Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Europe should leave Nato and finally create its own armed forces, which will be much easier once Britain is out. Without Nato, Russia will also become friendlier towards Europe.
Suits me fine, it's about time they got off their backsides.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Not at all, but the focus will be merely on defense. The problem with Nato is that it is an aggressive organization, which causes lots of tension with Russia and others. Thus Nato is much bigger than it should be.
Europe has a capable defense industry, there is no need for lots of soldiers unlike 100 years ago. It will mostly be tech. And it will be European tech Europeans will be paying for, not American imports. I.e. Europeans will pay more readily.
The new EU President Ursula von der Leyen has already stated last wekk of her ambition to create European Armed Forces.
Of course Ursula von der Leyen has a track record when t comes to defence, she was German Minister for Defence from 2013 to 2019, and was among the most unpopular politicians in Germany. Indeed there were allegations of corruption and maladministration when she was German Defence Minister, indeed things became so bad that German troops had to use broomsticks instead of guns in a NATO Rapid Response exercise, and due to a lack of armoured personewl carriers they used mercedes vans.
I wonder how many broomsticks will be needed in relation to the new EU Army.
I know, I would never have opted for that woman, either. Like so much else about the EU there is a lot of bargaining instead of democracy. Then again, when I look at the terrible mess democracy has created around the Brexit or in the US, maybe democracy is not so good, anyway.
France has good armed forces, though, and Macron is a proponent of EU armed forces. The French can teach Europeans how to run military things.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I know, I would never have opted for that woman, either. Like so much else about the EU there is a lot of bargaining instead of democracy. Then again, when I look at the terrible mess democracy has created around the Brexit or in the US, maybe democracy is not so good, anyway.
France has good armed forces, though, and Macron is a proponent of EU armed forces. The French can teach Europeans how to run military things.
Macron is one of the few politicians as unpopular as Ursula von der Leyen and I think the French would do well to rethink this united Europe nonsense, and they would also do well to keep good relations with Britain, something that will be impossible without a sensible approach in relation to Brexit and trade.
The US is going to withdraw forces from Europe eventually, the right under Trump have already questioned NATO and it's contributions, however it may yet be the left in America with their planned defence cuts that put an end to current levels of US forces in Europe.
Macron is one of the few politicians as unpopular as Ursula von der Leyen and I think the French would do well to rethink this united Europe nonsense, and they would also do well to keep good relations with Britain, something that will be impossible without a sensible approach in relation to Brexit and trade.
The US is going to withdraw forces from Europe eventually, the right under Trump have already questioned NATO and it's contributions, however it may yet be the left in America with their planned defence cuts that put an end to current levels of US forces in Europe.
Yeah, because neither Trump nor the thinking right here in America are wanting to get out of NATO. We just want to stop having to pick up the tab for most of the defense of Europe and many other countries around the world as well.
That is what Trump has been pushing for - and it is about time.
We realize that we get a benefit from this and we are willing to pull at least our own weight - as we have been for many years. But the implication that we are 'Against being in NATO' because we want to see these other countries pay for their own fair share, is nonsense.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Yeah, because neither Trump nor the thinking right here in America are wanting to get out of NATO. We just want to stop having to pick up the tab for most of the defense of Europe and many other countries around the world as well.
That is what Trump has been pushing for - and it is about time.
We realize that we get a benefit from this and we are willing to pull at least our own weight - as we have been for many years. But the implication that we are 'Against being in NATO' because we want to see these other countries pay for their own fair share, is nonsense.
But I think you know all of this.
We don't want to leave NATO, however if we leave with a no deal and can't get a trade deal, it's inevitable that our future commitment to Eurpean defence and relationship with Europe may be subject to change.
Nobody wants to be defending countries that won't trade with you or try to punish you for leaving theor organisation.
Britain (and the US) have done more than their fair share since WW2, and the US may well wthdraw most of it's forces from Europe in the future, whilst Brexit may see Britain spend more money on it's Navy in order to protect post-Brexit trade routes and our island, which is what we used to do before WW2 and the Cold War.
We don't want to leave NATO, however if we leave with a no deal and can't get a trade deal, it's inevitable that our future commitment to Eurpean defence and relationship with Europe may be subject to change.
Nobody wants to be defending countries that won't trade with you or try to punish you for leaving theor organisation.
Britain (and the US) have done more than their fair share since WW2, and the US may well wthdraw most of it's forces from Europe in the future, whilst Brexit may see Britain spend more money on it's Navy in order to protect post-Brexit trade routes and our island, which is what we used to do before WW2 and the Cold War.
And all of that sounds perfectly fine to me. Why should the US or the UK be sending troops to Germany, for example, when the Germans and the French are reluctant to do so? That makes no sense.
The countries of mainland Europe have not been pulling their own weight when it comes to providing resources for their own national defense. The reason is that their government budgets are groaning under the strain from trying to fund much of the expansive social safety net that they are trying to maintain and they are therefore asking other countries to cover the cost of the defense of their countries in Europe.
It is not acceptable. We have our own fiscal problems here in the US, as you do in the UK. All of these countries - rich countries by any reasonable standard - have to pay for their own national defense costs.
We will help with NATO - as long as everyone else is doing their part. That is totally fair and reasonable. If everyone else is not doing their part, then what kind of an alliance is this?
Jeremy Corbyn stated today that Labour will call for a vote of no confidence “when we can win it”, but added it would be at an “appropriate very early time”.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will call for a vote of no confidence in the Government this autumn in an attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit. Mr Corbyn said the party would do this “when we can win it”, but added it would be at an “appropriate very early time”.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the “last thing” he wanted to do was call a general election. It comes as Health Secretary Matt Hancock issued a fresh warning to rebel Tory MPs that they cannot stop Boris Johnson taking Britain out of the EU in a no-deal Brexit.
So, he could have said September 3, but he did not. For this tactic to have any chance to work, Labour must file for the no confidence vote immediately when Parliament returns from its six week long summer vacation.
And if he fails to do it before Parliament reassesses again about a week later, for the annual party conferences, then any move to do this will only be to sort out the seating arrangements in Parliament and will have nothing to do with stopping Brexit.
Very vague statement today, Mr. Corbyn. Very vague.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
