Subject:
|
Re: Value of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:48:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
398 times
|
| |
|
|
> (2)- it's pathetic that the EU represents the second largest *economic*
> power on Earth and has no *military* power of its own. The Commission is
> living in fantasy if it thinks anyone will take it serious in the world
> arena before any of its threats can be backed up with actual power to
> enforce them...
Very few countries could seriously threaten the EU - of those that could, very
few would. I'd rather my tax was spent on education. The EU and USA are aligned
pretty well, so I see not need to compete with them in terms of military
spending… afterall it’s cheaper to be the fig leaf.. Where we do differ
politically, it's hard to see us doing anything militarily to upset the USA
That said, I’ve no problem with a European “rapid-reaction-force” to do things
like the UK did in Sierra-Leon.
The downside to this the current Bush/Blair axis-of-war. ;(
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) Precisely. For the time being, there is no need for an European Army - there are no threats! Although I argue there is a need to start testing its future appearance, out of precaution alone; after all, the best way to avoid wars is still not (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Value of NATO?
|
| (...) My reading is that France and Germany (1) are delaying the plan to assist Turkey in the hope the Tukish government becomes frightened of entering war - thus forcing a review of US plans. Besides, given that Turkey does not want to upset the EU (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
