BleepingComputer.com: European Army

To army or not to army...

As with all questions dealing with international politics, this one is not easy. After going through two world wars, a great effort is being made by some countries to develop other options to resolve problems. If you look at military interests as only a means of solving conflicts, then yes, there are other options to military interventions. In the schools in some parts of the world, children are learning that they can bargain and handle for gain rather than using force. They are learning how to cultivate allies to give them support. They are learning how to stand up straight and not look like a victim. They are learning how important the home environment is in giving them the feeling they can do, be, accomplish anything they want to. They are learning how to construct a solid argument. These are all areas of the mind.

So yes, from this point of view there are other options to military.

However, there is another side to military which is often overlooked: the fascination with guns, blood, killing, destruction, winning, and all those other adrenaline producing and adrenaline-produced activities that turn the normal person into a powerful greedy and lusty beast. The need for power, the quest for power, the testing of limits, strengths, the ferrating out of weaknesses. the conquering of problems under pressure, the immediacy of romance, the clash and crash of cultures. These are areas of the body.

So no, when you look at it from this point of view, war cannot be avoided.

Through history, attempts have been made to redirect these human energies into a variety of contests which don't result in so much pain and destruction, like into sports events, and into concepts of human rights, fairness and in the establishment of internationally agreed upon codes of conduct.

If the body is doing its utmost to protect the mind in establishing wars and the mind is doing its utmost to protect the body by attempting to avoid wars, how do you bring an understanding to the whole of a person or to a country or to a world, which allows each of these component parts of our existence to carry out its function?

Whether Europe needs an army is not really a question. As a political entity, it will build one. The question is more, how do you control a force of nature? How does the human race step beyond this particular means of evolution into one which achieves necessary change without resulting in pain to either the body or the mind?

Zllio

I would support the European Army. Heck with the shape America is in now, do you think if we had a repeat of WW2, but with Russia or China making the calls, that America will be able to afford to leave it's land? America isn't always going to be able to save Europe's *** (butt), plus at least for now almost all of Europe is in harmony and it doesn't look like there is much of a conflict of interest between them.

I would also say, let the European countries who are not in the EU not allowed access to the European Army, and they (non EU countries) should NOT be forced to join. They should be given the option, but not forced to join.

Technically you didn't save our Butts, you helped alongside us to repel Germany we did pretty good on our own and the other Commonwealth Countries (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) there were other Commonwealth countries who helped but don't know most of them. We just needed that extra push to get on the Continent (being the D-Day Landings), USA was too occupied with Japan.

USA joined the War later by the time you came over we had withstood the Germans for a Year and developed Radar in that time, and also destroyed a Important Dam in Germany with the Bouncing Bomb (Again developed by the British).

But anyway it is very unlikely to happen, it would be Good to see it happen because a United Europe would be Very Strong but there are too many obstacles to over come to form this EU Army Language Barriers just to name one.

Although the EU does control some Emergency Squads at the moment not sure how much or how they work apart from them being Troops on Standby.

[quote name='woodyblade' post='948048' date='Sep 17 2008, 07:20 PM']Technically you didn't save our Butts, you helped alongside us to repel Germany...[/quote]

You really do not believe that GB alone could have defeated Germany, do you?

Think carefully before answering. The U.S. was heavily involved against Hitler and Mussolini (remember him?) long before June 6, 1944.

[quote name='MattV' post='932423' date='Sep 2 2008, 02:50 PM']Just don't let the French lead it.[/quote]

On second thought, let the French lead. Then it won't ever be a threat to anyone.

[quote name='MattV' post='948167' date='Sep 18 2008, 02:29 AM'][quote name='woodyblade' post='948048' date='Sep 17 2008, 07:20 PM']Technically you didn't save our Butts, you helped alongside us to repel Germany...[/quote]

You really do not believe that GB alone could have defeated Germany, do you?

Think carefully before answering. The U.S. was heavily involved against Hitler and Mussolini (remember him?) long before June 6, 1944.
[/quote]

No I wasn't saying we would have beaten them, but it looked like you said you had saved everyone in Europe but it wasn't. If it wasn't for our High Quality RAF and Royal Navy then Europe would be German owned now or Russian, Britain was Vital for the US coming over if we hadn't held out you couldn't have sent Help because you would want the Russians or Germans owing all of Europe it wouldn't be in your Best Interests.

USA was the Help we needed but you didn't do it all.

[quote name='MattV' post='948177' date='Sep 18 2008, 02:37 AM'][quote name='MattV' post='932423' date='Sep 2 2008, 02:50 PM']Just don't let the French lead it.[/quote]

On second thought, let the French lead. Then it won't ever be a threat to anyone.
[/quote]

Never the French, it should be British or German lead, the French have always been Surrender Monkeys.

Trivia question:

Who coined the term "surrender monkeys"?

From what I know the term "Surrender Monkey" or "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey" was first said by a US General during WW2, basically referring to the French Surrender in about 2-3 Weeks against the Germans in WW2, not to mention other times they have surrendered before then.

The French have always looked for solutions other than wars even though spending a lot of resources keeping their military equipment updated. In the U.S. many people continue to think that shooting people is not only an acceptable solution, but the only solution. We are a trigger happy country and we don't like to conduct our wars on our own soil. This means that the normal lessons acquired by war experiences remain lost to us.