BF2S Forums United European Army?

Parker wrote:

well as long as an EU army didnt have something like "allahu akhbar" as the motto, i think it would be great.

It wouldn't unless Turkey gets more than one foot in the door! Even if they did they're actually very secular and liberal by middle Eastern countries standards. Their joining the EU is being challenged at the moment on the grounds of their human rights records but it looks like they will be joining.

Over my cold dead body. Centralising military power puts the instruments of death into fewer, potentially corruptible, hands. Devolution of power! Let us come together when it is truly necessary! Viva la guerrilla siempre!!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-19 12:02:26)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I wouldn't see the point since we already have NATO. If they wanted to form this superpower to manipulate international politics, that would be very hypocritical given their criticism of US policy. Regardless, it would benefit the US since most "Western" countries share the same ideals and there's a lot of dirty work that still needs to be done in the Middle East and the rest of Asia.

On the downside, this is probably another step closer towards global polarization and large-scale conflict.

NATO are still seen somewhat as an arm of the Capitalist world and still don't have a good image in the eyes of many of the old Eastern European countries as a result of the cold war. Moving towards global polarization is a daunting prospect but in many ways the new situation that we have in the world where the USA is the only real super power is unknown territory and I often wonder what would happen if the political atmosphere in the US might become even more extreme and right wing. We experienced a watershed when the US went against the UN's position on Iraq and are now in a world where the US can do what they like. They don't even follow International human rights guidelines.

I grew up, like most people, believing the US were our friends and were the 'good guys' and never really believed that a figure like Hitler or Franco could ever rise to power and convince a nation as large as the US of outlandish claims and envelope the nation in a siege mentality. Although nothing has happened in the US on the scale of Hitler's antics G.W . Bush has proved that extreme attitudes can penetrate the White House. When i see how Bush has changed a nations perception of a race of people i.e. Muslims on such a large scale it worries me. Hitler did similar things with the Jews before he began exterminating them.

I accept that the 9/11 attacks had a huge affect on the US's perception of middle Eastern Muslims but Bush invading Iraq so soon after served only to bundle all the diverse middle Eastern groups into one identifiable enemy. What would the world do if the USA launched a holocaust-esque campaign on the rest of the middle East (under the banner of helping Israel perhaps or as another step in the war on terror?) Would it not be a good thing to have one other big player who can take America to one side and say 'calm it down a bit'?

I'm not decided on the matter but it's an interesting prospect.

Cameronpoe makes a good point. With the tools of war being controlled by a smaller number of people the military position of the European Union would be much easier to corrupt.

Why would the US stop it?  EU and US are allies, we don't see eye to eye on everything, but we seem to be moving in the same direction.  But would it be like here in the US with a centralized force, but each state having it's own reserves?

Lets get NATO to be effective before we centralize the whole of Europe into an army.

UGADawgs wrote:

Maybe the Europeans can finally do something about Darfur instead of waiting for us to do it.

Darfur would be a huge shit sandwich, and if the EU took a bite not only would it end up with a sore stomach and shit on its face, but the sandwich would still be there when it was done.  Some things you just can't fix.

I'd really like Europe to build up a military force.  That way, America won't feel like it has to spend so damn much on its own.

This has come up quite often. The US has traditionally been absolutely opposed to the EU establishing a united European military force. Understandable really, they want to keep themselves involved in security concerns for the largest economic power in the world, which through NATO, they can do.