actually frown upon them.

I don't know how he would do that. I would also like to see a source.

So the UN sees that dictatorships are okay and should stay?

 

[CurtSibling]

@ Curt: The problem is neither side is seeing any value in an alliance. It is apparent that neither Americans or Europeans remember anything before these past few years. Sure, you can see the ignorance over here, but can you see it over there?

The US leadership sneered at Europe on the grounds of dubious war-drum rhetoric from the commander in chief.

Don't make the usual American deniability routine of blaming it all on everyone else.

Who invented the 'Axis of Evil' or made that breath-takingly silly comment about being 'with us or against us...'

Was it Tony Blair or Chirac?

 

[storealex]

1) I never lied to you. I doubt the administration has lied, too. We honestly thought WMD were there. So did many people in the entire Western world.

Then it's still a lie! If I say "I know you're from Jutland, and this knowledge is proved by obvious facts" and it then turns out I was wrong, then I lied!
Then I should have said " I think you're from Jutland, and this belief is supported by something that I believe to be facts"

We will never count on your support in Iraq

Does this mean you wouldn't mind seeing us leaving Iraq? We're still around remember...

I was thinking more or less on areas outside Iraq like Ukraine (no military action required). Europeans and Americans generally agree there. Why not be united at least there.

As I already wrote, EU and US should stand together whenever they can. It's just for the cases where we can't that EU should have it's own army.

 

[Zarn]

The US leadership sneered at Europe on the grounds of dubious war-drum rhetoric from the commander in chief.

Don't make the usual American deniability routine of blaming it all on everyone else.

Who invented the 'Axis of Evil' or made that breath-takingly silly comment about being 'with us or against us...'

Was it Tony Blair or Chirac?

Again, you prove your ignorance. You say something, rinse, and repeat. Have I said we had no blame? We all do. Get used to it. Stop prentending you are perfect in every way.

 

[Zarn]

Then it's still a lie! If I say "I know you're from Jutland, and this knowledge is proved by obvious facts" and it then turns out I was wrong, then I lied!
Then I should have said " I think you're from Jutland, and this belief is supported by something that I believe to be facts"


Does this mean you wouldn't mind seeing us leaving Iraq? We're still around remember...


As I already wrote, EU and US should stand together whenever they can. It's just for the cases where we can't that EU should have it's own army.

1) We believed it was true. How many inspections did Hussein try to avoid? It's a lie, when you do know. We were certain and made a mistake in intelligence.

2) Didn't realize your nationality at first. Although considering that the people of your nation are just as bad as others, then your support means that much less. It is very unfortunate for you soldiers for they were spat upon by your own people.

3) Then why are we arguing about Iraq?

 

[storealex]

We believed it was true. How many inspections did Hussein try to avoid? It's a lie, when you do know. We were certain and made a mistake in intelligence.

If a man calls his assumptions for facts, he's a liar. He should call them what it is, assumptions.

2) Didn't realize your nationality at first. Although considering that the people of your nation are just as bad as others, then your support means that much less. It is very unfortunate for you soldiers for they were spat upon by your own people.

We don't spit at our soldiers here. Why would you write that?

3) Then why are we arguing about Iraq?

I forgot. Sorry but Im tired and dunno. Can you tell me?

 

[Winner]

How many inspections did Hussein try to avoid? It's a lie, when you do know. We were certain and made a mistake in intelligence.

Actually the last inspection has found nothing. Than US proclaimed their findings untrustworthy and attacked.

As it was said here in last posts: US cannot expect their allies will do bad things just because of alliance with America. Europe (most of it) said "well, Hussein is bad, but..." but than was interupted by hysterical reaction of Bush and majority of American people (from european point of view), you know, freedom fries, pouring french wine to sewerage, calling us "cowards" and so forth. Treating allies as satellites isn't exactly good way to gain their support

 

[Hotpoint]

I make jokes about France? I actually frown upon them.

I didn't mean you specifically Zarn but you did say your were talking from the "US viewpoint" which I took to mean generally.

I don't know how he would do that. I would also like to see a source.

After a bit of searching I found an article from the journal Foreign affairs from 1982 which mentions it.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19820901faessay8296/francois-de-rose/inflexible-response.html

You can find more if you google I'm sure. It's quite well talked about in International Politics circles.

So the UN sees that dictatorships are okay and should stay?

No the UN says you can only start wars if you are under threat from the country you're planning to invade.

 

[Zarn]

@Store:

1) We thought they were facts.

2) I don't mean literally.

3) I don't know either. Perhaps a joint EU, US, Canada, Turkey, etc. alliance is needed. Europe would have a miltary, but still be alligned.

@Winner: You decide on international law based on whether or not Americans pured wine down a sewer and call a food a different name? That stuff happened afterwords, IIRC, anyway. I'm not saying I agree with it though.

 

[Zarn]

@HotPoint:

1) We should drop the France thing. It isn't close to relevent enough.

2) Do you have the speech?

3) That is a stupid rule, and yes I do remember it now. It is basically condemning all of those oppressed by a tyrant.

 

[Winner]

Winner: You decide on international law based on whether or not Americans pured wine down a sewer and call a food a different name? That stuff happened afterwords, IIRC, anyway. I'm not saying I agree with it though.

No This was just an example of the "not so good behaviour" on western shore of Atlantic.

In fact, IMO most of Europeans think Bush was decided to attack Iraq from the start, so this stuff about UN, inspections and USA-EU dispute was senseless anyway.

 

[Hotpoint]

@HotPoint:

1) We should drop the France thing. It isn't close to relevent enough.

It's not relevant to the issue at all I was just using it as a jokey counter to the idea that just because something happened a long time ago it loses impact.

2) Do you have the speech?

It wasn't actually a speech it was something he said to reporters and no I don't have a link to exactly what he said. I remember it from the '80's and it came up again when I studied the Cold War at University so I might still have it in some notes, or an old textbook in a box somewhere in the attic but for easy access no sorry.

3) That is a stupid rule, and yes I do remember it now. It is basically condemning all of those oppressed by a tyrant.

The US and all the other members signed up to the charter and are therefore legally bound by it. Remember that not everyone agrees who is and isn't a tyrant by the way.

The Security Council can authorise action against a state which is not presenting an immediate threat to it's neighbours which is how interventions such as Somalia take place. The point is that only the UN can do this and remain within the bounds of international law.

 

[Zarn]

Like I said before, Europe decides what is within international law.

Is the only reason why Europe would leave NATO be Iraq, ATM? The US didn't force Europe into Iraq. What nations joined, joined. Why would Europe need to leave NATO?

 

[Winner]

Is the only reason why Europe would leave NATO be Iraq, ATM? The US didn't force Europe into Iraq. What nations joined, joined. Why would Europe need to leave NATO?

I am against leaving NATO. But if US deliberately hinder creation of independent EU forces by using NATO for this purpose, there won't be other choice than to leave NATO.

American government must decide, what it wants - either strong ally (EU) or bunch of satellites. This will determine future of NATO.

 

[Longasc]

There is no need for NATO, nor an European Army.

Create a new Anti-Terror-Force instead of this.


EDIT: Why was the NATO created? Had it something to do with the Warsaw Pact? (Of course, rhetorical question) Well, then NATO has lost its foe - and the reason for its existence.

Modern Nations need Specialists, High Tech Armies, not mass armies. The objectives have changed.

NATO must adapt over time to match the new situation. But one can also say, it is outdated.