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

[MaisseArsouye]

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.

I totally agree on this.

An independant EU force is the priority. If it's possible while being member of NATO, then we could keep this. It could be an alliance between US and EU, as equal partners, and some other nations. If it's not possible, then we have to leave NATO for our own good.

As I think the US dont want us to be equal partners and they will use NATO to undermine a european army, especially with this neo-con administration, I think we should leave it ASAP.

 

[Winner]

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

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

War against terror is same propaganda as war on drugs, poverty, AIDS. Much more people die because of car accidents or cancer, but I don't hear any flame speaches about "fighting car accidents" or waging "war on cancer".

Terrorist threat is overly exaggerated. It is OK to have efficient police and secret services to prevent terrorist attacks, until it starts to meddle into freedom and civil rights.

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.

Well, Warsaw Pact was created as a response to NATO It was made to counter USSR.

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

I agree. By creating EU army I mean creation of central command, removing excess bureaucracy and thus making this new EU forces more efficient. But on the other side, we need also tanks, planes and ships to deter possible agression - this is traditional purpose of military

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 But one can also say, it is outdated.

Yes. NATO is actually trying to do that.

 

[Sarevok]

This would only further harm relations with the United States, which makes it worse for the world in general. There are alot of people that would love to see the US and Europe at each others throats. If you want more chaos, this should do the trick.

It also isn't a nice gesture towards Turkey or Canada...

Exactly, Though I got no problem with a european army, it should not split with NATO.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

War against terror is same propaganda as war on drugs, poverty, AIDS. Much more people die because of car accidents or cancer, but I don't hear any flame speaches about "fighting car accidents" or waging "war on cancer".

Terrorist threat is overly exaggerated. It is OK to have efficient police and secret services to prevent terrorist attacks, until it starts to meddle into freedom and civil rights.

so basically your saying that attack on the World Trade Center and its effects are exaggerated. also that Bin Laden is exaggerated and shouldn't be wasted on. that police and secret services can protect your country while your army is just doing nothing except training. then when the terroist attack cry for 5 minutes and unite but then when the gov wants to help the country in the long term by involving itself a little(just a little) everyone all of a sudden everyone crys foul and divide again.

Winner i would trust you as the President of any country

terroism is a global threat. it is active and anyone that says it is exaggerated currently doesn't pay attention that much.

no offense to you Winner though.

 

[AVN]

@Europeans (I'm offended): I was told a while back that a strong EU doesn't mean an enemy of the US.

If the EU leaves NATO then that doesn't make you an enemy.
I would rather call it a divorce with the possibility still to stay friends.

I just realized that I was told a lie. Europeans seem to have no care (at least here) for alliance with the United States, even if it means destroying an alliance with a couple of other nations as well.

The reason for the existence of the NATO was the Cold War. However that war is over so IMHO NATO has become superfluous.

So the countries in Europe need (again IMHO) a new alliance. And given the differences of thought on lots of international issues between the USA and the EU it seems logical for me that this will be an EU organisation.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

If the EU leaves NATO then that doesn't make you an enemy.
I would rather call it a divorce with the possibility still to stay friends.



The reason for the existence of the NATO was the Cold War. However that war is over so IMHO NATO has become superfluous.

So the countries in Europe need (again IMHO) a new alliance. And given the differences of thought on lots of international issues between the USA and the EU it seems logical for me that this will be an EU organisation.

yes NATO was developed was to counter the Soviet Union in the Cold War. but NATO should now take up the role of fighting Terroism instead of commies. NATO is still very valuable.

 

[amadeus]

No! On the surface, it's easy to be angry about Europe's socialist military policy, but underneath, we control you.

 

[BasketCase]

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.

Once again: we don't know whether Bush gave us "false reasons".

And also, we DO know Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq. Al-Jazeera aired confessions from some AL-Qaeda members about their activities, and GUESS where they were working? There ya go. (We simply don't know what they were doing there or what their relationship to Saddam was)

 

[downtown]

ah, nevermind. delete this post

 

[CurtSibling]

No! On the surface, it's easy to be angry about Europe's socialist military policy, but underneath, we control you.

If that was true - French and Germans would be chomping KP with GIs in Iraq right now.

 

[Winner]

so basically your saying that attack on the World Trade Center and its effects are exaggerated. also that Bin Laden is exaggerated and shouldn't be wasted on. that police and secret services can protect your country while your army is just doing nothing except training. then when the terroist attack cry for 5 minutes and unite but then when the gov wants to help the country in the long term by involving itself a little(just a little) everyone all of a sudden everyone crys foul and divide again.

Pls don't warp what I said (maybe I used bad words)

Terrorism is threat, I agree on this. But to fight terrorism you need efficient and well organised security, not the army. Terrorism is in fact form of crime and must be dealt in this way. 9/11 was more the failure of american secret services and other security forces than something cempletely new. And please note i don't blame America for this, no one was prepared for this type of attack, if it had happened in Europe, results would have been the same.

I think, that we are only trying to make a new evil enemy to fight, when commies are gone, and the new enemy are "terrorists". Terrorism can be nice pretext to lessen citizens rights and privacy and to keep them in line. And this is IMO far more dangerous for our way of life than terrorism.

Also I disagree with (mostly american) view, that terrorism can be defeated by military. This is nonsense. Terrorism is mere consequence of developement in (mostly islamic) third world countries, which are dissapointed and frustrated. People living in poverty look on rich West with envy and therefore are they much more inclined to listen some fundamentalist ideologists, who abuse their frustrations for their own ambitions.

The way to fight current terrorism is to respect their way of life and try to reduce their poverty not by giving them our money, but providing them with our markets. You know the slogan "trade not aid" Waging wars in their countries doesn't help fighting fundamentalist sentiments, it is doing quite the opposite: increasing their hatered towards the West and thus producing more terrorists at the end.

 

[storealex]

Once again: we don't know whether Bush gave us "false reasons".

Yes we do. Even if Bush thought there was WMD's, he still lied when he said he knew, because obviously he did not. Also, even if they had had WMD's, no way would they posess such a threat that the Administration told us "Can strike us like lightning, one more year and with nukes too"

And also, we DO know Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq. Al-Jazeera aired confessions from some AL-Qaeda members about their activities

Do you believe everything aired on Al.Jazeera?

Funny how you still claim that there's a link between the two, when both Dubya and Rummy seems to disagree with you:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100604A.shtml

And ok, even IF there was a link AND WMD's (Which there was not), so what? Saddam would never use them, because it would be his own suicide. He knew this, that's why he disarmed. North Korea is much more of a threat, but uhh, there's no oil up there...

 

[Winner]

Once again: we don't know whether Bush gave us "false reasons".

And also, we DO know Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq. Al-Jazeera aired confessions from some AL-Qaeda members about their activities, and GUESS where they were working? There ya go. (We simply don't know what they were doing there or what their relationship to Saddam was)

Thats it - you don't know. I fear the day when we will start wars based on feelings like "I think they have WMD and I think they may use them on us". Evidence? Why? I feel I am right, so lets fight.

And in fact, al-qaeda was also present in Germany, so is it the excuse to attack Germany? ("humh, I have the feeling Germans cooperate with Osama, lets conquer them and see if I am right" - *bang* - "well, I was wrong, so what, we at least removed oppresive government and liberated German people" )

I am afraid that 9/11 was abused to justify the invasion of Iraq. There was no clear link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, no evidence of WMD's. This war was completely wrong and it's consequences are actually worse than Saddam's rule.

 

[Scuffer]

No. First, the more strategic options available the more flexibility and communication that can occur between them. Secondly, UK won't leave a useful and successful NATO for a unproven and potentially problematic EU force.

 

[CurtSibling]

"...and it's consequences are actually worse than Saddam's rule."

This is alarmingly true.

The US has been led into choppy waters indeed by a cabal of rapturous nincompoops.

 

[stormbind]

Forgive me, but this poll is really stupid and makes no flipping sense. It's a lot like asking, should the USA create it's own military and leave NATO?

To step around the massive flaw in the poll, I shall have to split it into several questions..

Should the EU make it's own military?

It has already has. It is called the Rapid Reaction Force. It's laughable, but given that the EU is not a government, the Rapid Reaction Force more than meets any requirements.

Should the EU expand it's current military?

I want security, and I want those around me to have security... But the EU lacks democratic accountability, and is in no condition to provide security to me or anyone else. I feel much safer knowing the UK can, should the EU fall short of hopes, stick two fingers up to Germany, France or any other EU member.

Should EU members leave NATO?

NATO provides security in the North Atlantic, and thus protects trade between UK-US-CAN-Africa-S.America, which is something an EU land force would be poorly equipped to provide.

 

[CurtSibling]

The funny thing that gets me is that the UK veers towards unaccountable soviet
dictatorship with every new law the crypto-commie scum in Parliament pass.

I think I would prefer the EU, rather than the feverishly religious,
political-correct freaks in who have hi-jacked control of Great Britain.

 

[stormbind]

Well, I don't support Blunkett either

The EU is far worse, however. It's democratic house has been overuled by it's non-elected house: A lot like the House of Lords dictating to the House of Commons, except it's allowed! This makes me angry and sad.

The only reason the EU hasn't imposed missery onto our lives, is because we haven't given it the power to do so.

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't see why Europe couldn't build its own army AND stay in NATO.

And I don't see the link between socialism and having an army.
So I voted "no opinion".

 

[CurtSibling]

Well, I don't support Blunkett either

The EU is far worse, however. It's democratic house has been overuled by it's non-elected house: A lot like the House of Lords dictating to the House of Commons, except it's allowed! This makes me angry and sad.

The only reason the EU hasn't imposed missery onto our lives, is because we haven't given it the power to do so.

And...The fact that all the leaders of Europe and the UK are in the same pig-swill together.
They make deals and have meals as a big bunch of barons,
and scoff at the patriotic wails of the citizens like you, Stormy.

The sooner people in the UK wake up and see that this nation is
already sold to the Cowboys and Euros by Bliar and chums, the better.

Except the people of the UK are so deluded with religion,
Political Correctness and Television they cannot see anything.

I would be sad - Instead I just laugh at how pathetic our nation is.