| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| UK tries to head off plan for EU rival to NATO |
| 2003-08-29 |
| Britain is today seeking to head off attempts by France and Germany to forge ahead with an independent European military initiative that it fears will weaken Nato. British officials will tell European Union colleagues in Rome that any planning for European military operations must be carried out strictly under the auspices of the Atlantic alliance. "Because, you know, we’d like to see whatever we do actually WORK." Paris and Brussels have called for the EU to plan and mount its own operations. They have backing from Belgium and Luxembourg - which form part of what pro-Nato critics call the "gang of four" of EU countries who opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq. What military juggernauts we have here! France: Foreign Legion good, rest of French army okay. Brussels: no army. Lux: no army. Belgium: very substandard army. Just what they need: combine the four of these! Britain’s proposals in response, submitted at the request of the Italian EU presidency, agree that the EU should be able to plan operations, but only from Nato’s headquarters near Mons, Belgium, still called Shape (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) as it was at the end of the second world war. Where they still remember how to plan things! British officials admit that the central idea of a document entitled Food for Thought is deliberately intended to undercut the Franco-German-Belgian idea for an independent EU "planning cell" in Tervuren, a suburb of Brussels. They warn that the Franco-German drive will annoy the Americans and create unnecessary duplication between the EU and Nato. Britain and France jointly pioneered the idea of EU defence after the 1999 Kosovo war highlighted the yawning military gap between the US and Europe. Progress has been made in setting up new institutions and procedures and modest peacekeeping missions have been mounted in Macedonia and Congo. Plans are also under way to create a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force. With no heavy air or sea lift to transport it anywhere, er, rapidly. It had been hoped the EU could also take over the far larger Nato-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia next year, but that is now in doubt. Oh, it was never in doubt here at Rantburg. Amid tensions between Paris and London, British officials are frustrated that the Franco-German plan - initially seen as an empty gesture after the divisions of the Iraq crisis - is still being pursued. Defence is one of the most controversial items in the EU’s draft constitution, which is due to be finalised in negotiations between all 15 member states starting in October. Controversial only in principle, since there will be little money for it in practical terms. Britain opposes proposals by the "gang of four" for a "solidarity clause" for victims of armed aggression, similar to Nato’s article 5 on mutual defence. Tony Blair has described this as one of Britain’s "red lines". He can count on the support of Nato loyalists such as the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Denmark as well as neutral or non-aligned states. It is a sensitive issue in Britain, as the Conservatives argue that any sort of EU defence initiative will damage Nato. Geoffrey Van Orden, Tory defence spokesman in the European parliament, said: "None of this makes any military sense: it is pure politics and the loser will be the transatlantic alliance and Britain’s wider security interests. "The French are likely to agree the trivial British proposal for a ’dedicated EU planning cell’ while giving up none of their own ambitions. We are then likely to face the worst of both worlds - an EU trojan horse inside Nato as well as expanding and duplicative EU structures outside." That ’bout pegs it. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #55 Thanks Ernest, it's good to see that so well put. Sort of encapsulates and enhances what Aris has been demonstrating piece by piece for the past few months. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-30 3:42:58 PM |
| #54 Bulldog, Fouad Ajami has Aris's number: "Greece is part of NATO and of the European Union (EU), but an old schism-that of Eastern Orthodoxy's claim against the Latin world-has greater power and a deeper resonance. In the banal narrative of Greek anti-Americanism, this animosity emerges from U.S. support for the junta that reigned over the country from 1967 to 1974. This deeper fury enables the aggrieved to glide over the role the United States played in the defense and rehabilitation of Greece after World War II. Furthermore, it enables them to overlook the lifeline that migration offered to untold numbers of Greeks who are among the United States' most prosperous communities." (Fouad Ajami, "The Falseness of Anti-Americanism" FOREIGN POLICY Sept/Oct 2003, page 55.) Ajami goes on to point out that Greece's phony claim to "Westernness" is just a front for the same nationalistic and religious resentment that's found across the Bosporus, "a belligerent political culture shaping faith as a political weapon, an abdication of responsibility for one's own world, and a search for foreign 'devils.'" (Ibid) |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2003-8-30 3:29:28 PM |
| #53 ""Successes like the preparations for the 2004 Olympic Games? " *g* Pfft. Bwahaha! British tabloids as a source of information, again, Bulldog?" Show me where I've linked to a British tabloid, Aris. I can recall doing so only once. This was a half-hour programme on the Beeb. If you honestly think Greece's Olympic efforts are something to be proud of, your standards are about right for an EUrophile. Here's a quote from a BBC online article: "Athens was awarded the games six years ago, but political infighting and what was called excessive bureaucracy led to major delays in the timetable." Care to provide a link to support your rosy opinion of Greek preparations? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-30 1:11:58 PM |
| #52 "Regarding.....Cyprus. See the very last sentence. You brought that up. " Yes, Cyprus is a *present-day* non-NATO nation under constant threat. It's Bulldog who brought up historical debts. Yet again you've not been reading my posts. But ofcourse idiots like you hear "Cyprus" and your minds go back 30 years ago, the same way you hear Germany and your minds go back 60 years ago. "Also, the line about your own people having nothing to do with their own problems is called sarcasm. " No, it's called again not reading my posts as you accused me of denying guilt to my own people. And what you are doing now is called trying to weasel out of your words. "You still haven't provided any proof that the UK is sabotaging your EU. There is nothing in this article, that approaches a "don't cross this" line that the UK has established anywhere " What the hell do you think the phrase "red lines" mean? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-30 10:39:42 AM |
| #51 Aris, you crack me up! Check out your original post on this, where at the end, you tell Britain to @#$% OFF! Regarding.....Cyprus. See the very last sentence. You brought that up. Not Bulldog. Also, the line about your own people having nothing to do with their own problems is called sarcasm. I take it you've heard of that, since the word is derived from Greek? You still haven't provided any proof that the UK is sabotaging your EU. There is nothing in this article, that approaches a "don't cross this" line that the UK has established anywhere but in the confused ravings you've posted. I stand by my previous statements. If you would only do the same...... |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-30 2:17:59 AM |
| #50 And as a sidenote I also think that the English were a great nation once. But then they became whiny crybabys about the EU at best, or vile backstabbing saboteurs of it at worst, wanting neither in nor out. Britain is still a great nation. Unlike Greece, whose primary hope for glory these days consists of leeching on to the developed nations of the EU. Once Britain gives up its sovereignty, its glorious history will turn to dust, as it becomes just another backwater province in a latter-day Roman empire headquartered in Brussels. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-29 10:47:21 PM |
| #49 And one last note. "Your big problem seems to be that the rest of NATO didn't come on over and referee this nasty mess that a Greek-backed faction started in 1974. Right? " No. My big problem is that the UK is sabotaging the Union. Still don't get it? As for historical grievances I'm not interested in any until *other* people start telling me that I should have historical *gratitude* towards them instead. No way. It's only when people take out the "you should be grateful to us" card, that I take out the "grateful for the military junta, you mean?" card. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 10:43:32 PM |
| #48 Baba Yaga, I'm no longer interested in having you put words in my mouth. When I say in a post "Yes, yes, ofcourse a great part of the Greek establishment were to blame also", and you somehow get out of it that I said no Greek citizen was to blame whatsoever... well it already shows that you've not been reading what I'm writing, and therefore I will not be reading what you are writing either. Sounds fair to me. (As a sidenote, the religious establishment's support for the junta is one of my lasting grievances against the Greek Orthodox Church. The other lasting grievance is their moral support towards the Bosnian Serbs.) "If the EU is so damn fragile that having a member nation raise questions as to the merits of an idea pisses off the rest of the group that badly, " Britain doesn't "raise questions", it holds this as a "red line" that EU must never ever ever ever cross. As the EU was foolish enough to admit Britain into the union (with its power of veto and all), the EU is now a hostage to Britain's decisions. No other country in the union has all these "red lines". Most countries that disagree with the majority just go for opt-outs instead. But you can't actually *sabotage* a union with opt-outs, so Britain can't go that way. "I get the impression that Aris will place blame for every future EU defficiency and failure on the US & UK" Raphael, are you telling me that Britain *isn't* threatening to veto any and every EU common defense pact? Tell me those words. Please. Let me know if you are completely detached from reality. Tell you what. I'll only blame UK for the definciencies that her vetoes had a huge share in creating. How does *that* sound? Such a vile union as ours is, you people have still not given me a reason why Britain wants to stay in. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 10:36:00 PM |
| #47 Aris--The British are still great. Just because they don't necessarily toe the party line as you would want them to doesn't make them "whiny crybabys" or "vile backstabbing saboteurs". I think you are mixing them up with the French. If the EU is so damn fragile that having a member nation raise questions as to the merits of an idea pisses off the rest of the group that badly, they are going to be in serious shit if a real problem ever comes up. We have a kind of vested interest in watching what happens with the EU, as much as that irritates you no end. Why? Well, let me put it this way......we had to come over there twice and fight wars Europeans started, and we had to keep our troops over there to ensure a third war didn't start up because we still aren't sure you learned any lessons the previous two times. Believe me, most Americans would be happy as all hell to pull the troops out. But based on Europe's sorry behavior during the 20th century, excuse us for doubting that you could handle the responsibility for your own security. I know, in your eyes, we are responsible for all the evil, horrible things that have befallen Greece. Your own people had nothing to do with any of the woes that you suffer. It's always someone else's fault. Your dictators were all supported by the CIA, there were no Greek citizens who had anything to do with them attaining power, right? Ok, let's get to that bug up your ass, Cyprus. I think that's what you are really worked up about here. We have two NATO members engaged in a war over an island. Your big problem seems to be that the rest of NATO didn't come on over and referee this nasty mess that a Greek-backed faction started in 1974. Right? The fact that only the Greek dominated government is officially recognized by the UK, the US and the rest of the world except Turkey means nothing to you, your pretty words about "diplomatic and economical support" notwithstanding. We were supposed to get involved in a nasty civil war between two allies just to keep *you* happy. To eloquently quote you, "Pfft." P.S. As for each state having their own army, well, we kinda have that. It's called the National Guard. The state governors can call them out when they see the need for maintaining civil order due to people acting up or natural disaster. Our states don't have armies that could attack, say, Canada, because we leave that up to the national government. National Guard units can and are called up to assist the regular federal military forces, but they do that under the command of the President. That was one of the things we resolved a while back when we came up with our Constitution. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-29 9:30:28 PM |
| #46 I get the impression that Aris will place blame for every future EU defficiency and failure on the US & UK. His excuse will be that the US & UK were meddling, subverting, sabotaging etc etc. I know people like this. They like to revise history to reflect that any failure on their part is the fault of the US. In Aris' case it will be both the US & UK. |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-29 9:26:13 PM |
| #45 "Successes like the preparations for the 2004 Olympic Games? " *g* Pfft. Bwahaha! British tabloids as a source of information, again, Bulldog? "We'll hold out for Grecian leadership of a federal EU. Hope you can! " *g* The European Ombudsman is already ours, you know. One position down, more to come. ;-) But that's okay, as the EU Constitution will be ours too. Or didn't you know the first words of the preamble will be in ancient Greek? ;-) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 8:24:39 PM |
| #44 Successes like the preparations for the 2004 Olympic Games? Don't get all watery eyed on us, Aris. We'll hold out for Grecian leadership of a federal EU. Hope you can! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 7:55:03 PM |
| #43 And as a sidenote I also think that the English were a great nation once. But then they became whiny crybabys about the EU at best, or vile backstabbing saboteurs of it at worst, wanting neither in nor out. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 7:54:11 PM |
| #42 How do you define "us"? I vote for Brussels same way as I vote for Athens. And it's amusing that when you speak of Greece as a great nation, you are speaking of the time when Athens battled Sparta and each city was a "nation" upon itself actually. I wonder if you consider it equally bad that Athens isn't any longer a city state but united with other "inferior" places like Sparta or Corinth or Thessaly or Macedonia or Crete or whatever. We look to Belgium for leadership? Actually our current Prime Minister Simitis wouldn't be too huge a outsider for a future EU president, given his successes in the EU in the past. We'll look to them for leadership as much as they'll look to us, I wager. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 7:49:21 PM |
| #41 Put your faith in Brussels, Aris, and on your head be it. Greece was a great nation, once. Now you look to Belgium for leadership, and claim you cannot be expected to defend yourselves. Civilisation has gone west, Aris. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 7:36:46 PM |
| #40 Baba Yaga, I know you people there don't give a damn about Greece. I just wished that you (and the Brits) didn't give a damn about the EU also. And the Balkans aren't to the North of us. They are all around us. As for the propping up of junta, it went all over the list, economic, political, diplomatic aid. Yes, yes, ofcourse a great part of the Greek establishment were to blame also. Many Romanians supported the Romanian communist dictator also, after all. But Bulldog was going bitchy on me about how the Americans ensured our freedom during the Cold War and we should be grateful. Bzzt, wrong! Neither democracy, nor freedom, was ensured by the Americans during that period. "It's never only about stuff that happened last year or last week, and never only about stuff that happened to them personally. " And yet when *I* spoke about stuff that happened yesterday or the day before, it was still other people that brought up stuff that happened 60 years ago. And the insane conspiracy theories about plotting against Greece were put into my mouth by others. I've never uttered them one single time. It's the EU which I accused Britain of attempting to destroy. Bulldog> "Aris, the take home message from the Falklands fiasco is: we DID IT OURSELVES, despite the fact that our enemy had the upper hand. We had a problem, and we dealt with it." Then why do you need the NATO? If you can do everything yourselves, that is? For that matter why do the United States need their Federal army? Have each state make its own individual army. No alliances are needed. No coalitions. No unions. Ever. "When was the last time your EU "compatriots" fought for Greece?" Btw, here's another foreign concept to you, which is called "diplomatic and economical support". Meaningless to you, I know, who thinks that the exercise of might can happen only with a gunbarrel. We're lucky enough to not have had many wars in the last 50 years, thank you. Not counting the intervention the dictators attempted at Cyprus, of course. On another note hundreds of thousands of Cypriots can atleast visit their old homes after the huge pressure that the Republic of Cyprus' admission to the Union was to the Denktash regime. More than the US has ever done for that island. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 7:23:41 PM |
| #39 "The EU" being some sort of conscripted army, not the superstate nebula. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 7:21:53 PM |
| #38 Steve White, no, it was very clumsily handled (in fact, you could argue deliberate obfuscation was employed). There's nothing to nail down France, Luxembourg, Belgium and "the EU" as the gang of four. Number four is Germany. Re-read the article. If the EU itself was in on this, everyone whould be up in arms... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 7:18:34 PM |
| #37 Bulldog--What you said! ;) Oh, and nothing personal about the "no British blood in me", you realize. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-29 7:01:31 PM |
| #36 Aris, the take home message from the Falklands fiasco is: we DID IT OURSELVES, despite the fact that our enemy had the upper hand. We had a problem, and we dealt with it. It's an alien concept, I know. You prefer to blame rather than do. That's what makes us different. We fought for Greece in 1941. When was the last time your EU "compatriots" fought for Greece? When did France defend Greece? When did Germany? When did Brussels? Your history means nothing to you, so you'll learn nothing from it. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 6:56:40 PM |
| #35 Aris--Watch who you're calling an "Anglo", honey. There ain't a drop of British blood in me. My mother's side is all from the Balkans. You know, that region to the north of you which quite recently had a nasty civil war with grievances dating all the way back for oh, 800 years or so? Yeah, the same one your vaunted, valiant EU was so effective in bringing to a peaceful resolution. (I'm sorry.....no, wait....that was finally ended once those damn mutts from America got involved, wasn't it? And yes, I know that they are going to cherish forever the indignity of having their prize goat blown up by a US/UK bombing raid, to add to their never-ending list of indignities they love to bitch about. I'm part of that culture, and remember hearing that kind of garbage from the old folks. Your compatriots the Greeks are on their shit list, too. So don't even get started on that crap. It's never only about stuff that happened last year or last week, and never only about stuff that happened to them personally. Unless you happen to live in the one tiny little bit of that peninsula where that rule doesn't apply....which I doubt.) They did a bang-up job of giving defensive weapons to your ol' friend Turkey (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think even your government supported them on this one) before the latest war in Iraq. Oh, yeah, they're gonna save your ass if the shit hits the fan. Sure.....just as soon as the Charles DeGaulle can get more than 50 nautical miles from Marseille without a mechanical breakdown. That is, if the French don't give you the same "learn your place" speech Chirac gave to Eastern Europe earlier this year. Let's get one thing across to you, Aris. My country, and the UK, do not sit up nights wondering just how we are going to bring Greece to her knees. I know it is the center of your universe, and rightfully so. But if you think for one minute that the rest of the world is/was plotting against Athens, you're even nuttier than those raving Islamic freaks that live in your general neighborhood. Oh, and on behalf of my father and uncles on both sides who fought for your freedom in WW2, none of them "Anglo" or with any blood ties to Greece (imagine some guys with German and Italian blood fighting against fascism, if you can), you are welcome. Now go wash down your Prozac with some ouzo like a nice kid and lay down for a bit. You'll feel better. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-29 6:55:59 PM |
| #34 Aris, please inform on how the Americans propped up the dictatorship in Greece. Did US troops scour the cities and make arbitrary arrests and random political assassinations or did we sell weapons and forget to overthrow the government because we were befuddled by the millions of dead killed in the name of communism by that point? At some point the Greek people have to take responsibility for the Greek bastards that ran the Greek nation and the Greek mothers that bought into the Stalinist lies and tried to take over said nation. I think the UK is rightfully nervous of the EU and any defense clauses because they are pretty much the only nation with any power project capabilities and they will be called upon to use their blood and treasure defending little carribean islands and specks of rock in the Indian ocean because the Dutch and French cannot afford to defend them. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-8-29 6:44:08 PM |
| #33 "I think the seething anger is simply because the UK stands by the US on so many important issues. " Pfft. Now who's the one who thinks the world revolves around him? Not everything has to do about the US, pumpkin. And Greece may be quite unimportant to the world, but I happen to live in it, so it kinda is important to me personally, thank you very much. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 5:30:01 PM |
| #32 "Does Greece owe the US anything for her propping up of western Europe post-war, in order to contain the soviets, who would have had Greece for breakfast without US presence in Europe?" Hmm, let me think, do we owe you anything for propping up the fascist anti-Communist dictatorship that had Greece in its grips for seven years and then went and created the mess in Cyprus which saw the island ethnically cleansed and hundreds of thousands of people expelled from their homes? I think that for its Cold War contribution, Greece owes America about as many thanks as Romania owes the Soviet Union. "I think EU is a necessary evil for Britain" Wow. Really? Please expound on the reasons you consider it a necessary one. Why is it necessary for Britain to remain in the EU? Please tell. "And Aris, re. Cyprus, where was the Greek element of the Falklands task force? Are we quits yet, are we?!" No, we aren't quits yet. Because Greece didn't try to stop Britain from creating whatever defence pacts she wants, but Britain is still trying to stop the EU from creating *its* defense pact. Even one that would exclude Britain itself. Nope, nope, can't have that. Can't let EU move forward without us. We must tie it down to the NATO alliance, an alliance which depends on our fellow Anglosaxon allies and which they can disband in a moment if it is no longer to their benefit. You see, that's the point you STILL DON'T GET, Bulldog. I am not talking about *any* British obligation to help Greece or Cyprus or Baluchistan or whatever. I just don't want you to interfere in our desires to create a European defense pact which may be so willing to defend us. One independent from NATO. Which will therefore be obliged to help EU members that *don't* belong to NATO as well. Like Cyprus. DO YOU GET IT, BULLDOG? I JUST WANT YOU TO BUTT OUT! I WANT YOU TO STOP SABOTAGING THE EFFORTS OF OTHER NATIONS! And Baba Yaga, if you noticed I initially limited the discussion to what Britain is doing *now*, the constant sabotaging. It's others who brought up the idiocy of "historical debts" we owe to the grandchildren of people who fought in World War 2. (and not all the grandchildren, just the anglo ones) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 5:24:45 PM |
| #31 Aris >>> Prozac...it's not just for breakfast anymore. Bulldog >> Greece is famous for it's Mythology, great thinkers, advanced civilization, ruins, and a powerful military. You can read about it under ancient history. Oh, I almost forgot, one more thing a particular type of sex (DOH!) Greece is about as important in this world as horse and buggy whips are to modern transportation. I think the seething anger is simply because the UK stands by the US on so many important issues. The Brits believe in taking a stand and (unlike the rest of Europe) aren't afraid to take strong action when the time is required. More importantly, they don't send in 500 troops just to hand out band aids and ice cream to the locals when they deploy like the Paklanders, African countries, Germans, Japanese or Koreans. When things get tough the US can only rely on the UK. Thank God for the UK and may God bless and watch over her troops! |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-8-29 5:10:58 PM |
| #30 I guess we can add Greece to the list of countries with this standard operating procedure: Things are going great....."#$%% OFF, US/UK!" Things are going horrible in the US or UK....."#$%& OFF, you're getting what you deserve! You are evil/racist/infidels who have never apologized for the part you played in destroying my great-grandmother's cousin's best friend's lemonade stand when you kicked the fascists/communists out of my country!" Things are going horrible in their little corner of the world, especially if they are the ones who screwed it up in the first place......"Hello suckers! Whoops, I meant friends! Send troops and money! Especially money! No euros, please....we want dollars and pounds, thanks!" |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-29 4:20:51 PM |
| #29 Bulldog wrote: That the original poster, being from across the pond, didn't see that doesn't surprise me too much, but I'd have thought you'd see. Are you going to continue denying the obvious? Bulldog, I knew the reference and thought I handled it correctly: Gang of Four as used by the reporter was France, EU, Belgium and Lux. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-29 4:01:03 PM |
| #28 And Aris, re. Cyprus, where was the Greek element of the Falklands task force? Are we quits yet, are we?! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 3:49:04 PM |
| #27 Aris, most of us are well aware of Britain's ambiguous status re:EU. I think of them as a good family watching the old neighborhood deteriorate, still having to run the shop, and unable to move. Meantime we read your wild rants on the subject, as though Xerxes were just off your coast, and wonder what the fuss is about. It's fun. I think EU is a necessary evil for Britain and they are just trying to keep their share of business while waiting for EU's contentious and excitable membership to implode. Seems like all the grander schemes for the Union involve transferring funds out of Britain, and I wonder if it seems that way to the Brits, too? It's more like watching soccer, than metric measurement. A sport where you can't use half the human body, to run about for hours with little or no scoring, after which the fans (who CAN use their fists) beat one another senseless. Americans are not sophisticated enough to understand it all, but we can still have a good time with it. The humor relieves the bitter, tedious unimportance of it all. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-29 3:13:07 PM |
| #26 Does Greece owe the US anything for her propping up of western Europe post-war, in order to contain the soviets, who would have had Greece for breakfast without US presence in Europe? No blood spilt, but only because someone was staring down Russia on your behalf. Will you thank anyone for that? And as far as Greek's fighting side-by side with the Americans, I don't think that happened much. It didn't need to, because the allies were tying down Germany fighting on the Western front from Holland to Italy, as the Russian steamroller swept the axis armies from your back yard. Greeks fought side by side with the Brtish, who you now offer "fuck off" to by way of a courtesy. And it the Greeks had spent less of their energies on fighting each other and more fighting the Germans and Italians with the British who tried to organise your resistance, we could take your fighting side-by-side glorifications more seriously. "I don't give a damn whether Britain wants to destroy the EU for the US or for its own benefit, it's enough for me that she wants to destroy it." No, Aris, Britain wants to destroy you. Now there's a much more impressive persecution complex for you to adopt. Try it. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 2:52:56 PM |
| #25 "There's a mutual defence clause that's a requisite of NATO membership. Is Greece a NATO member? Then the UK is obliged to defend Greece, and vice versa. What the hell are you driveling on about?" But as I said before (and you didn't bother to read) Cyprus is not a part of NATO, and for that little lapse in memory, another big F#&K YOU, Britain. "So Greece could have got by OK without the Americans?" No. The point is that Greeks and Americans fought together. (And then we got backstabbed for it, as I've said before, but that's another discussion.) When you shed blood for a common cause there exists no debt from one to the other. It has been already paid in that blood. Mark IV> To make it plain enough for your mind to understand. Britain sucks because the only reason it's in the Union is because it wants to sabotage it. "So Britain is required to help the EU protect fringe states from attack." No, it could have chosen for a defense opt-out as Denmark did. Did you ever see me bitch about Denmark? Ofcourse not. Simply opting out for a defense pact is an honorable, respectable thing to do. You don't want involved. Fine, it's your right not to be involved. But Britain wants further than that, it doesn't want *any* defense clause in the EU, not even one that doesn't influence Britain itself one tiny bit. "Because the Americans will get annoyed", Britain says. Now *that's* an attitude for a sovereign nation to have! "Britain sucks because they won't join the EU. Therefore, the EU doesn't need them. Britain also sucks because the EU needs them, but they won't join the EU." Let me guess: you've lived in a cave for all these years and don't know that Britain is (in name atleast) already part of the EU, for decades now? And then you come in here and join a political discussion about Britain and EU, and use that arrogant tone with me, you who know nothing about European politics, towards me who's followed EU happenings for years and years now? "Britain is a trojan horse for the US, who wants to destroy the EU." Actually I don't give a damn whether Britain wants to destroy the EU for the US or for its own benefit, it's enough for me that she wants to destroy it. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 2:34:18 PM |
| #24 Our backstreet pharmacists deal in pounds and ounces, at least at the shop front side of things. Everything else's a case of pick and choose, except road signs where distances are measured in miles and heights aregiven in metres and centimetres. Weatherwise: you choose between Fahrenheit or Celcius/centigrade (though winds prefer their speed measured in mph). Shopping, officially everything's metric though often measures are displayed in both systems. People have gone to prison for selling housewives a pound (rather than 0.454 kg) of bananas. I'd keep miles for now, but otherwise give me metric: it's so much easier. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 2:33:39 PM |
| #23 "As far as metric goes, I'm all for it." Only widespread use of the metric system here is in the late night pharmaceutical import business, the ones that deal in kilos and grams :) |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-8-29 2:15:30 PM |
| #22 I say, if Canada bolts, we bolt. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-8-29 2:08:50 PM |
| #21 As far as metric goes, I'm all for it. Best idea France ever exported by miles, give or take an inch. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 1:53:19 PM |
| #20 Hmm... trying to figure out what poor Aris is actually for. This whole discussion is puzzling to most Americans... like listening to two factions debate the metric system ("Millibars!" "NO, kilopascals, you FOOL!"). So Britain is required to help the EU protect fringe states from attack. Britain sucks because they won't join the EU. Therefore, the EU doesn't need them. Britain also sucks because the EU needs them, but they won't join the EU. Britain is a trojan horse for the US, who wants to destroy the EU. So, to sum up, the United States is going to attack Europe's fringe states, who require the British to put a stop to this. Blast. They're on to the whole scheme. Condi, call the choppers back while there's still time... |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-8-29 1:42:18 PM |
| #19 There's a mutual defence clause that's a requisite of NATO membership. Is Greece a NATO member? Then the UK is obliged to defend Greece, and vice versa. What the hell are you driveling on about? And you're quite simply wrong about the Brussels/Belgium issue. Maybe it's your English or your unfamiliarity with British terms of reference. When a British journo writes "Brussels", he's referring to the EU, not Belgium, 99% of the time. It's a given. That the original poster, being from across the pond, didn't see that doesn't surprise me too much, but I'd have thought you'd see. Are you going to continue denying the obvious? Even a Guardian writer would know Brussels isn't a nation. So Greece could have got by OK without the Americans? Even we couldn't, back when we were the only free country in Europe resisting Germany during WWII (so much for Britain's backstabbing habits, you loathsome ingrate), so I fail to see how Greece owes nothing to the the allies, primarily the US. How many Britons are buried on Greek soil, having died fighting your enemies? We've not got too many Greeks in ours. So which of the allies are you prepared to thank? You say FUCK BRITAIN and PISS OFF AMERICA. Fuck Greece, Aris 'cause if you're typical, you didn't deserve a drop of allied blood for your liberation. And you've forgotten WWI, and the Cold War? Europe owes the US its freedom, and nothing less. Phew, calm down Bulldog. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 1:28:54 PM |
| #18 Bulldog> It's pretty simple. Greece never had any problem with a solidarity clause that enforces member nations to offer support in case of terrorist attacks. Britain has however a huge problem with a solidarity clause that forces member nations to offer support in case of *military* attacks. Because obviously Britain doesn't *need* such support in case of military attacks. Who will attack her? Iceland? It's us small weak border nations who need to spend 6% of our economy's GDP and one or two years of each of our male citizens' lifes for defence purposes. The British attitude is called vile backstabbing in my book. Let's have it, once again: #&K YOU, Britain! And read the article again. Read the yellow comment to that article as well. Both journalist and original poster seem to refer to the four in question as being "Brussels, Paris, Luxembourg and Belgium". "Combine the four of these" The original poster said, Germany kinda forgotten. And huge historical debt? Yeah, it's not as if any Greeks fought and died in WW2, right? It was only the Anglosaxons fighting on behalf of the rest of us. Whatever. I accept a historical debt towards all the people who fought against the Axis in that war, who ensured the future we enjoy. I don't accept biased historical debts against only *one* of our allies, completely ignoring the sacrifices of others. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 1:07:14 PM |
| #17 "I see yet again the standards of British Journalism. The "Gang of Four" being comprised of Belgium, Paris, Luxembourg and Brussels." Aris, try reading the article before you come out with your smartassery: they refer to Paris and Brussels as seats of government (France's and, in this case, the EU's - I'm surprised you didn't realise that, given your constant and unshakeable worshiping of the place), not members of the gang of four. "Belgium" refers to the nation, "Brussels" refers to the EU. Of course the gang of four includes Germany, you tool. Then again, if you rely on al Grauniad as your paper of record for the UK (as I suspect you do), I can't blame you for having a low opinion of that particular train of British journalism. "That's the everlasting fear of London, not to annoy the Americans." Sure Aris, we should be pissing off the Yanks! I forgot that's only thing most of Europe considers definitive political philosophy. After all, what do we have to thank Washington for? I mean, it's not as though Europe owes the US a huge historical debt or anything, is it? The rest of your rant is amusing, but largely incomprehensible, otherwise I'd comment. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 12:35:59 PM |
| #16 Ain't EU harmony wunnerful? |
| Posted by: Nero 2003-8-29 12:26:31 PM |
| #15 I see yet again the standards of British Journalism. The "Gang of Four" being comprised of Belgium, Paris, Luxembourg and Brussels. Nobody told them that Brussels is in Belgium, did they? Or that Berlin (aka Germany) should be named as the fourth member of the "Gang of Four" in reality, not "Brussels". "They warn that the Franco-German drive will annoy the Americans" Oh my, the Americans shall be annoyed. That's the everlasting fear of London, not to annoy the Americans. And its everlasting goal is this: to sabotage the Union. Anyone still surprised why I despise the UK? Get the hell out, UK, and stop playing the Trojan Horse for the rest of us! "Amid tensions between Paris and London, British officials are frustrated that the Franco-German plan - initially seen as an empty gesture after the divisions of the Iraq crisis - is still being pursued." Actually British officials are frustrated that the EU still tries to exist and that non English-speaking people still strive for unity despite all British sabotage. (Unity between Anglos good, you see - unity between non-Anglos bad) "and create unnecessary duplication between the EU and Nato." Same way that the UK army is an unnecessary duplication of the US army? "Britain opposes proposals by the "gang of four" for a "solidarity clause" for victims of armed aggression, similar to Nato's article 5 on mutual efence. Tony Blair has described this as one of Britain's "red lines". " And that's why I hate, hate, *hate* the UK. You toadies that were *so* much annoyed by France not being willing to offer troops to "protect" Turkey, how you can fucking support UK when it clearly refuses to protect the rest of us? On the other hand UK was of course all in favour for the clause of solidarity concerning *terrorist* attacks. Because obviously they have to *fear* terrorist attacks. But for small countries like Greece or Cyprus which are more afraid of *armies* attacking them, not terrorists... Britain is not only unwilling to defend her so-called allies, is not only after a *individual* opt-out for its nation, it wants to prevent everyone else from coming to our aid either. We should have never helped you in the War of Terror, as we did indeed help you and you keep on forgetting. Because your memories are short, and so is your gratitude. F#&K YOU, Britain. Duplicates NATO??? Cyprus is not a part of NATO, and for that little lapse in memory, another big F#&K YOU, Britain! |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-8-29 12:10:51 PM |
| #14 "AS Britian is well aware,if NATO is replaced by a EU force,the US will no longer be involved in Europe and will probably withdraw from UN as well,as US would become more likely to deal with countries 1-on-1,instead of through multinational bodies." Au contraire, mon frere. All NATO's main missions as defined by Ismay remain, Russians out, Germans down, Americans in. If the French and the Germans do their M&A thing, then an alliance between Fremany and Russia poses a real threat to all the countries in between. They were happy to do it in '39 and they'll do it again if we're not there. Anyone who thinks Europe has become a peaceful continent is at least 100 years premature in their assessment. The US cannot allow another general war to break out in Europe and will retain occupation troops there in whatever guise is most palatable for the forseeable future. As for the UN, the wisdom of Lyndon Johnson is operative, better to have them in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in. No President will pull out of the UN until after the first nuke is detonated in the US. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2003-8-29 12:08:18 PM |
| #13 "...US foreign policy would become completely unpredictable." I thought that was both i) already the case, and ii) impossible (as the US always, predictably, does the "wrong" thing), in the quantumesque world of continental US-opinion. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 12:04:27 PM |
| #12 While NATO's main mission,the containment of Russian communism,has been achieved,it still fills many vital roles for both US and European nations.NATO provides frequent and discreet sounding boards for member gov't.s.With constant interaction between military forces,both a more realistic appraisal of capabilities is available,and,mutual deployments out of NATO work much smoother.For pr/diplomatic/practical purposes,NATO offers a more acceptable(to US)alternative to UN peacekeeping forces. AS Britian is well aware,if NATO is replaced by a EU force,the US will no longer be involved in Europe and will probably withdraw from UN as well,as US would become more likely to deal with countries 1-on-1,instead of through multinational bodies.IF this should happen US foreign policy would become completely unpredictable.Unfettered with alliances,disinterested in non-US opinion,US policy would be driven solely by domestic politics.(President A likes country B,next President hates them.President approval down,bomb somebody.) |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-8-29 11:36:24 AM |
| #11 If you cannot trust your allies to stand by you in wartime (as both Turkey and US found out) then NATO is worthless. Let the Europeans turn their NATO assets into a Euro army if they want, let them defend themselves. Perhaps some reevaluation of their socialist budgets will benefit everyone. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-8-29 11:09:42 AM |
| #10 I also agree with Murat's sentiments. But NATO has been valuable for a long time and should be preserved. Governments change, I think the correct move forward is to try to change the french government through peaceful means. Foreign countries sponsor groups in the US - how about we sponsor groups in France that support greater unity with NATO (and less america bashing) |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-8-29 10:45:20 AM |
| #9 Turn out the liiights, the paaarty's over. I've been thinking NATO's a dead letter for about ten years, let it die. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-8-29 8:51:18 AM |
| #8 The "open door" approach to NATO membership should certainly be scrapped. In that respect it's got the same basic flaw as the UN - it's not really respected by its members. There need to be standards of behaviour, and a binding promise of commitment with painful consequences, including expulsion, for those who only intend to play ball when it suits their own national or personal interests. Especially since NATO's original raison d'etre has ceased to exist, we can be more choosy about who's in the club. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 8:45:04 AM |
| #7 My gasted is totally flabbered,Murat said something I agree with! |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-8-29 8:14:28 AM |
| #6 Murat hit the nail on the head. What the heck IS the mission? Once you decide THAT, THEN you develop political and military structures to carry it out. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-8-29 7:59:12 AM |
| #5 BY, it was NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-29 7:51:52 AM |
| #4 Wasn't it a British general who said the purpose of NATO was to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down"? Is there any way to kick France out? I'm starting to think the best thing that DeGaulle ever did was pulling France out of NATO. Imagine the Cold War if they would have been in....(shudder).... |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-8-29 4:43:57 AM |
| #3 NATO is a dead soldier after the Turkey defence request fiasco. Maybe it is time to reshape the NATO since it lost its actual meaning as a defence pact against the Soviets. If NATO specifications do not fulfil the current needs it is doomed anyway. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-8-29 3:25:04 AM |
| #2 When France gives up control of its nukes,then I'll believe in the tooth fairy...er,the EU. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-8-29 1:05:36 AM |
| #1 NATO is a dead soldier after the Turkey defence request fiasco. Anything with France attached to it will act and smell like a Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road™. A Coalition of the Willing, or bilateral agreements would be better while Old Europe sorts it all out. 60,000 troops with no lift capability is alot of troops, but it isn't much compared to say, an invasion of Iraq. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-8-29 12:22:34 AM |