EU Army on way? EU cannot rely on NATO and needs new defence policy...

[Deleted]

We didn't sign off on going into Iraq and destabilising the whole region. That's all you, buddy.

We also were unable to clean up the Balkans in the 90s, when terrorists, criminals and wannabe-dictators staged their manhunt, killing 100.000 people on all sides. Without US intervention that number would be much higher. That bickering, appeasement and lots of cheap talk, that's all us, buddy.

[Deleted]

Europe and Japan are NOT occupied by the US. You can stop the nonsense as well. The US are our closest allies (can't speak for Japan, but I guess they feel the same) and they're in Europe as part of NATO. Something we asked them to do and something they're happy to do. We're all in one boat. The US would love for us to have a proper military construct that could pull its own weight in Europe. We kinda do, but the US is here to make sure that everyone knows the armed forces in Europe are enough to protect NATO, no matter who gets funny with us.

So please, stop with the nonsense talking in this thread. Jesus...

Feel free to interpret it however you want, however the US has repedeately shown they do not care about EU interests. I wouldn't call that an ally.

Well, is anyone actually trying to invade Europe/the US? Other than terrorists (who aren't countered with supercarriers and nukes)?

Nope.

- - - Updated - - -

We also were unable to clean up the Balkans in the 90s, when terrorists, criminals and wannabe-dictators staged their manhunt, killing 100.000 people on all sides. Without US intervention that number would be much higher. That bickering, appeasement and lots of cheap talk, that's all us, buddy.

Wat. You have no idea what happened in the Balkans. Whitout the US that mess wouldn't have even started.

[Deleted]

Well, is anyone actually trying to invade Europe/the US? Other than terrorists (who aren't countered with supercarriers and nukes)?

Russia, for one, to answer your question.

To elaborate further, defense doesn't mean protecting our physical borders, it also means protecting our allies (such as our allies in the Pacific) which means countering the Chinese threat. It means protecting ourselves outside our borders (such as intervention in countries that harbor terrorists such as Afghanistan and Syria) to make sure terrorist attacks doesn't happen to begin with, and create stability in those countries, the latter which granted the US has completely failed at in regards to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

We Europeans should be more active in the world. We can help out more in the Pacific to protect our allies there, but ultimately I'd like to see the EU take more decisive actions in the Middle East and North Africa to make sure terrorist organizations such as Daesh doesn't rise and threaten us to begin with, and help build societies so that there can finally be stability in that region. Like Skroe said earlier though, Syria is a complete mess at this point it's not worth doing more than what we are already doing. But we could've done more to prevent the situation from escalating the way it has, and if the US can't do it then we have to because ultimately what happens in the Middle East affects us Europeans a lot more than the US.

As for nukes, that's a whole other beast.

We also were unable to clean up the Balkans in the 90s, when terrorists, criminals and wannabe-dictators staged their manhunt, killing 100.000 people on all sides. Without US intervention that number would be much higher. That bickering, appeasement and lots of cheap talk, that's all us, buddy.

This, as well. The military isn't just some tool to oppress people, it's also a recognition that people suck and the least we can do about it is to crush them before they can stage genocide.

[Slant]

We also were unable to clean up the Balkans in the 90s, when terrorists, criminals and wannabe-dictators staged their manhunt, killing 100.000 people on all sides. Without US intervention that number would be much higher. That bickering, appeasement and lots of cheap talk, that's all us, buddy.

We still have troops stationed there. But hey, ignore that...

[Kalis]

The first European writings on federalism come from the French Revolution in 1793 which is almost 20 years after the founding of the USA, over a decade after the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and 5 years after the US Constitution was ratified. The only federation that predates all of these things was the Iroquois Confederacy which may have formed as early as 1142, but definitely existed well before 1722, So please, show me where federalism existed in Europe before 1722 when we know the Iroquois Confederacy existed.

Confederacy in use in the West predates the discovery of the Americas, so how did the word come to be used in its modern sense a couple of hundred years before anybody met the Iroquois if it was based on them?

Where did separation of church and state exist before the USA? The Roman's had an official religion which is why the Emperor had the power to officially declare Christianity to be the Roman Empire's religion, Medieval society pretty much picked up where the Romans left off and gave the church official roles and duties within the government itself, and even today the UK's House of Lords holds 26 spots specifically for Bishops of the Church of England. And don't even get me started on how much government authority and influence the Vatican had throughout the Medieval and Renaissance era's Where is this separation of church and state that supposedly predated the USA because all I can see is an entanglement of church and state throughout Europe's history.

You said "The concept of separation of church and state is original to the USA...", yet John Locke wrote about it prior to the founding of the USA and was influential to the founders of the USA.

Locke was English, so tell me how an idea that they got from an Englishman is an American concept and not a group of ex-British people following British ideas.

Lastly, Yes, James Oglethorpe was born British and came to the Colonies. That's plainly obvious from the fact that his actions predate the founding of the USA by at least 40 years, but the point was that the abolitionist movement didn't originate in Britain and in fact the founding fathers had sown the seeds for America's abolitionist movement during the revolutionary war, and if you're gonna call the founding fathers who denounced king and country in order to create the USA British then I don't know what to say because sending a big "fuck you" notice to your leader and waging a war against him and his people seems like a pretty clear denouncement of their country of origin.

The abolutionist movement came from British ideas, hence it was British in origin. The founders thought as British people of the time did, they wanted the same rights as British people and when they did not get that they revolted.

[Theodarzna]

1.9 is population replacement. With immigration it's growth. See above.

My father hasn't paid for anything in a decade and change.... I'm sorry that my scientist father actually stuck around to guide me into my career though unlike some peoples. Wait no. Correction. I'm not sorry.

And I don't "pretend to be a big shot in tech". I have a tech job. I worked hard to get where I am. I'm very good at it. But that's the extent of it.

You've gotten shriller since Bernie Sanders lost badly.

I forgive someone such as yourself for not knowing a lot about babies, as it will likely never be your problem.

However, 1.9 < 2.1, I do expect you to know math. And Yes, US fertility is on the decline, and the trend continues for the US, Also both Illegal and legal immigration is on the march down, both are declining.

And Eh' my biological father unfortunately died, though he was not a scientist, do physicians count or only GLORIOUS TECH STEMLORDS?, But that's all history. Though he does qualify me for Irish citizenship so, the man provides even in death, hell of a man.

Of course "Working in tech," could mean Fuck all anything from staples easy tech guy to the person who fetches prostitutes for Mark Zuckerberg.

[Kellhound]

The French did fight back, they were just defeated, and in large part due to circumstances outside of their control. Unlike the British, Americans, or Soviets, the French didn't exactly have some "safe space" to run to if things were going well. All of the Allied armies got whipped badly in their first encounters with the Nazis, but most of the time they could fall back and regroup to plan a counterattack. The French didn't have this luxury.

The French had the opportunity to win WWII in 1939, but they chose to hide behind the Maginot Line.

- - - Updated - - -

This, also 50 is questionable for Navy, getting a fleet takes A LOT of time and money, with money you can shorten the time some but will still take a long time.

50 years is more than enough time to build 10+ super carriers, 100 destroyers, 100 submarines, 10+ large aviation amphibious assault ships, 20+ large amphibious assault ships, AND their replacements....

[Deleted]

The French had the opportunity to win WWII in 1939, but they chose to hide behind the Maginot Line.

Hindsight is fantastic, but they did expect a meat grinder WW1. US have a opportunity to drastically shorten the war against japan 1941, but US did expect a old battelship war.....

[May90]

But reality is Europe and Japan are occupied territory by the USA.

Daily pearl from MMO Champ. Considering putting it in my signature...

[Deleted]

Today on mmochamp: Russia is invading europe.

[bledgor]

50 years is more than enough time to build 10+ super carriers, 100 destroyers, 100 submarines, 10+ large aviation amphibious assault ships, 20+ large amphibious assault ships, AND their replacements....

It takes 12 years roughly for the US to make a super carrier, and we have been making them for a LONG time. I mean we could (and might) open up another port to making them, but that is the more money aspect, and I don't see EU having more than 2 docks to craft these mammoths (especially with Britain not being a part of it).

I think you greatly underestimate how colossal they are and time consuming it is to make them, these things are 100,000 tonnes (though if they are okay they could cut that down to 70,000 and it is still a super carrier).

[Deleted]

It takes 12 years roughly for the US to make a super carrier, and we have been making them for a LONG time. I mean we could (and might) open up another port to making them, but that is the more money aspect, and I don't see EU having more than 2 docks to craft these mammoths (especially with Britain not being a part of it).

I think you greatly underestimate how colossal they are and time consuming it is to make them, these things are 100,000 tonnes (though if they are okay they could cut that down to 70,000 and it is still a super carrier).

Realistically a EU navy would not look like a US navy, even with similar funding.

[Kellhound]

Hindsight is fantastic, but they did expect a meat grinder WW1. US have a opportunity to drastically shorten the war against japan 1941, but US did expect a old battelship war.....

No hindsight is needed when the vast vast majority of the military of the country you just declared war on is in another country on the opposite side of said country.

And no, the US had nothing like the opportunity France had in 1939 against Japan in 1941.

- - - Updated - - -

It takes 12 years roughly for the US to make a super carrier, and we have been making them for a LONG time. I mean we could (and might) open up another port to making them, but that is the more money aspect, and I don't see EU having more than 2 docks to craft these mammoths (especially with Britain not being a part of it).

I think you greatly underestimate how colossal they are and time consuming it is to make them, these things are 100,000 tonnes (though if they are okay they could cut that down to 70,000 and it is still a super carrier).

The first Nimitz Class took 7 years to build, the last took 5. That is from keel laying to commissioning. The US has one shipyard that can build them, Newport News, but Ingalls can build VTOL carriers of 45,000 tons (at a rate of 1 every 4-5 years). The last conventional carriers the US built (the Kitty Hawks) took about 4 years each to build, and the first supercarriers took 3-4 years to build. We had two shipyards that built them, but only NN is still in business.

I know full well the size of a Nimitz Class carrier, I was station on one (which was one of the middle ships of the class and took 5 years and 1 week to build).

[bufferunderrun]

The French had the opportunity to win WWII in 1939, but they chose to hide behind the Maginot Line.

- - - Updated - - -



50 years is more than enough time to build 10+ super carriers, 100 destroyers, 100 submarines, 10+ large aviation amphibious assault ships, 20+ large amphibious assault ships, AND their replacements....

yup in what dock you build them? lets be realistic without getting any knowledge from the US even if we invest 50-60% of entire eu gdp (even with UK in) we cannot acquire enough competence and we can't build the necessary infrastructure to get a real navy in less than 20-30 year.
Maybe if we ask USA to sell us some second hand nimitz vassels they are about to replace with the new gerald ford the time required could be shortened by 5-10 year.

[Vynny]

Confederacy in use in the West predates the discovery of the Americas, so how did the word come to be used in its modern sense a couple of hundred years before anybody met the Iroquois if it was based on them?



You said "The concept of separation of church and state is original to the USA...", yet John Locke wrote about it prior to the founding of the USA and was influential to the founders of the USA.

Locke was English, so tell me how an idea that they got from an Englishman is an American concept and not a group of ex-British people following British ideas.



The abolutionist movement came from British ideas, hence it was British in origin. The founders thought as British people of the time did, they wanted the same rights as British people and when they did not get that they revolted.

The term confederacy comes from late middle English to mean "join together in league". Europeans used a term of their own to describe something new. It's the same reason why the term "quantum" comes from a Latin word meaning "one's share or portion" but has been appropriated to mean "a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents." So the question isn't "was the term "confederacy" used in Europe before meeting with the Iroquois Confederacy", it's "whether or not the ideas of Federalism existed in Europe before meeting with the Iroquois Confederacy". And the answer is no as far as I can tell. I can't find any European writings on Federalism before the French Revolution in 1793. On top of that, the concept federalism is redundant with feudalism since they're both systems on how to micromanage society, and feudalism didn't end in Western Europe until around the 1500's so you won't find any form of practiced federalism from the 10th century until the 16th century, and so in order for it to have originated in Europe it had to have existed in some theoretical context during that time or in some practiced manner before the 10th century when the whole Europe was feudalistic.

And your point about John Locke is? I mean you're basically saying that Europe get's credit for a good idea that came from someone born there even though they didn't and have yet to implement it or recognize it's importance. You're saying it's a British idea simply because it was a British person who was the first to touch on it, but it was and is still rejected by the British government and society. And this is the very distinction between what an American was and what a British person was during the Revolutionary War. They had a different national identity and set of ideals which were incompatible with one another. I mean, how can you claim that an idea that's still rejected by Britain to this day is a "British Idea". That's like giving the Roman Catholic Church credit for Galileo's work simply because they helped fund it despite their outright rejection of it.

Lastly, no the Founding Fathers didn't want the same rights as British people, they wanted more rights. That's why the USA has rights such as freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms codified into law that British people don't have. You can keep saying over and over that they were British following British ideals, but the fact of the matter is that they took enlightenment ideas that were rejected by the British people, concepts from Native Americans which the British were bigoted against, and original ideas all their own and made a separate nation with a different national identity out of that. The USA wasn't some sort of Britain 2.0, it was the result of a rejection of certain British ideals. It was the rejection of the servility of the people to the government, it was the rejection of the role of the church in government, and it was the rejection of the acceptance tyranny in deference to tradition.

[Kellhound]

yup in what dock you build them? lets be realistic without getting any knowledge from the US even if we invest 50-60% of entire eu gdp (even with UK in) we cannot acquire enough competence and we can't build the necessary infrastructure to get a real navy in less than 20-30 year.
Maybe if we ask USA to sell us some second hand nimitz vassels they are about to replace with the new gerald ford the time required could be shortened by 5-10 year.

The French are capable of building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier already, and the Brits are building 2 70,000 ton carriers that are VTOL for cost reasons only.

[randomnamegenerator16]

Most importantly though, a unified army is a good step towards a super state, a federalized EU. .

And this is exactly why it must not happen.

[Wikiy]

We Europeans should be more active in the world. We can help out more in the Pacific to protect our allies there, but ultimately I'd like to see the EU take more decisive actions in the Middle East and North Africa to make sure terrorist organizations such as Daesh doesn't rise and threaten us to begin with, and help build societies so that there can finally be stability in that region. Like Skroe said earlier though, Syria is a complete mess at this point it's not worth doing more than what we are already doing. But we could've done more to prevent the situation from escalating the way it has, and if the US can't do it then we have to because ultimately what happens in the Middle East affects us Europeans a lot more than the US.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just find the superpower pissing contest sort of hilarious, something like Captain America vs. Ironman in Civil War.

[Kalis]

The term confederacy comes from late middle English to mean "join together in league". Europeans used a term of their own to describe something new. It's the same reason why the term "quantum" comes from a Latin word meaning "one's share or portion" but has been appropriated to mean "a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents." So the question isn't "was the term "confederacy" used in Europe before meeting with the Iroquois Confederacy", it's "whether or not the ideas of Federalism existed in Europe before meeting with the Iroquois Confederacy". And the answer is no as far as I can tell. I can't find any European writings on Federalism before the French Revolution in 1793. On top of that, the concept federalism is redundant with feudalism since they're both systems on how to micromanage society, and feudalism didn't end in Western Europe until around the 1500's so you won't find any form of practiced federalism from the 10th century until the 16th century, and so in order for it to have originated in Europe it had to have existed in some theoretical context during that time or in some practiced manner before the 10th century when the whole Europe was feudalistic.

Federalism existed back in Ancient Greece, the term was used to describe them and later was applied to the Iroquois and other confederacies.

And your point about John Locke is? I mean you're basically saying that Europe get's credit for a good idea that came from someone born there even though they didn't and have yet to implement it or recognize it's importance. You're saying it's a British idea simply because it was a British person who was the first to touch on it, but it was and is still rejected by the British government and society. And this is the very distinction between what an American was and what a British person was during the Revolutionary War. They had a different national identity and set of ideals which were incompatible with one another. I mean, how can you claim that an idea that's still rejected by Britain to this day is a "British Idea". That's like giving the Roman Catholic Church credit for Galileo's work simply because they helped fund it despite their outright rejection of it.

What the fuck? Of course it is a British idea if someone British came up with it. If I come up with an idea then it is mine, if someone esle utilises my idea, then it does not suddenly mean it originated with them, your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Your Galileo analogy is crap. The credit would go to Italy as the Catholic Church is not a nation, the Vatican is, but he was not from the Vatican.

Lastly, no the Founding Fathers didn't want the same rights as British people, they wanted more rights. That's why the USA has rights such as freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms codified into law that British people don't have. You can keep saying over and over that they were British following British ideals, but the fact of the matter is that they took enlightenment ideas that were rejected by the British people, concepts from Native Americans which the British were bigoted against, and original ideas all their own and made a separate nation with a different national identity out of that. The USA wasn't some sort of Britain 2.0, it was the result of a rejection of certain British ideals. It was the rejection of the servility of the people to the government, it was the rejection of the role of the church in government, and it was the rejection of the acceptance tyranny in deference to tradition.

They wanted the same rights as British people, got rejected and revolted. I can keep saying over-and-over that they were following British ideas, because that is exactly what they were doing.


You take clueless to whole new levels, it is impressive. Even the most one eyed Yank would look at your arguments and shake their head in disbelief.

[Deleted]

And no, the US had nothing like the opportunity France had in 1939 against Japan in 1941.

Yes it have, after US deceler its oil embargo agenst Japan. You cant fight a modern war widout oil, historically Japan "solved" the probelm by invading oil-rich Dutch East Indies. So if US did a deal with the Dutch, or "forced protect" Dutch East Indies Iceland style, and deploy US military before the historical Japanese invasion. Back it up by sending US carriers to let say Australia to be ready to attack a Japanes invation fleet. US will have 5? big carriers and ground based air support.

Japan can not make war if they have no oil.... yes they have other oil wells but they pales in comparison with Dutch East Indies.