• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SHould Europe have its own army?

They need to pay their own way, they are rich enough to do so. They can all be on welfare since they don't have to have a big military budget. Look at Germany, 80 million people with a military of 100,000? They can do better.
 
They need to pay their own way, they are rich enough to do so. They can all be on welfare since they don't have to have a big military budget. Look at Germany, 80 million people with a military of 100,000? They can do better.

I may be wrong, but I believe that due to some previous misdemeanours 75 years ago, they are limited on the army they can have.
 
I may be wrong, but I believe that due to some previous misdemeanours 75 years ago, they are limited on the army they can have.

That is correct...any of these formulas including Trump's 4% GDP for European members would amount to a re-miliarization of Europe, the last thing we should want.

Trump's 4% of GDP suggestion is the dumbest idea I have heard in years.

Fine...Europe can do better. But when the next thing out of our mouths is "so lets leave NATO"....credibility if people on that side of the argument ever had any, goes right out the window.
 
I see what you are doing... you want to be spoon mate with Russia...that's why you are complaining.

You do realize the actual contribution to NATO by the US is small relative to its overall military spending. The US has few actual troops in Europe and those that there are, most actually support US operations outside NATO, so they can't be counted as part of the contribution.


By leaving NATO you would be costing American lives since you would not have access to Ramstien and it's hospital anymore and the actual savings would be small since you would not actually reduce US troop levels, but move them around and have to actually start paying in full for them.

Your Navy and Airforce would also be without bases in Europe so the lines of logistics to your oil wars would be very very long. Maybe you could bribe your way into a naval and airbase base in North Africa.... instead of Spain and Italy.

But then again Trump and his fans dream of the nightly pee parties with their good friend Putin, so **** American lives... you know like Trump did over the weekend..

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
What you jabbering on about now?

We have no necessity of any oil wars. We were protecting your folks oil supplies in the old wars, we have sources much closer to home AND we have sufficient energy for all our own needs for at least a hundred years. If you folks arent going to pony up, pay your agreed upon [its not even a fair share] share of NATO, there is no NATO in reality, just US.

American taxpayers have grown extremely weary of all the stupid criticism from your side of the pond while we protected your bums for the last 73 years. That after, at great cost in blood and treasure, liberating you folks from your self destructive selves after you pulled the entire world into another disastrous planetary war. This even after an untaught lesson with the first stupid one you inflicted upon the rest of us.

You look a gift horse in the mouth. We give you an unbelievably good situation on a platter and you wont even do the minimum in return. And then you want to blame us for taking it all these years. I would say go stick it but... if left to your own devices, you folks will drag us into another even more catastrophic war.

Got any proof of these pee parties? Anything your "intelligence" guys didnt cook up in an effort to derail Trump before he even got elected... and now we've caught you, and another "ally" in the 5 eyes, with your pants down doing?
 
There has been an economic alliance in Europe for over 60 years.

60 years....nothing. Sorry. I have no idea where you are from but that sounds like a terribly American perspective. Here we think of 250 years as "a long time".

Try time frames like 800-1,000 years of essentially monolithic governance on for size. Those are the time frames that particular governmental frameworks survived in other parts of the world. The 250 years of our Republic gets us to like early morning of a day. 60 years for the EU or the EEC.......a cup of coffee.
 
Last edited:
What you jabbering on about now?

We have no necessity of any oil wars. We were protecting your folks oil supplies in the old wars, we have sources much closer to home AND we have sufficient energy for all our own needs for at least a hundred years. If you folks arent going to pony up, pay your agreed upon [its not even a fair share] share of NATO, there is no NATO in reality, just US.

Horse****. You have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.. the 2 first ones are clearly oil related. Your whole military is designed to fight for oil and has been for decades. Protecting our oil supplies? HAHAHA.. if you were, then you would not be trying to pick a fight with Iran, nor invited Iraq.

American taxpayers have grown extremely weary of all the stupid criticism from your side of the pond while we protected your bums for the last 73 years. That after, at great cost in blood and treasure, liberating you folks from your self destructive selves after you pulled the entire world into another disastrous planetary war. This even after an untaught lesson with the first stupid one you inflicted upon the rest of us.

You have been protecting your bum as much as our bum..what you and your far right wing friends forget, is that US policy since WW2 has been to protect the US and only the US. This was done by propping up governments around the world to one degree or another. It was all in self interest and to spread US economic might. And it is STILL in the US interest to manifest its military power and hence its economic power. Only problem, is that the world has grown tired of the US bullying.

Got any proof of these pee parties? Anything your "intelligence" guys didnt cook up in an effort to derail Trump before he even got elected... and now we've caught you, and another "ally" in the 5 eyes, with your pants down doing?

Awww defending the chief pee idiot in power are we now?
 
The argument is ridiculous. The 2% is a GUIDELINE, not a requirement.
From your previous post:
"NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers."

Again I use am forced to use my favorite English dictionary, the only good English dictionary on the entire planet, the Merriam-Webster.

Definition of should:
—used to say that something is required by a rule or law. —used to say that someone should do something. —used to say that something is very likely. See the full definition for must in the English Language Learners Dictionary. must.

It is not a rule or law, nor is it something the member states MUST do. It is a guideline. It is not something that goes into some general fund either. The general fund comes out of even smaller state by state contributions which Trump never complains about. He is fixated on this 2% thing.

From NATO's own site:
The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Some Allies may need to spend more than this to develop the capabilities that the Alliance asks of them. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

Merriam-Webster definition of Guideline:
guideline noun
guide·​line | \ˈgīd-ˌlīn \
Definition of guideline
: a line by which one is guided: such as
a : a cord or rope to aid a passer over a difficult point or to permit retracing a course
b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

I assume you can sift through the multiple contextual meanings to find what is applicable.
Then you would agree that if a European nation, a fellow NATO, especially one of the slacker nations, member is attacked, we use your "should" definition for the allies of that nation?

Not really a requirement, in your rendition merely a non mandatory obligation that can be shuffled off if convenient... or we just dont want to follow through?

Should---used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.2. used to indicate what is probable 3. formal (expressing the conditional mood) referring to a possible event or situation 4. 4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings.
 
They can have it work for the European Central Bank to enforce monetary policy in financially weaker countries. Or at least it could be an avenue towards Europeans paying more for their own defense.
 
Yes. Europe can have its own army. At least that way, the US won't have to provide for the defense of every European country. Nevertheless, Europe already thinks it has a European army...the UN.

Europe won't entertain a European army because they are already too busy thinking about putting up colossal Ferris Wheels for example, and haven't provided for defense in their budgets.
 
Then you would agree that if a European nation, a fellow NATO, especially one of the slacker nations, member is attacked, we use your "should" definition for the allies of that nation?

Not really a requirement, in your rendition merely a non mandatory obligation that can be shuffled off if convenient... or we just dont want to follow through?

Should---used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.2. used to indicate what is probable 3. formal (expressing the conditional mood) referring to a possible event or situation 4. 4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings.

I don't agree to anything. I don't have to. I can rely on the text of Article 5 of the NATO pact which is pretty standard fair Alliance language as in the language used between contemporary Allies. There is no automatic declaration of war clause. But we have not seen that automatic declaration language often imposed on alliances since the idiotic rolling disaster of WW1.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

I don't see the word should anywhere in there.
 
Last edited:
I would ask forum participants to notice how much loose language actually dominates the discussions here. Take loose language out of the picture and half these nonsensical discussions across the entire forum go away on that score alone.

Should used were the word should does not apply and has no meaning. Misinterpretations of word usage. Misuse of words within the context of actual government and international relations where in fact, there generally is little to no loose language.

The actual language of diplomacy is French. Makes sense that it would be a Romance Language and French probably makes the most sense of the Romance Languages. The Romance Languages do not contain all the contextual nuance of English with all of its multiple contextual usage of the same words.

Trump uses English gibberish and grammatical garbage to his advantage and his devotes follow on in that regard either because they believe him (a bad mistake) or simply do not know any better. Proper or "good" English has gone entirely down the drain in this country. Trump constantly uses poor grammar and inserts words where they don't belong resulting in a clouded meaning which he can then reverse on a dime claiming that "well, I really meant thus and so".

English is not an easy language. Ask anybody who has had to learn it as a second language. However for those of us for whom English is our native language our performance as a group is fairly disgusting. It is utterly laughable that some Americans claim allegiance to Trump because he "speaks their language" or he is "plain speaking". Those are scary thoughts if I ever heard them.

I do not fault immigrants for this nonsense. This is our fault for not demanding better of ourselves and our Education system. We have grown sloppy and lazy in the usage of our own native language. Worse, we reward Trump and his guttural gibberish for it, actually heralding him for it. Sad. Bigly Sad to use a Trumpism. Makes me wonder how many Americans hall off and shoot somebody because they just did not even comprehend what another American actually said or meant.
 
Horse****. You have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.. the 2 first ones are clearly oil related. Your whole military is designed to fight for oil and has been for decades. Protecting our oil supplies? HAHAHA.. if you were, then you would not be trying to pick a fight with Iran, nor invited Iraq.



You have been protecting your bum as much as our bum..what you and your far right wing friends forget, is that US policy since WW2 has been to protect the US and only the US. This was done by propping up governments around the world to one degree or another. It was all in self interest and to spread US economic might. And it is STILL in the US interest to manifest its military power and hence its economic power. Only problem, is that the world has grown tired of the US bullying.



Awww defending the chief pee idiot in power are we now?
Wow, you speak English but don't really understand it?

Have any idea how much oil you folks get from the middle east? Y'all get 40% from OPEC, mostly from Saudi Arabia and Libya. We get absolutely NO oil from Syria, we do import from Iraq... about 25% of their oil exports go to us but does not even come close to our needs and we ARE the largest producers of energy worldwide.

Limited is your understanding of geopolitics it appears. We are defending our allies in the middle east from Iran, especially our ally Israel, but also one of your chief suppliers of oil, Saudi Arabia.

"...nor invited Iraq"? Explain what is meant by that statement, please.

I will not disagree with the US doing what is in our interests... sure, we could have just allowed the Soviets to come in and take you folks over. For as grateful as you are, we probably should have, you folks could probably use a few gulags to give you an appreciation of freedoms you've been bestowed. Maybe some gumption, maybe the actual will to stand up, fight for yourselves and your own freedoms instead of always relying on US to make sure.

Eastern Europeans know.

US bullying? You have no idea what you are talking about in relation to actual totalitarian bullying as we defeated your inner bullies and kept the real bullies out. Euros should say thank you for god sakes, a bunch of spoiled ingrates that would more often not help us in times of a real crisis any more than the man in the moon would.

It's time you support your own armies. Hell, you folks cannot even come up with 2% on your own with us pushing you hard... how you ever going to field a military worthy of battle? And if you do, then you start untold needless and destructive wars... bullying my ass, we just have to cover for you folks so you don't follow senseless failed ideologies and mess up so terribly again.

No proof, eh? Obviously. That last silliness expresses you got nothing but your own sick fantasies.
 
.......You have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.. the 2 first ones are clearly oil related. Your whole military is designed to fight for oil and has been for decades. Protecting our oil supplies? HAHAHA.. if you were, then you would not be trying to pick a fight with Iran, nor invited Iraq.

You have been protecting your bum as much as our bum..what you and your far right wing friends forget, is that US policy since WW2 has been to protect the US and only the US. This was done by propping up governments around the world to one degree or another. It was all in self interest and to spread US economic might. And it is STILL in the US interest to manifest its military power and hence its economic power. Only problem, is that the world has grown tired of the US bullying.

Awww defending the chief pee idiot in power are we now?

Wow. That may be one of the most ignorant posts ever
 
I don't agree to anything. I don't have to. I can rely on the text of Article 5 of the NATO pact which is pretty standard fair Alliance language as in the language used between contemporary Allies. There is no automatic declaration of war clause. But we have not seen that automatic declaration language often imposed on alliances since the idiotic rolling disaster of WW1.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

I don't see the word should anywhere in there.
If we, the US, are the only one worthy of having as an ally, hell, fend for yourselves then. We are already solely defending ourselves, we have no necessity to pay for your defense as well.

If you cannot, and will not, even meet a minimum standard voluntarily [or with heavy prodding], who needs ya? Pretty much worthless.
 
If we, the US, are the only one worthy of having as an ally, hell, fend for yourselves then. We are already solely defending ourselves, we have no necessity to pay for your defense as well.

If you cannot, and will not, even meet a minimum standard voluntarily [or with heavy prodding], who needs ya? Pretty much worthless.

Sorry...wrong context AGAIN. I am an American, a native born US citizen. Frankly i don't know what the Right is any longer. The Right does not espouse American values and its hard to even find a glimmer of patriotism there. Conservatives as I knew them don't even exist, the last of them being driven underground as we speak. Maybe Lamar Alexander in the Senate would qualify as a traditional Conservative....MAYBE.
 
Considering even Italy has a nominal GDP about the same as Russia and there are 27 countries, you're obviously wrong. Stop overplaying the importance of the US like Europe is just a bunch of incompetent bumbling morons who would be invaded without the US.

Honey for The Bear.
 
60 years....nothing. Sorry. I have no idea where you are from but that sounds like a terribly American perspective. Here we think of 250 years as "a long time".

Try time frames like 800-1,000 years of essentially monolithic governance on for size. Those are the time frames that particular governmental frameworks survived in other parts of the world. The 250 years of our Republic gets us to like early morning of a day. 60 years for the EU or the EEC.......a cup of coffee.

Huh? You're criticising European countries for not having had an economic alliance last for 1,000 years? Are you insane?
 
Huh? You're criticising European countries for not having had an economic alliance last for 1,000 years? Are you insane?

Nope, I am suggesting that 60 years for an alliance that is fraying at the edges is nothing to write home about.
 
Thats because Trump is a REAL American, not an arse-licker like the Kenyan socialist pig. Trump is making the cheese-eating bastards pay up for NATO and he is putting America first (thank God) and the Euro-Trash don't like it. Well SCREW THEM!!

Liberals always put everybody else first before their own country, whether its illegal aliens, Euro-idiots, Muslim fascists, or whatever. It makes me sick.

Smell the vodka?
 
They need to pay their own way, they are rich enough to do so. They can all be on welfare since they don't have to have a big military budget. Look at Germany, 80 million people with a military of 100,000? They can do better.

Germany have been hesistant to re-militarize for a reason.

You twat...
 
Back
Top Bottom