The letter from Verhofstadt to Chirac and Blair...

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by GrandAdmiralPelleaon, Aug 22, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    IMO Europe will never have strong armies within it (with exceptions) until it becomes a United Europe. Completely united. :D That's just my opinion.
  2. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
  3. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    does your name come from the Doctor Who character Omega?

    uhm no :)

  4. Darth_Asabrush Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2000
    star 5
    Blair has a problem with this.

    The British public do not want to see a "European Army" as this will be interpreted as more loss of Sovereignty. It would also remove some American influence from European military decisions by reducing the influence of NATO.

    Two things the Brits don't want to see.
  5. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    How will this be interpreted as a loss of sovereignity? You keep the national armies but each army contributes to the European Army. Also, why would America need more influence on the European armies? We have no influence over theirs either.
  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Why's that?

    Because without unity, which Europe needs, there will be no common goals to update the military. Imagine the US much as Europe is. States with their own money, their own language, their own culture, governments, budgets, etc. etc. We wouldn't have a powerful military, a strong economic base, and America wouldn't be that involved in politics. I'm waiting for a united Europe, because competition is healthy for everyone involved. And America needs it. :p
  7. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    America needs it.

    true the world is unbalanced now with only 1 greatpower :)
  8. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Yeah, freedom from worrying about nuclear holocaust is *SUCH* a bummer, dude.


    Unbelievable.
  9. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Yeah, freedom from worrying about nuclear holocaust is *SUCH* a bummer, dude.


    Unbelievable.


    That's the difference there was never a nuclear holocaust, why?

    because both parties were too afraid to start one.

    During the cold war, USA couldn't hop around the world "liberating" people from "evil" regimes.

    Neither could USSR because they were too afraid to start a nuclear war.

    Now with USA as only great power no one can stop US if the goverment is doing something wrong.

    Now a nice what if story example. What if US wants to put an end to the communist regime in N.Korea. Well I know for certain that it has no legitimate reason. N.Korea is already talking about peace agreement between North and South Korea, they're also talking about a train line between Europe, through Russia and N.Korea to S.Korea.

    Now who's going to stop the US, UN? No way, EU, right you never listen to them anyway.

    So who's going to stop US.
    No one...

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

    Another point I'm nothing talking about a 2nd USSR but more a neutral great power. Who will only interfere when necessary.

    Besides aren't we worrying about a nuclear holocaust now as well?

    Note: I'm for certain that you're not going to agree with me, but I will understand...
  10. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Just because the MAD doctrine was in place, it didn't stop people from worrying all the time about nuclear war breaking out.

    The only true deterrent would be a nuclear one.

    That you would believe and trust North Korea's motives over the US (a totalitarian dictatorship that brutalizes its people in backwards conditions, exports missile technology to anyone, as long as cash is involved) is clarifying. Your skepticism of the US is great enough that it seems that the benefit of the doubt goes to any other nation first. Your fear of a powerful US is great enough that you would rather have another great power around to threaten nuclear annihilation as a check. Interesting.
  11. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    great power around to threaten nuclear annihilation as a check

    No I would like a 2nd Great power just to prevent another Great Power to hop around the world doing what he wants & in this case America.
    But that does not mean as a nuclear annihilation.

    That you would believe and trust North Korea's motives over the US (a totalitarian dictatorship that brutalizes its people in backwards conditions, exports missile technology to anyone, as long as cash is involved) is clarifying.

    It was a what if story what if US attacks N.Korea with no legitimate reasons.

    Your skepticism of the US is great enough that it seems that the benefit of the doubt goes to any other nation first.

    You assume something which is not true, I was not against US attacking Iraq.

    Besides the world needs to balanced it's unbalanced now...
  12. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Besides the world needs to balanced it's unbalanced now...

    The world is always unbalanced. It has never been in balance. There's always little firestorms here or there. MAD works, it's just the citizenry was too stupid to realize that it did work.
  13. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    There were some periods where it has been in balance (sort off)

    e.g before WW1 both, between the 2 alliances in Europe...
  14. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    You call the pre WW1 alliance structure balanced?

    The problem with your alliance structure is that regional conflicts balloon out of control and world peace rests on the shoulders of whichever leader is least stable.
  15. Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2000
    star 4
    I was really thinking of making a sock to spout pure pacifist ideals in order to create a large thread after I heard about a lady that was on a hunger strike to stop the US from invading Iraq that was totally against any form of use of force, ever. She wanted unilateral disarmament, and was such an idealist that she could not see that if you took away all our weapons, the only people who would have them would be tyrants and criminals. However, the ideas express by some members in this thread are just as dangerous as those, so I see no need in creating stupidity.
  16. Maveric Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    The "balance" of power in the early 20th century is what led to World War I.


    I hardly think that is a fitting example of a balance of power.
  17. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    The "balance" of power in the early 20th century is what led to World War I.

    Well it was balanced, sure it lead to WW1 because of a serbian killing a Duke

    (kind off weird, one serbian marked how the entire world looks today...)

    Roman Empire and the German tribes, German tribes prevented the Roman Empire taking over the old continent completly...

    Cold war, I already used this example, but USSR could not take over Europe, why USA prevented it. USA could not declare war on e.g N.Korea or East-Europe.
    Why USSR was there?

    Perfect balance (sure USSR collapsed but there was a balance)
  18. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    The Roman Empire?

    Hell that was a Hegemony, or damn near enough. It fell because of internal pressures and bad leadership. There certainly was no Alliance amoung the Germanic Tribes to stop it.

    As for USA/USSR... all I can see is that your idea of balance rests on the point of a knife. Too much either way and it falls and too much pressure and everyone gets run through.
  19. Maveric Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Well it was balanced, sure it lead to WW1 because of a serbian killing a Duke

    (kind off weird, one serbian marked how the entire world looks today...)


    It was more involved than that. That balance was one of the worst time periods in the history of Europe.
  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    The only time there was some semblance of balance in the world was during the neolithic era. And even then it wasn't that stable.
  21. High_and_Dry Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 2002
    star 1
    Let me tell you from a British standpoint:

    We do not want to be part of a United Europe. We British have so much more in common with our American brothers.

    No offense to any Germans, Belgians, French etc but we don't really think your Military set-up is any good and we do not trust any of your leaders. They come accross as too liberal and have no bottle.
    History tells the World that time and again, the UK & USA are the only 2 countries that tackle the scum of the planet.

    I don't mean to offend any Europeans but we are British.
    And as long as there is a United Kingdom and a United States of America then their is still some hope in the World.
  22. DARTHPIGFEET Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2001
    star 4
    Well I don't know. I've studied European history and this is what happens everytime Europe starts building up armies and defenses. A war comes about maybe not in 5 years but maybe 10 years down the road. Need I mention Franco Prussian War, WWI, WWII, and the war in Bosnia.

    You will see military alliances set up and the next thing you know you have all of Europe fighting.


    So keep that in mind, but I think they do need to start doing their own laundry some, but what we really need and what the rest of the world needs is for the European powers to unite and come along with us to take out Saddam.
  23. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    If the EU or the major countries involved integrate their militaries at a squadron level instea dof just having whole national formations it'll be a very important step toward a unified Europe.

    Which is probably why none of them want to do it.
  24. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    We do not want to be part of a United Europe.

    LOL I got that message so many times. I think it would be best for everyone if the UK just left the EU.
    That would please most British.

    Need I mention Franco Prussian War, WWI, WWII, and the war in Bosnia.

    Those wars (except the last on) were when the EU did not exist.
    The last war was not because of a country building up an army.

    the next thing you know you have all of Europe fighting.

    I doubt that, I don't see an enemy to fight. Except perhaps Iraq.

    If the EU or the major countries involved integrate their militaries at a squadron level instea dof just having whole national formations it'll be a very important step toward a unified Europe.

    I understand why people are against it. But the armies protecting Europe are not quite balanced.
    Look at the situation.

    Spain, Italy and Greece those 3 countries pretty much protect any possible invasion from Africa.
    Italy has the largest army of EU, Greece also has an huge army (compared with it's size of course)

    Finland, Germany (soon Poland), Austria, a bit of Italy, (also Turkey when part of EU) protects an possible attack from the East.

    Portugal and Ireland protects a possible invasion from the Atlantic.

    Well what about Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, (soon Germany) and France what do they protect except their own soil.

    Nothing, if EU unites it's army we could increase force on the borders and increase the protection from any possible terrorist attacks.

    But no country want to give up it's own army. Completly understandable...
  25. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    You do realize the country doing the most to protect Europe from invasion has always been...The United States. That's why it's 'not balanced'!

    The overriding fact is that if the EU nations did combine their armies at the company level, they would still be underfunded and behind in technology. The element holding them back is not cooperation, but military spending. The EU as a whole spends less than half per year that the US spends, and they are already behind militarily.

    I see no way for this trend to be reversed in the next 30 years, due to economic and population trends and spending priorities.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.