Hmm yeah, military spending per country has been cut quite a bit in order to cut overall government spending. It's leading to reduced safety in trainings, vehicles being unserviced, lack of ammunition and quick responses towards actual possible invasions being insufficient and too slow. The ideal would be to be so efficient in diplomacy to not need an army at all. Yet with rising tensions around Europe (Russia/Ukraine/Libya/Middle east) it seems like that is not going to happen, making it wise to go back to pre economic-crisis spending working better together with other EU members. Intension and talks about the issue have been around for a few years and the opportunity to go towards a more united EU army for much longer, yet suddenly got within reach with the UK (the strongest block opposed to it) being in the process of leaving. Imo it's a road towards more efficiency with the funds that you have, while we already are co-operating in missions as it is. So I'm for it.

They seem to respond to America's isolationism as well. We've always bought most of our equipment and ammo from the US (hence relying on US ammunition), there seem to be goals towards becoming more self reliant involving EU funded research as well, in order to buy less from the US. Dunno if you should be happy about it.. Are you ?

This post was edited by Knaapie on Nov 15 2017 10:22am

In a way, yes. It will probably take a lot of the load off the US, when the UN wants something done.
I also think it will be better for the EU in the long run, as well. I think this will put the EU back on a more level playing field, with allies and enemies.

No matter the leaders, people will still be too greedy for land, for power, for control etc. I would think it would be better for the EU to be able to hold it's own in these areas too.

I'd like armies and weapons to not be needed. But at this time, the world is pretty full. Some folks won't be happy with just what they have, they'll want more. Tis the same reason communism always fails.


Since I don't see people waking up and smelling the coffee, and realizing that the only solution to all the tensions in the world today is to stop breeding, or get more real estate (Mars etc.), I think the peace loving nations must be able to defend themselves, until the day comes when we do gain more real estate or stop breeding so much.

Interesting, because here I'm thinking the EU should not have taken the load of the US for Afghanistan and Iraq, since both wars have been started under flawed logic with poor and falsified evidence. You'll more often see the US asking for NATO members to join a war, than the other way around. This became evident when Trump suddenly "understood" the importance of NATO. So pulling NATO's leg at campaigns is based on dissatisfaction on declining purchases of US military hardware. Increasing it, would boost the economy. Yet demanding it as a baboon going for isolating, is steering the EU to be more self reliant.

/e: I don't know where to start addressing flaws in the urge for more, communism and global real estate.. Perhaps narrow it down to what you're trying to discuss.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Nov 16 2017 03:32am

I only read the first line of what you said.
I'm referring to the load that the UN seems to think is the US's job alone to handle.

Like the crap going on with the refugees down under. the news reports say they will probably end up in the US. Gee thx world. :/
Like the crap currently going on in yet another African country that Saucy expects the US to go oin and take care of.

I keep hearing a lot of EU members dissing the US for bad healthcare, bad gun laws, excessive military spending...etc. Well, jump up and do your part, then maybe the US can save some of the billions we have top spend to have these armies the rest of the world keeps calling on.



/e The money we save on military spending alone, would probably pay for totally free health care.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 16 2017 03:41am

This is a disaster, Ghot, all you views are partially or completely biased.
It's true im curious too; from where do you get your "informations" allowing you to make such statements ?
Format the storage unit and installl a new OS, seriously.

Again 3-4 different topics in one post ^

The mass stream with refugees is our problem, we need to solve it.
When it comes to shit going on in Africa it's mostly the US wanting to play world police in order to solve the situation. Remember that there are over 150 US military bases outside of the US, the EU didn't ask for that at all. The US did that all on its own, with the urge to spread its power. Being asked to help in regional conflicts is a natural result at this point in history.

And finally, we do have to talk about how criticism is being received as dissing. I know some can use irony in a way the ppl get on edge and in their mind change criticism into being attacked by a foreigner. How criticism is received from a fellow American is for some reason way different then when a Frenchy does it. It's an awkward form of discrimination.

I'm really tired atm, so give this the benefit of the doubt.

The problem IS as you stated... immigration. There's two solutions as I see it.
1. Let it happen
2. Try to solve the problems where the folks live who desire to migrate. <---- The US can't do this all by themselves. And yes, some times defensive military force is necessary. Not to empire build but just to be able to exist in some locations.

IMO, option 2 is the answer. No one, the US included wants their culture swamped by immigrants and refugees.

As for the military bases, you make it sound like we are empire building. We're not, we didn't go in and fight the locals and then establish a base. We're there cause at one time or another we were asked to be there. With very few exceptions, those being countries that it was felt would turn around and ignore treaties that they agreed to.
Like Japan, Germany etc, after WWII.

Any other bases we have are there at the request of those nearby. We have bases in Spain and Italy for example. they are there for our and those country's convenience. There is no hostility there, and in just about all cases, our bases provide a serious amount of monetary relief to the areas they are located in.



The weird part is, that the US seems to lose out either way.
If we stay home we get accused of isolationist thinking. If we go out and try to help, we seem to be on our own and are told we shouldn't be there at all.

IMO the US should just stay home and let all the self proclaimed experts handle things.
The US can survive on it's own, pretty much.

If the world wants to complain about how we do things...no matter which way we proceed, then why should we do it at all.
If the world wants the US to be their police force...well, that's not gonna happen. If they want us to police, we can, but we will do it our way.

If the world doesn't like it, they can jump in and do it their way.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 16 2017 04:12am

its more like bringing european armies up to speed, the state of many armies in europe is ridiciuous
as a german i have been pissed for a while at the state of our forces, more than half of our tanks, helicopters and planes are not usable
we have bought a bunch retired helicopters from malaysia and singapur to get spare parts for ours just recently, absolutely pathetic



i kinda agree, working together on projects for equipment for example is a good way to save money and increase effectivity of our forces in combat

the issue i have is that this is another undemocratic EU decision towards more centralisation and a real EU army

i will not accept a joint EU army, that is under the command of the corporate EU puppets in brussels
needless to say that multicultural, multinational armies have rarely worked in the past, when things get rough everyone will stick with their own kin, thats how it has always been

so its a nice idea overall, but another step towards a EU superstate

I think the EU is a great idea. It makes Europe in to kind of a United States of Europe. The hard part for the EU is that unlike...states, you're dealing with countries. Countries with their own cultures and belief structures.
This makes it a lot harder to pull off than for the United States of America. We are pretty much all the same culture. Some states have their own ideas on things, but they pretty much all agree on all else.

Europe is made up of a lot of very old, very experienced cultures. If the EU can pull off the United States of Europe idea...as in working as a single unit, they will BE a fourth world power, as they should be.

And most importantly they will be a non communist world power.



This is what I meant when I said: Well it seems that the EU has decided to start "pulling it's weight".


Im didn't mean Europe was...slacking, I meant if they wanted to be treated as a world power, they had to act like one. Some how the EU has to behave like a United States of Europe, rather than just a collection of countries.

the current EU doesnt even work and is destined to fall apart at this rate, the united states of europe are utopia