welsh said:
Europe needs a big stick to complement its soft speech.
European army?
- Thread starter Ghoullove
- Start date
Europe needs a big stick to complement its soft speech.
[Rusty Chopper]
Vault Dweller
Jebus said:
We should think more of selling you tanks.
Supply and demand...
What - T90's?
We can attach wheels to shoeboxes ourselves, thankyouverymuch.
We can attach wheels to shoeboxes ourselves, thankyouverymuch.
[Rusty Chopper]
Vault Dweller
Jebus said:
T-90 is a very good tank, Jeebz. Don't, like, call it a shoebox.
Jebus said:
I have to ask what security threat Europe seriously fears in the future that would justify a 'big stick'? Is Europe concerned the big bad USA is going to invade them? Afraid of a resurgent Russia trying to make a bid for power? Afraid of the Middle East marching their troops through Turkey to the Father/Motherland (I never get those right)? Afraid China might stop buying American weapons and European technology to bolster its forces, and make a bid to march across Asia as a yellow wave of death?
I mean, the whole point I thought for the European Union was to avoid having to have another damn European war. Giving the reins of control to any particular government in Europe seems a fine way to start a whole other hullabaloo. Assuming the United States doesn't completely go balls-up and become a complete dictatorship, I have to wonder what army you were thinking of unless somehow NATO means nothing anymore.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
It cannont compare on any level to the Leopard. We should just buy those.[Rusty Chopper said:
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Because the EU has as much interest in projecting force and using a military arm for diplomatic pressure as we do. So long as we're capable of invading any 2nd or 3rd world country on the planet with a coastline, we'll always have an edge on the Europeans diplomatically.
Of course, they'd need to construct a formidible navy with which to project that power in the first place (hella expensive), and doing so effectively renders NATO purposeless.
The reason why started this topic was to get feedback and indeed I got a lot of good feedback especially from you European brothers. The reason why I asked the Europe army question is because as time goes by the U.S. is slowly withdrawing it's military presence from western Europe. I think in ten years time the U.S. will only have a couple of bases they will fly out of in Europe,not to mention the mass removal of ground troops as well.
In Canada we are increasing the size of our army by 13,000 troops in the next 2 years due to our mission in Afghanistan as well as U.N. peace keeping operations. Expensive indeed.
In Canada we are increasing the size of our army by 13,000 troops in the next 2 years due to our mission in Afghanistan as well as U.N. peace keeping operations. Expensive indeed.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Uhhhh... why not?
Not as if to say that the Leopard outclasses the Crusader (I have no idea, really), but you could make an effort to put forth an argument.
You can't put a price on good relations with the world's only superpower, as well as its biggest global circle jerk.
Not as if to say that the Leopard outclasses the Crusader (I have no idea, really), but you could make an effort to put forth an argument.
You can't put a price on good relations with the world's only superpower, as well as its biggest global circle jerk.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Once again you manage to have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. The Leopard II is the best tank in the world.Malkavian said:
Also, I think you mean the Challenger 2 Brady, the Crusader is from WWII. The Challenger 2 is also inferior to the Leopard II in most respects. Although, sadly, the Leopard II cannot make tea.
Bradylama said:
I really don't think they want (or need) to do that. The EU may get into a pissing contest with the US every once in a while, but it is hard to imagine any kind of situation where the EU and the US drift so far apart that they no longer wish to work together on military operations, let alone compete.
To be honest though, I hope that the EU does decide to pick up some military slack. We tend to work on in the areas together, would be nice to have a country besides the UK that has an army capable of being a significant help. REMILITARIZE DEUTSCHLAND!
Fireblade said:
Why does the USA need such a big-ass army, then? Because it is afraid Mexico will invade to reclaim California and Arizona? Because it is afraid the United Kingdom will try to annex them back into the Empire? Because it is afraid Canada will claim all the way to the 49th degree? Because it is afraid Russia will someday want Alaska back? Because it is afraid the Iraqis will step into rafts and peddle towards the USA to invade it?
You could just as easily disband the entire US army - and let your NATO allies take care of you! The Commonwealth navy and the continental European ground troops will be more than capable of averting any threat that might befall the USA, and unless the EU goes balls-up and turns into a dictatorship you have nothing to fear. Or what, doesn't NATO mean anything anymore?
Don't be such a naive jerk.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Any area that borders the Mid-East and Russia and has Germany in it's borders will always need a military. Not to mention Belarussia and Serbia and Bosnia and....etc....
I'd say one of the main problems is the notion that the EU and the USA have to compete. Just seems kind of silly. Bipolar global politics are dead and should stay that way, and we both just burn GDP if we make separate weapons platforms, let alone inferior ones (*COUGH*EUROFIGHTER, LECLERC, EUROCOPTER TIGER*). It would make a lot more sense for the US and the EU to just swap the best of our weapons technology.
And toughness has a way of not mattering when a round from the peerless Rheinmetall L55 cuts through your armor like a radioactive knife through grease.
I'd say one of the main problems is the notion that the EU and the USA have to compete. Just seems kind of silly. Bipolar global politics are dead and should stay that way, and we both just burn GDP if we make separate weapons platforms, let alone inferior ones (*COUGH*EUROFIGHTER, LECLERC, EUROCOPTER TIGER*). It would make a lot more sense for the US and the EU to just swap the best of our weapons technology.
I don't care if it is built like an AT-AT. The fact is that it is an inferior tank. It has an autoloader, for one. That's an automatic kick out of first place. The T-90's electronics are inferior to that of the Merkava, Leopard II and the M1A2, and in terms of design it is not that much more then a T-72, one of the biggest tank fuckups in history. It's gun and engine are alright, but it is building on one of the worst tank designs in history. Need I mention
And toughness has a way of not mattering when a round from the peerless Rheinmetall L55 cuts through your armor like a radioactive knife through grease.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
China's a big country, I hear.
Seriously, though, the constant maintenance of an effective military is an effective way to secure one's national interests.
Your Mexico example, for instance, isn't too far off. There are a lot of concerns about a Leftist being placed into the President's seat. Assuming that we had a military relative to pre-WW2 mobilization levels, it might not be too hard for him to drum up nationalist support to take back Greater Mexico in a bid to keep its corrupt government in the clear. Would America hit back hard? Absolutely. Yet, the loss of southern California and Texas should not be understated.
There was a time in American history where we actually were invaded by Mexicans. Perhaps you'll recall the name Pancho Villa? The government back then was about as effective as the present.
It's not entirely implausible, considering the reports of Mexican troops making border crossings. Whether they're Americans dressed up like Federalistas, or Drug Smugglers in stolen uniforms, of course, is up to conjecture.
Besides, if we didn't have such an effective military, who would cover your ass?
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Bradylama said:
Considering Jebus...I'd say Wooz. Considering Europe...I'd say Poland. Guess those are the same thing though huh?
8) ,
The Vault Dweller
pancho villa was a mexican revolutionary who fought his own government not ours he was fight for democratic reform in mexico (if you can call it that, 70 some odd years of PRI rule isnt democracy) have you ever heard of "and staring Pancho Villa as himself" its the true story about how an american film crew went to mexico and in return for $ they were allowed to film him in his fight. anyways he's revolution is want made him a hero in mexico: he ended an oppressive government not attacked ours
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
And yet, he also shot up a New Mexico border town and killed a lot of innocent people. Which is what got the US Army to pursue him across the border, and helped Patton earn his fame as an expert marksman.
None of which would have happened if the Mexican government wasn't such a shoddy piece of work. The same could happen at the present. Assuming a new president comes along and starts doing shit important people don't care for (drug lords) you have the chance for another Pancho Villa. In fact, there are several border counties along the Arizona and New Mexico border that have been in constant states of emergency since last year due to drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other assorted forms of smuggling and vandalism.
None of which would have happened if the Mexican government wasn't such a shoddy piece of work. The same could happen at the present. Assuming a new president comes along and starts doing shit important people don't care for (drug lords) you have the chance for another Pancho Villa. In fact, there are several border counties along the Arizona and New Mexico border that have been in constant states of emergency since last year due to drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other assorted forms of smuggling and vandalism.
Jebus said:
Naive jerk? I know exactly what the United States is doing...hell I study the policies in class and on my own free time. Being a superpower is not ipso facto a dictatorship. There is a vast difference between a hegemony and a dictatorship and if we had such a huge damn army, then why the hell are we facing problems with recruitment at home, foreign actions abroad where our idiotic government wants us to go, and maintain numbers in Europe and elsewhere, hmm? While I recognize it, I don't AGREE with it you 'naive jerk' as you said. The question I have is whether you have some unusual pipedream of a grand unified European army standing up to the big bad United States in some unidentified future period?
Brady said:
Or up to common sense. The Mexican army crossing the American border would be an act of war, not to mention a complete strategic and tactical failure.
Bradylama said:
Agreed, although you forgot to mention the part about the fact it was a retaliatory action on the people that sold him useless weapons.
Selling disfunctional weapons to a partisan that has the potential to get back to you is a bad idea.
NIGGA PUH-LEASE!
What's next? Fear of a Canadian invasion?
Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. (hur hur, funnay punne!)
For starters, Porfirio Diaz' corrupt and brutal dictatorship has jack shit to do with Mexico's modern-day government and police institutions. It isn't Happy Happy Joy Joy Land, but it certainly isn't the same, shoddy structure held by a village-raiding-rape-the-women-and-sow-the-soil-with-salt tyrant after years of civil war.
Also, you label Mexico's government a 'corrupt' one, yourself being an American under the Bush administration. Comedy Goldde.
Anyway, Secondly. There aren't any kind of partisan movements nor rogue generals' activity in northern Mexico, nor pretty much anybody with the capability to raid an entire city. See, it's 2006, not 1906. Things change. You don't just <s>walk into Mordor</s> ride in a few hundred arm men into Murika, on horseback, and massacre most of a town.
Saying that "this could happen now" or comparing the Porfirian dictatorship to Mexico's present-day government is as stupid as to expect duels at sundown in Main Street or Indian parties hijacking trains in present-day America.
Thirdly, you can't compare drug and wetback smuggling into Gringolandia to Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus. I mean, le voutfe.
Fourthly, and probably most importantly, nobody would profit from such a raid. The biggest part of Mexico's economy is entirely dependant on the USA.
The drug barons's methods are also entirely dependant on American policy: The way they smuggle the merchandise into 'Murika, Bribing police/FBI agents within the states to make drug distribution easier, eckcetra et cetera. All this would fall to pieces for every drug lord, if suddenly Daddy King Belmondo decided to wipe out a town on the American border.
Finally, Your 'Großmexico' theory is pretty much alternative to this planet. Last I checked, Mexico isn't run by a one-testicled madman with the will to invade neighbouring countries for the Aztec Ubermensch.
I reccomend you strongly a trip to Mexico, to see how the place is In The Real World.
The whole country is in a "constant state of emergency" since 9/11
Crazy, paranoid Gringos. Maybe a nostalgia after the days when America was clean-cut, shiny, and expecting to be minute any second.
To finish the post with a lighter note:
