23-06-2003 02:30									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Even Tony Poodle won't.

Tony Blair doesn't need to. The UK consistently comes in at the 2.5% of economy figure anyway and spends its money well.

	23-06-2003 02:31									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

I told you before: Europe is in deep ass since 1920.

	23-06-2003 02:32									#33
	Suffering from ads?

Ok, let me explain some basics to the clueless.

Could the EU have militarily stopped the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo? Of course. It would have just required mobilising the militaries as they were designed with a soviet invasion - about 5 million mobilisation strength, 12.000 tanks etc...

The impediments were political, as the armies were not and are not designed for low loss operations against third world opponents, and lacked the political and military command structures. An extra 200 billion $ won't change that. What we need to do can be done with the current 150-200 billion we spend.

	23-06-2003 02:34									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Main_Brain EU Armies: Build to defend Europe (against former 'Soviet Agression' US Army: Mobile (to be sent to Europe ) Ahh Trolling is so easy once you get the Hang on it.

Since around 1992 Europeans have been talking about creating a more mobile offensive force with the transporting and heavy lifting capacity to allow them to project that force where ever it is needed. 11 years later it still hasn't materialized which is ok but it means by and large Europe will be unable to project force beyond it's borders effectively.

	23-06-2003 02:37									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS Even Tony Poodle won't. Tony Blair doesn't need to. The UK consistently comes in at the 2.5% of economy figure anyway and spends its money well.

And France at 3 %. Germany, on the contrary, at 1.5 %. But spending levels are the last problem.

"Since around 1992 Europeans have been talking about creating a more mobile offensive force with the transporting and heavy lifting capacity to allow them to project that force where ever it is needed."

1992? More like 1997/8.

	23-06-2003 02:41									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler as the armies were not and are not designed for low loss operations against third world opponents, and lacked the political and military command structures. An extra 200 billion $ won't change that. What we need to do can be done with the current 150-200 billion we spend.

Which show's Europe needs to invest more to transform it's armed forces to deal with todays threats and requirements. There's no Soviet Union to fight and the heavy armor is useless since you don't have the capacity to get it where it needs to go. That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on.

Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at. How many decades has the Eurofighter been being dickered over? Same with the Eurochopper. Both of these weapon systems will be obsolete before they even enter production because the EU can't get anything done because they can't seem to come up with the cash to fund the needed programs.

	23-06-2003 02:48									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oerdin:

"That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on."

Right.

"Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at."

Wrong.

	23-06-2003 02:55									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Which show's Europe needs to invest more to transform it's armed forces to deal with todays threats and requirements. There's no Soviet Union to fight and the heavy armor is useless since you don't have the capacity to get it where it needs to go. That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on. Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at. How many decades has the Eurofighter been being dickered over? Same with the Eurochopper. Both of these weapon systems will be obsolete before they even enter production because the EU can't get anything done because they can't seem to come up with the cash to fund the needed programs.

Neither heavy armour nor jet fighters are of utility in peacekeeping missions.

Annexation of the Middle East, of course they are. But here you are judging the needs of the Iraq occuptation with the needs of a full Congo annexation.

No political will in Europe for either.

	23-06-2003 02:58									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Where do you want it to be?

You can't talk about Europe as a whole to begin with. Or EU. There's no unity. You can only talk in nation level, which countries of Europe. And then you have to realize, that outside UK, France and Germany, sending troops to foreign countries is a bit difficult. Us, for example can't do that. It's about money for sure. And I'm sorry, but we can't come up with more money if there's a war between to foreign countries. That's the way it is, we have our cababilities and priorities. Militarily, our one and only priority is to secure our own borders. We don't have carriers because we don't need them, and it would block the sea . We don't have subs, because waters are too shallow. So, what do you want us to do for you?

Or what about other countries? It is so complex, that it is not that simple that you could just say 'they don't want to' and that's all there is to it.

We can talk all we want, but the fact remains it was still US vs. Iraq. Sure, most countries fell back to support the US, but they were still supporting, not initiating. There is a difference. And that contributes to facts that not many leaders are willing to suggest scraping the bottoms of the wallets, since most countries have other priorities. It could be little difficult for people to understand, I'm not sure, but we for example have other things coming first, and then if we have money and time, we can discuss about supporting, sending troops, that HAS to be in budget. Smaller countries can seriously damage themselves by getting themselves into something that consumes money, time and effort when there are no solid blueprints how things will play. Should they risk it? Why should they? US can handle it. Sure we should help as much as we can, but it doesn't mean we should skip the friday party because of it.

And I must add, even if it triggeres some people, that after this it's going to be a lot harder. Bush promised us too, not just the US citizens, but us too, the whole world, the UN, that there will be WMDs. This is important. Why should we keep sending money and troops, when we are not told what's going on? Honest mistake, maybe, but it doesn't really keep the hopes up, that the next time when Bush comes to ask for help and money, we'd be thrilled to know that there are WMDs etc in some country. So what if it was about other things too? Sure, but if there's lots of money involved, then it's not about that, it's about money.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, not at all. I'm just trying to explain that it's not that simple. Blair, Chirac, Schroeder, none of this dudes speaks for whole Europe. They speak for their own countries.
I emphasize the point where I said, that we have other priorities too. In the US, it might seem that the most important thing is this and that, but every country has their own stuff. And even if it seems foolish that other countries think they have something more important to do and spend their money on, it's a fact. And as long as we are not truly unified, any military operation together, as Europe, is impossible.

Everyone here thinks they're the hot stars, egos are too big, everyone thinks they're the Europe, but it's not true. We are just bunch of countries that happens to be in same continent and that's pretty much about it. Militarily we are crippled to act as one as of now and long in to the future. But many of us can defend ourselves, and that's the most important and only military function we have.

Many of us thinks, that it was Americas own mess. But even so many of us at the same time thinks, that it was justified. So we show support, but why should we start pumping the goodies since we would like to have them also? Lowering the standard of living is out of the question, why should we get poorer for it?

I know, long post, maybe little provocating, but the point of this whole post was to suggest that there are other things that should be taken into consideration.

	23-06-2003 03:00									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Where is Europe?

	23-06-2003 03:03									#41
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Oerdin: "That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on." Right. "Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at." Wrong.

Please explain why nearly all the joint weapon systems the EU puts out takes a decade longer then just about everyone else. Since the EU is unable to come up and impliment competetive designs in a timely fashion will you at least conceed that this is a major deficiency?

	23-06-2003 03:04									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ups, most of my points were about sending real combat troops. I still say that we don't have all the money in the world. Some countries has to use volunteers. In here, no one can be forced to do peacekeeping in the military. And still there are applicants many more times than spots. If you give us more money though, I bet we send more too. So how about those dollars?

	23-06-2003 03:12									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Please explain why nearly all the joint weapon systems the EU puts out takes a decade longer then just about everyone else. Since the EU is unable to come up and impliment competetive designs in a timely fashion will you at least conceed that this is a major deficiency?

Well, one part of it is getting the design right in the first place, rather than rushing the order and then claiming lots more tax dollars to correct the "unforeseen problem".

Another part is that the in-service date is meant to co-incide with the retirement date of the equipment it replaces. This rarely goes to plan... but it's a bit smarter and MUCH MORE COST EFFECITVE than a never-ending arms race, keeping military equipment at the cutting edge of technology

NOT, I would hasten to add, that there isn't a lot of fat on the Euro-this and that projects....

	23-06-2003 03:12									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Cruddy Neither heavy armour nor jet fighters are of utility in peacekeeping missions. Annexation of the Middle East, of course they are. But here you are judging the needs of the Iraq occuptation with the needs of a full Congo annexation. No political will in Europe for either.

Cruddy: You're missing my point. Europe has plenty of Armor and a fair amount of fighter planes but they don't have the ships and tranport planes needed to send large amounts of these forces rapidly to deal with emerging regional threats like Bosnia or Kosovo. It simply can't get enough of the right kinds of forces to where they need to be fast enough to be effective. To do this Europe will have to fund several new projects so it can build up it's capabilities and deal with these situations without always having to ask Washington for help everytime something comes up.

	23-06-2003 03:13									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ups, most of my points were about sending real combat troops.

Yeh, I was going to lump you in with GePap and Hershell. Bad company, for sure.

I still say that we don't have all the money in the world.

That's true. But realize that US policy makers have been jawboning Europe to increase military spending to 2.5% of their economies for the last couple of years. My conclusion from the facts laid out in the article is that they should save their breath and write-off Europe as military allies (besides the UK and at times France).

Further, the US should develop better capabilities to occupy/peacekeep. Europe isn't going to do it, contrary to what some policy makers here believe. We should get real, and not fall into the trap of trying to have others be the benign face of an occupation/peacekeeping force after we have done the asskicking.

Last edited by DanS on 23-06-2003 at 03:21

	23-06-2003 03:20									#46
	Put an end to popups!

DanS, Good thing I noticed then, eh?

Well personally I think 2.5% is not too much to ask for. Or 4%. We can't still make it . But some countries could... and granted, many European countries have talked a lot about peacekeeping, and are not living up to those promises.

But then again, I don't care about peacekeeping, it's a waste of time .

	23-06-2003 03:21									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Hey DanS: we send 3.5% of our GDP on the military. Don;t we have enough forces to peacekeep in Iraq?

Hersh is correct: the Average European has little inclination to spend lost of money on defense to peacekeep. Newsflash, NEITHER DOES THE US! The very fact that the US wants other states to participate in Iraq is to cut our expenditures and so that we don't have to keep 50% of our army and logistic units in there for years. BUt since the US decided to go into Iraq before creating the political groundwork to get European support (becuase the Iraqi threat was so imminent ), we are stuck with it, and those that 'were willing'.

If it had been up t the US public we would not have gotten into the balaksn at all, and we certaonly won;t get involved anywehre outside the ME or NE Asia any time soon.

	23-06-2003 03:25									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I may be wrong, but I thought European countries provided the bulk of peacekeeping forces in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and that France was always the leading peacekeeping force in Africa (with little peacekeeping done however).
It is normal since European militaries are richer in numbers when it comes to ground units, the heart of peacekeeping forces.

The fact that Europeans don't want to pay for your mess in Iraq doesn't mean they oppose peacekeeping as a whole. Don't forget that no European public opinion ever supported the Iraqi war except in Britain. The refusal to go there isn't surprising.

Besides, the objective of Aznar, when he was actively undermining the clumsy efforts of Chirac to build a European bloc, was precisely to continue like Spain has done before : very little military spending, and living under the US' umbrella. I suppose this objective was shared by quite a few members of the axis of vassals.

However, Oerdin is right that the EU (as the organisation) is extremely bad when it comes to military business. This comes from the fact that the 3 most important countries in Europe (UK, France, Germany) sure want to become militarily / politically / diplomatically important again, while the other States want to continue concentrating on their economy. That's why the EU-guy for diplomacy is completely powerless (and that'll continue with the Constitution), and that's why all Europe-wide military projects are ripped of their meaning.

There have been quite a few military initiatives in the EU, mostly involving France + Britain or France + Germany, but they have been extremely timid so far. The deep strategic disagreements between UK and France hinder these projects from being really ambitious.

	23-06-2003 03:30									#49
	Suffering from ads?

Spiffor, sure, but there are people who have spoke for 'the whole Europe', that we are always there for peacekeeping. We are, but the real effort is not very impressive.

	23-06-2003 03:32									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor ...The deep strategic disagreements between UK and France hinder these projects from being really ambitious.

Bearing in mind what happened on the last co-operative effort at "peacekeeping", this isn't surprising.

Also, an EU wide defence force means no more NATO - and a lot of countries are deeply suspicious over anything that changes the status quo, which has been largely a success.

The whole POINT of colloboration on projects like Eurofighter is to;-

a) Keep the defence jobs in Europe
b) Deny the money to Boeing.

As all the planes are tooled up with US made missiles anyway, I can't see dependance on the US being a factor.

	23-06-2003 03:36									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hey DanS: we send 3.5% of our GDP on the military. Don;t we have enough forces to peacekeep in Iraq?

We spend 4%. And yes, we have enough forces to occupy Iraq. My instant beef is that the neocons were unrealistic in their assumptions about how gung-ho the Europeans are on peacekeeping, which gave our troops false hopes about what they would be doing the next couple of years (sorry, we know you're a $275,000 per annum pair of boots on the ground, but here's a rifle--go stand in front of a bank in the middle of Fallujah in 120 degree heat).

Newsflash, NEITHER DOES THE US!

Precisely. We assumed that others would pick up the slack. It's very convenient to ignore something that is unpleasant.

Now take the instant case of Iraq and project our military forward 20 years. That's what I'm talking about. Europe is nowhere to be seen.

	23-06-2003 03:39									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DanS, I go. Give me the rifle!

edit: Again I got it wrong, this is about peacekeeping. Keep your rifle .

	23-06-2003 03:42									#53
	Remove this text

Pekka: You're all occupation, no peacekeeping. Here's a rifle. Go occupy their asses.

	23-06-2003 03:44									#54
	Support Apolyton

The real story behind all this is, that we don't want to wear those sissy blue hats and helmets. We are too tough. We are so tough, that we can just drink tea and critisize everyone else. If we start fighting again, it's WWIII and IV at the same time. Look, you only need Germany, not the whole Europe .

I know, bad joke. sorry..

	23-06-2003 03:47									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion quote: Where is Europe?

Don't you realize when people are being sarcastic?

	23-06-2003 03:52									#56
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm sure he does.

	23-06-2003 03:53									#57
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

DanS:

The Neocons are in no mood for peaceekkeping either, and neither is anyone in the US military. Soldiers in the Us like to fight wars and win wars. All that mess afterwards..we really don;t care much forit, or for doing that job, and I highly doubt that anyone in the US, particulrly washington, will all of a sudden develop the taste for peacekeeping anytime within the next 20 years.

On Europe: what would Europe be peacekeeping for? This is the key question. Wil they peacekeep to "spread American values", which si the neo-con objective? Why should they? They have thier own set of values. As Spiffor said, effective European peacekeeping is likely to come from only the 6 big EU states (Germany, France, UK, Italy, spain, Poland). Germany has contitutional issues and cultural ones, Italy and Spain don't have the wil either. That leaves Poland (not wealthy enough) , the UK and France. France wants to have the Europeans pushing thier agenda forcefully, while tyhe Uk wants to have a "western agenda", but they are not likely to get support for that in the US, and while Italy and Spain might temporarilly back such a move (look for Aznar to be gone soon enough), as I said before, those two won;t contribute much, leaving the UK alone, unless they back the French notion, and then you would be more likely to see more European defense innitiatives, but ones that Washington would disapprove of.

	23-06-2003 03:54									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

.

Last edited by DanS on 23-06-2003 at 04:04

	23-06-2003 03:57									#59
	Got spare money?

Also, I want to make clear that I think our troops are doing an important job occupying Iraq. But it seems sort of pointless having the commander of the 4th ID try to explain how his multi-billion dollar battle net and targetting systems are helping him so much against the second-rate sabateurs and snipers.

Our military, from the top (prez) to the bottom (private) doesn't want to do these things, so everyone does everything possible to try not to create the capability. Well, here we are.

Last edited by DanS on 23-06-2003 at 04:09

	23-06-2003 04:05									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well, I don´t understand this discussion. As Spiffor said, Europeans were able to bring their troops to Afghanistan. You have a point when you say they hadn´t enough transport capacity on their own, but what matters is the result - the troops are there. So I see no reason why it should be different in case of Iraq (if we wanted to there - and if the US wanted us).