Article

2008-06-21 Britain

Browne casts doubt on Nato's long-term future

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-06-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 There's a reason Browne doesn't want to comment on Sarkozy's proposal. It would effectively gut any other cooperation in favor of a French & German-domainated EU force that would inevitably be paid for and staffed by British bodies and equipment.

Gordon Brown won't let him call this to the public's attention. But if you think the existing NATO situation in Afghanistan is bad, where British and US troops take all the risks and casualties while a French general claims to lead in places, imagine an EU force that gets deployed to serve Brussel's agenda. It would still be the Brits paying but they'd lose whatever control they still have.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-21 08:03|| 2008-06-21 08:03|| Front Page Top

#2 The UK's problem is that they only European country who can project a substantial force capable of actually fighting. No other Europeam country can do this, not even the French.

NATO served its purpose. Let it die.

Time to look for new alliances with countries that have capable militaries - India, Singapore, Thailand, Iraq.

Posted by Butch Angaviter9749 2008-06-21 08:08|| 2008-06-21 08:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Sure you wanna keep trying to be with the "in" crowd in the EU, England? They keep talking sweet, but you will get bum raped after everything is said and done.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-06-21 08:09|| 2008-06-21 08:09|| Front Page Top

#4 The UK's problem is that they only European country who can project a substantial force capable of actually fighting.

And that is why we should keep trying to recall Britain to her heritage and senses, even if it seems increasingly unlikely.

Posted by lotp 2008-06-21 08:15|| 2008-06-21 08:15|| Front Page Top

#5 It's dead Jim.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-06-21 08:48|| 2008-06-21 08:48|| Front Page Top

#6 This would be the defence minister that has presided over the continued gutting of the British forces, is it? He'd better talk to his prime minister and his party than shake his finger at the rest of NATO.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-06-21 10:27|| 2008-06-21 10:27|| Front Page Top

#7 The UK's problem is that it has cut so many ties with the US in weapons procurement that it is becoming very difficult for them to fight next to Americans regardless of their courage or will. The UK needs to decide if it wants to be four (or more) countries or if it wants to be a province of the EU. They are getting close to the point where they will have made the decision by no longer having a choice. I'd much rather they joined us instead of EUrabia. Perhaps there will be a chance when Liz dies and they have to face the prospect of being ruled by Imam Chuck.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-21 12:24|| 2008-06-21 12:24|| Front Page Top

#8 Nato allows a few European nations to pretend they are making a difference by putting their troops into warzones, even if the troops can't get there without assistance, can't stay there without assistance and aren't actually involved in fighting so they are not helping much.

Remove Nato and you remove the last fig that the Europeans have any hard power.

Nato should be killed.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-06-21 14:02|| 2008-06-21 14:02|| Front Page Top

23:18 Spike Uniter
22:47 Herman Omusosing7573
22:28 Besoeker
22:08 ryuge
21:45 xbalanke
21:42 RD
21:39 Barbara Skolaut
21:21 Zhang Fei
21:07 Barbara Skolaut
21:05 Barbara Skolaut
20:47 trailing wife
20:20 Frank G
20:19 Frank G
20:16 Free Radical
20:12 McZoid
20:11 Pappy
19:55 Nimble Spemble
19:45 Free Radical
19:44 Nimble Spemble
19:27 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
19:22 Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6
19:18 Redneck Jim
19:10 Cyber Sarge
19:08 Frank G