Yanks & Brits: Look and Learn

[The Red Machine]

A masterclass in diplomacy is being given right under you very noses, so please do pay attention and learn - God knows you need it...

What it is about?
Nato and how we're going to kill it.

The Players :
Germany, France, Russia, (and though less important, certainly no less annoying ) Belgium & Luxembourg. (nicknamed "Gang of Four" & Russia )

Why all players are on the same team:

Russia still doesn't like the idea of the Poles, Hungarians & Co in NATO and DC's influence reaching upto its borders

The "4" don't like it, because it really is of no interest to them and because it helps the US to exercise some influence (Myself - I hate it because those lazy, useless potatoe-peelers in uniforms cause massive traffic jams on my way to work every morning )

How to play the "patience"-game:

Don't be to gung-ho about what you're doing. Be subtile, deny it. Don't force other countries to do as you do, don't even say "they'd better...". Tell them they're "free to join".

Take your time. It will take a few years to dismantle Nato and the best way is to make sure it's not us who do so. It's always better if the other parties get so sick & tired of it, that they bugger off.

What the long-term tactics are:

Develop a similar, better (and most of all: exclusively European) structure that will effectively make nato obsolete.

It'll be fairly easy within one or two years time to start using this alternative force under some pretext - anything will do.

Then ask the question: "Why waste money on NATO?" After which slowly the realisation will grow that it's effectively obsolete and should be dismantled.

The beauty of it will obviously be, that the US and their puppet-commie friends in Poland, Hungary & Co will continue to be friends and the US will continue to guarantee their safety.

This effectively means the rest of us would be protected aswell, since it's hard to see how you could physically attack Europe without going through some East-European country. (bar Spain, but that would be even more far-fetched)

The beauty of it all:

Tony-the-Poodle sees that it's happening, yet can do sweet fa about it. He's becoming more of a laughing stock every day.

What has he gotten in return for all his trouble and support? Nothing. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

Anyway: hope you've learned something.

 

[LABOB]

Originally posted by The Red Machine:
<strong>A masterclass in diplomacy is being given right under you very noses, so please do pay attention and learn - God knows you need it...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> Who the hell do you think you are! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

Henry Kissinger

 

[mathiaslg]

This is a joke right?

I am fecking shaking right now at the thought of a French-Belgian-Luxembourg-German Defense Force.

Besides, there is no need to dismantle NATO. Its already an illusion. Furthermore, your policies will be quite effective at dividing your beloved EU. Such is your masterclass diplomacy.

 

[LABOB]

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[Philadelphian]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>I am fecking shaking right now at the thought of a French-Belgian-Luxembourg-German Defense Force.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Every training exercise involves Germany sweeping through Belgium/Luxembourg en route to Paris.

 

[wolf man]

Originally posted by Philadelphian:
<strong>

Every training exercise involves Germany sweeping through Belgium/Luxembourg en route to Paris. </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by Philadelphian:
<strong>

Every training exercise involves Germany sweeping through Belgium/Luxembourg en route to Paris. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I wonder if all the training exercises will last 5 weeks?

 

[Jade]

Tony has nothing on u red machine,u become more of a laughing stock everyday too.

 

[Wellesley]

So... how's the weather in Scotland? I hear it's been wet and cool there of late.

 

[Stoned.Rose]

Originally posted by Philadelphian:
<strong>

Every training exercise involves Germany sweeping through Belgium/Luxembourg en route to Paris. </strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

Have to say that France and these nations seem more desperate everyday. This defensive thing is really pathetic, it will only be these 4 nations in it, they said that they would want to neutrals in it aswell. Was unclear if this was some kind of ultimatum but when asked our foreign minister responded "if it as an ultimatum...so what?". This from a politician for a country with a VERY restrictive foreign policy and it somehow illustrates how seriously this defensive proposal is taken.

 

[Martin Henry]

Originally posted by LABOB:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> Who the hell do you think you are! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

Henry Kissinger</strong><hr></blockquote>

Aah yes.........Henry Kissinger.......

History will show (eventually) that he was one of the great mass murderers of the twentieth century...

A bastard if ever there was one...

 

[The Red Machine]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>This is a joke right?

I am fecking shaking right now at the thought of a French-Belgian-Luxembourg-German Defense Force.

Besides, there is no need to dismantle NATO. Its already an illusion. Furthermore, your policies will be quite effective at dividing your beloved EU. Such is your masterclass diplomacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah,

You seem to forget to put this into a historical context. It is no coincidence only these 4 countries were invited. (Normally, Holland would have been too, but they are currently in the process of forming a new government).

Why these countries and no-one else? These are the countries that laid the initial foundations of the European Union. You can mock the fact that there's only four of us. There were only six when we formed the EU. There'll be 25 next year.

It took other countries decades to get round to joining the EC (as the EU was called back in the 80s when Spain for instance joined). It will take some longer than others to join this time aswell. Look at Austria and - depending on which government they'll get - Holland to be the first ones to join in over the next couple of years.

This is not going to split the EU, because no-one will be forced to make a choice. People who are not confortable with it right now, will stay quiet, or object to the "timing" of it all. Remember: unlike your bullying tactics, in this case people can "feel free to join".

Others, who are more vehemently opposed, such as Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi, will have stronger language but it won't make a big difference. Since this project is not directly tied to the EU (but at this point is independent, set up by volonteers) they really have no say and realise that. Which is why Blair came out in such a petty, frustrated way. That and the fact he's had his ass kicked all over the place for months now

This initiative is not meant to "make you shake", Mat. Unlike you, we do not rely on force to make people do things our way. It will make our defence spending more efficient. Why do companies merge? It allows them to spend more efficiently, giving them two options for the money they save in this way: spend it on growth or save it.

It's the same thing: if you look at our armies, we have way too many tanks, yet not enough transport planes (to give one example). By coordinating purchasing we can spend the money much more efficiently. The result will be that we can do more with the same money.

This will become over time an attractive proposition to other countries. Why spend things on the basics, while we could really make a difference by linking up with the new structure.

Then politics comes in: governments in Europe change. They change at a rate of - on average - 2/3 a year. Different coalition governments will have different ideas. Yet, there will be a time in any countries future when there'll be a governemnt that's in favour of this project.

Should for instance Berlusconi be voted out, it's not unlikely Italy could join fairly quickly. (in 4-5 years time for instance)

Mat, you always look at things in the short term. That's not the way Europe works. Things take a long time. It took Spain 25 years to join the EC. Europe is a long-term project, I won't live to see the time when it will be completed and probably my kids won't either.

But that's fine. And its normal. It takes more than a few decades to erase thousands of years of history of wars and conflict that have preceeded the European Union.

This military wing too, will take time. As will foreign policy. But it will happen and it will not happen the Tony Blair way.

 

[EZee]

Originally posted by The Red Machine:
<strong>A masterclass in diplomacy is being given right under you very noses, so please do pay attention and learn - God knows you need it...

What it is about?
Nato and how we're going to kill it.

The Players :
Germany, France, Russia, (and though less important, certainly no less annoying ) Belgium & Luxembourg. (nicknamed "Gang of Four" & Russia )

Why all players are on the same team:

Russia still doesn't like the idea of the Poles, Hungarians & Co in NATO and DC's influence reaching upto its borders

The "4" don't like it, because it really is of no interest to them and because it helps the US to exercise some influence (Myself - I hate it because those lazy, useless potatoe-peelers in uniforms cause massive traffic jams on my way to work every morning )

How to play the "patience"-game:

Don't be to gung-ho about what you're doing. Be subtile, deny it. Don't force other countries to do as you do, don't even say "they'd better...". Tell them they're "free to join".

Take your time. It will take a few years to dismantle Nato and the best way is to make sure it's not us who do so. It's always better if the other parties get so sick & tired of it, that they bugger off.

What the long-term tactics are:

Develop a similar, better (and most of all: exclusively European) structure that will effectively make nato obsolete.

It'll be fairly easy within one or two years time to start using this alternative force under some pretext - anything will do.

Then ask the question: "Why waste money on NATO?" After which slowly the realisation will grow that it's effectively obsolete and should be dismantled.

The beauty of it will obviously be, that the US and their puppet-commie friends in Poland, Hungary & Co will continue to be friends and the US will continue to guarantee their safety.

This effectively means the rest of us would be protected aswell, since it's hard to see how you could physically attack Europe without going through some East-European country. (bar Spain, but that would be even more far-fetched)

The beauty of it all:

Tony-the-Poodle sees that it's happening, yet can do sweet fa about it. He's becoming more of a laughing stock every day.

What has he gotten in return for all his trouble and support? Nothing. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

Anyway: hope you've learned something. </strong><hr></blockquote>


erm as far as I was aware the european defence league has been planned for years and indeed has uk backing?

 

[The Red Machine]

The history of the defence-wing of the EU is almost as old as the EU itself.

It began in the early-50s (even before the Rome-Treaty) with the European Defence Community Treaty which was rejected by the French Parliament.

Then quickly afterwards the Western European Union was formed, which is still in existance as far as I know, but it seems quite useless, especially since the formation within the EU of the Rapid Reaction Force (which I don't believe to fall under the WEU)

There have been few real projects since then, as attention was mainly on structural and organisational issues, then on trade, then on expansion, then on monetary policy, then again on expansion.

It'll be interesting to see wether this time it will be defence that gets sorted out once and for all.

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by Martin Henry:
<strong>

Aah yes.........Henry Kissinger.......

History will show (eventually) that he was one of the great mass murderers of the twentieth century...

A bastard if ever there was one...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Martin, stop being a bitter Communist for five fecking seconds and think a little. It doesn't hurt you know

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by The Red Machine:
<strong>That's not the way Europe works. </strong><hr></blockquote>

With regards to a common Foreign and Defense Policy, Europe doesn't work at all. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

The concept of a european defensive force could be interesting i.e. you pay and supply soldiers according to the size of the country / population or something. Could be a cheaper option than every country having a big army of their own. There will hardly be any wars here in western europe anymore as even Russia seems to get normalized, thus I would not mind a cheaper solution than what we currently have. Money is better off spent elsewhere.

But this conflict showed that there are so many different opinions within the EU that it is impossible to have a common foreign policy / military. Just by looking at the 2 biggest players you get the impression of how difficult it is, France have an ambition to compete with the US (which is ridiclous) whereas GB spend most of its time licking the US arse. The 2 biggest players have a totally opposite approach. Add 10 other countries with different approaches and you have one hell of a mess.

 

[The Red Machine]

Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>The concept of a european defensive force could be interesting i.e. you pay and supply soldiers according to the size of the country / population or something. Could be a cheaper option than every country having a big army of their own. There will hardly be any wars here in western europe anymore as even Russia seems to get normalized, thus I would not mind a cheaper solution than what we currently have. Money is better off spent elsewhere.

But this conflict showed that there are so many different opinions within the EU that it is impossible to have a common foreign policy / military. Just by looking at the 2 biggest players you get the impression of how difficult it is, France have an ambition to compete with the US (which is ridiclous) whereas GB spend most of its time licking the US arse. The 2 biggest players have a totally opposite approach. Add 10 other countries with different approaches and you have one hell of a mess.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As far as the first paragraph is concerned, I absolutely agree.

That's what this whole new project is about: efficient military spending on a larger scale (ie: for a group of countries with 150 million inhabitants instead of - comparing to France - 60 million) allows you to either save or have better results (or both)

And that's exactely why it will be an appealing idea to many other countries. Certainly once this whole Iraq-thing has died down.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned: politics is usually based on the opinions of the people. (which is why continental europe - including scandinavia - still spend a lot of money on social security and not on the military). Public opinion was not split on this isssue: it was remarkably similar in all countries (including the new members)

That's always a good basis to start from. But it will take time, as everything the Union has ever achieved took time.

 

[The Red Machine]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

With regards to a common Foreign and Defense Policy, Europe doesn't work at all. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

A completely pointless rebuttal if ever there was one...

Eleven years ago, you could have said the same thing about monetary policy. A year later, we had Maastricht, ten years later we had the Euro.

But I couldn't expect you to understand any of this. "Long term" and "US" just don't go together very well.

In a couple of months most of you will think Iraq is some kind of Donut, I mean: you cannot be expected to comprehend any of this.

Bless you.

 

[mathiaslg]

You are a simple creature TRM. You know nothing about what you talk about but you talk like you know everything. Its a sight to behold.

 

[The Red Machine]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>You are a simple creature TRM. You know nothing about what you talk about but you talk like you know everything. Its a sight to behold.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah,

Writing that paper on European integration surely ensures I know "nothing about what I talk about"

<img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" />

 

[MrMarcello]

Look up the English word JEALOUSY in the English-French dictionary and it has - see France...no offense meant to Elfie...

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by The Red Machine:
<strong>

Yeah,

Writing that paper on European integration surely ensures I know "nothing about what I talk about"

<img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow you wrote a paper. I wrote an 65 pager on the CFSP. So I guess I am an expert now too.

 

[Martin Henry]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Martin, stop being a bitter Communist for five fecking seconds and think a little. It doesn't hurt you know
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, it takes a "communist" to see Henry Kissinger for what he in reality is?...

And there was me thinking that ANYONE with a brain could see that...

Obviously mathias I was wrong... ...

 

[The Red Machine]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

Wow you wrote a paper. I wrote an 65 pager on the CFSP. So I guess I am an expert now too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That must have been some piece of writing, looking at your understanding of how things work and evolve...

Or are you just pretending to be an ignorant cnut on here just for the pleasure of me slagging you off?

 

[Stoned.Rose]

The gang of four. <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" />

A good quote off the BBC website.

"In the Foreign Office in London, there was lofty amusement about the value of the Luxembourg reconnaissance unit which is to be attached to the existing Franco-German brigade"
<hr></blockquote>

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by The Red Machine:
<strong>

That must have been some piece of writing, looking at your understanding of how things work and evolve...

Or are you just pretending to be an ignorant cnut on here just for the pleasure of me slagging you off? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Ignorant cnut eh? You are the one living in this bloody dream world where the EU is all powerful, France is great and the CFSP will rival the United States for mastery of the Western World.

 

[mancred]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>This is a joke right?

I am fecking shaking right now at the thought of a French-Belgian-Luxembourg-German Defense Force.

Besides, there is no need to dismantle NATO. Its already an illusion. Furthermore, your policies will be quite effective at dividing your beloved EU. Such is your masterclass diplomacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>


It is spelt "defence".

Thanks

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by mancred:
<strong>


It is spelt "defence".

Thanks</strong><hr></blockquote>

If we had lost the Revolutionary War, then yes, it would be "defence." Alas, we won...

 

[FresnoBob]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

If we had lost the Revolutionary War, then yes, it would be "defence." Alas, we won...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wit some timely assistance from the French, and it turned out our Germans were better than your Germans--
so "defense," "color," "neighbor," and the game is actually called "soccer."

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>

Wit some timely assistance from the French, and it turned out our Germans were better than your Germans--
so "defense," "color," "neighbor," and the game is actually called "soccer."
</strong><hr></blockquote>

And we use comma's a hell of a lot more. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[FresnoBob]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

And we use comma's a hell of a lot more. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, </strong><hr></blockquote>

That should be commas (plural), not comma's (singular possessive).

 

[Martin Henry]

Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>

That should be commas (plural), not comma's (singular possessive). </strong><hr></blockquote>

Kinda proves his point though Bob...

Use a lot of commas even where they're not needed...

That's what he said isn't it?... ...

In this country we punctuate properly... <img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[No No]" /> ...

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>

That should be commas (plural), not comma's (singular possessive). </strong><hr></blockquote>

I was in a hurry, give me a break.

 

[mancred]

Originally posted by mathiaslg:
<strong>

If we had lost the Revolutionary War, then yes, it would be "defence." Alas, we won...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Another example of the tragedy of war....

 

[nickm]

Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>But this conflict showed that there are so many different opinions within the EU that it is impossible to have a common foreign policy / military. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not so sure about that. Why wouldn't it be possible to produce an EU army where every State used the same equipment and tactics? Its size for any operation would then only have to depend on the number of countries submitting forces to the action - a kind of modular army.

There would then be no need for a unified approach to any particular military situation.

 

[nickm]

All this dick-waving about whether the EU is more/less powerful than the US misses the point.

It is in nobody's interests that the EU and US become distanced from each other. It will damage both blocs. The US needs the EU to finance its enormous debts. The EU needs the US to buy its goods. And we both need each other to protect and promote the democracy which began in Europe and was underpinned by the US. Any weakening of these bonds only serves to strengthen our enemies.

Fair enough to debate the war in Iraq but let's not let an honest disagreement go further than necessary.

 

[mathiaslg]

Originally posted by nickm:
<strong>Any weakening of these bonds only serves to strengthen our enemies.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed, and that takes both sides coming to a better understanding of the other's position. Then, it takes both to act on bridging the divide. Do you see any desire out there for a new Atlanticism?

 

[devilish]

The Nato was designed as an outpost against Soviet Union and communism. Now that the Communism had been set up for good and that Russia pose no threat to democracy I don’t know why the Nato still exist in the first place.

Europe is becoming stronger day by day and next year, with so many nations joining the EU, I cannot see the need of the US “big brother protection”. Mind you, I consider the US as classic allies and friends (being English and living in a pro English influenced island). But while I would do nothing to hinder this unique friendship, I think that Europe should break away this “US big brother” influence on us and start thinking with our brains and acting with our hands. It for the world peace and the European’s integrity that we should stop running after the US presidents like loyal pets, fighting in their crusades and hoping to grab their left overs.

While I am against the idea of abolishing every European nation army in favor of a massive European army managed in Brussels, I think that no EU country should be allowed to fight wars unless backed by the EU. Europe should get tougher and be united against all odds if they really want a realistic say of what is happening in the world. Remember a one way democracy (The US bullying everyone to their own will) is not democracy at all.