"Why a European Army Would Be a Total Disaster" Topic

"Charles de Gaulle famously asked about France: "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?"

He might well have asked how anyone can command an army made up 28 nations and 24 official languages.

French President Emmanuel Macron recently created a stir when he advocated the creation of a European army to defend Europe against Russia -- without having to rely on the United States. Though President Trump has questioned the need for NATO and accused the European allies of freeloading off American defenses, he responded to the idea of Europe defending itself by bringing up France's defeat in 1940…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

And who would ultimately be in charge?

Reminds me of the old Heaven and Hell Joke:

In Heaven, the chefs are French, the police are English, the Germans are mechanics, the Swiss are bankers, and the Italians are lovers.

In Hell, the chefs are English, the police are German, the French Are the bankers, the Italians are mechanics, and the Swiss are lovers.

And who would ultimately be in charge?

Consensus rules.

I'm sure it would work at least twice as well as in the UN.

Run by the Germans, no doubt…

This "army" would be used against the good peoples of Hungary, Poland, Austria…you know, the countries that are refusing to toe the line.

I have a very good customer in Hungary, and he is a "local big wheel". They won't be pushed around, or told they have to accept guest.

Leading an army based on "Consensus"??? Maybe they could be outfitted with pink berets too.

The rest of the world will remain skeptical until an EU Army becomes reality. Such an army would be dominated by Germany and France as the two most powerful EU nations. The Wehrmacht, I mean Bundeswehr, already includes Dutch, Czech and Romanian brigades – as in fully integrated. The blueprint is there.

Rotation….?

Amicalement
Armand

EU Battlegroups already exist (from 2005), including the Visegrad Battlegroup of Poland. Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and a small contingent from Ukraine. They work. They don't cause conflict.

The only invading armies countries in Europe had to worry about were from other European countries, but that danger seems to be past now. I predict that the future of European warfare will take the form of urban conflicts in the big cities. But that is probably decades in the future (and the cities will grow as well…)

Macron is rather busy now. I would think that a European army is low on his agenda at this point.

This "army" would be used against the good peoples of Hungary, Poland, Austria…you know, the countries that are refusing to toe the line.

the good people of Hungary just lost the best university in eastern Europe because the Hungerian government followes Nazi propaganda/conspiracy theories.

Winston, he might need one to put down the French Tea Party/2nd French Revolution, if things get any worse.

Where's Napoleon when you need him: "a whiff of grape". ;-)

The YV riots in Paris started with a bang but is going out with a whimper. Each new protest is half the size of the previous one and after the initial surprise, the French police have been very effective in pre-empting and taking the steam out of them.

Only a small percentage of the rioters are trouble-makers who damage property; most are law-abiding citizens who are getting their message and discontent across to the government. These good people are actually undoing some of the damages caused by the more unsavory elements.

And even with all that said, the number of people who showed up for the planned demonstration on global climate change still outnumbered the YV's today.

As much as I'm a law and order sort of guy, the YV's are right. Why should they pay higher taxes to pay for climate change policies while counties like India and China only pledge to slightly decrease their rates of pollution, which by the way means they are still polluting more each year just at a lower rate of increase. Thankfully the US pulled out of that nonsense.

As much as I'm a law and order sort of guy, the YV's are right. Why should they pay higher taxes to pay for climate change policies while counties like India and China only pledge to slightly decrease their rates of pollution, which by the way means they are still polluting more each year just at a lower rate of increase. Thankfully the US pulled out of that nonsense.

Yes because the excuse "why should I stop when not everybody else won't stops" is so fantastic.
Sorry officer but I read about a murder in the paper today. So naturally if others are doing it, it's fine that I do it too.

The problem isn't the tax, the problem is it's another tax on a group of people already suffering.
If you want to tax pollution, you have to remove other taxes to lessen the burden. Or give other advantages to negate the negative impact of taxes.

Each Chinese citizen is emitting a third of what an American is emitting, and Trump is right they should put effort until their emission is only a 1/10 of an American, because because America… (for the whole world this is the non sense)

@Greatpatton: Except that each Chinese citizen is emitting about twice what an American is, and that rate is increasing, while the American production is decreasing.

FFS, we are currently breathing smog from factories in China in the US. We can detect banned-in-the-US (and in Japan and in Korea) refrigerants at the West Coast. They could only have come from China.

No that simple just not true (just Google it, it takes 2 min):

Per capita emission 2016:

USA 16.72 metric tons per inhabitant
China 7.45 metric tons per inhabitant (and most of it, in order to produce stuff that will be used by American).

You are comparing China overall to the US which makes no sense…

The problem isn't the tax, the problem is it's another tax on a group of people already suffering.
If you want to tax pollution, you have to remove other taxes to lessen the burden. Or give other advantages to negate the negative impact of taxes.

LOL. And there it is folks, the socialist mindset. As Margaret Thatcher so wisely put it: "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

USA 16.72 metric tons per inhabitant
China 7.45 metric tons per inhabitant

So what? Just ask yourself which country has cleaner air and water. Anyway, as the saying goes, "figures lie, and liars figure."

I live in a state (California) where we actually voted for a gas tax in November by defeating a proposition to abolish it. It was couched in the media as a proposition that's bad for infrastructure repair and highway safety. And the voters bought it hook, line and sinker.

It all came down to the groups that have to gain from such a tax were able to fund and market their effort much better than those who oppose it. No wonder we have one of the highest costs of living in these United States.

LOL. And there it is folks, the socialist mindset. As Margaret Thatcher so wisely put it: "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

Actually Macron is due in the wool Neocon in the same style as Reagan and the Clintons.

Tax break for the rich more taxes for the poor.

Neocon? The Clintons?!?

Oh, Gunfreak… we need to talk.

The Clintons economic policies are more to the right than Reagans.
It was Bill's deregulations that helped the financial crisis of 2008 to happen.
Hillary was war hawk in the senate and as secretary of state.
She created the word super predator for black youths.

She "evolved" to be pro gay marriage after it was a done thing. And it didn't cost her a thing.

Just because she doesn't want Christian world domination or thinks global warming is a thing. Doesn't mean she isn't a Neocon.
Her fiscal policies are just as regressive and trickle down as Reagan or Bush 2.
Her history on human rights is iffy at best.

Gunfreak is quite correct. Liberal internationalists and neocons have more in common than many people realize, not just in fiscal policy but also foreign policy. Just don't call a neocon a liberal or vice versa unless you want to tick them off.

Part of the reason I voted for the current POTUS back in 2016 was because of Hillary's interventionist Idealpolitik foreign policy, especially after her gleeful "We came, we saw, he died" riff of Caesar's famous Veni, Vidi, Vici quote.

Her husband Bill prefers Vidi, Vici, Veni though in that order, haha.