Bush, the EU, and a independent defense

[Sayhey]

The Bush doctrine is at it again in the form of pressure against the EU to stop its plans for an independent European defense force. Read the BBC story:

The United States has called a special meeting of the ambassadors of all 19 members of Nato to discuss the European Union's plans for a new defence policy. Defence is one of several contentious areas of EU policy

The meeting was called in an attempt to clarify the confusing fog of words at last week's summit about the EU's plans for an independent military role.

Europe's leading military powers - Britain France and Germany - informally agree the EU must be able to plan and conduct limited military operations when needed, without having always to call on Nato assets.

But the US suspects a kind of plot by anti-American forces in Europe to damage its interests.

Senior US officials say an independent EU planning and command headquarters is unacceptable.

That is the nub of the argument.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3206304.stm)

The Bushies aren't going to allow new superpowers to come into existence, even if it is in the form of our allies.

[whocares]

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Is Bush really affraid on this tinpot army were gonna/wonna put together?
2. Is it any of his god-damn business what we do over here to defend ourselves/our interests? We will/would be doing nothing different than what the US have been doing for the last 50 yrs.

[Frohickey]

Europe's leading military powers - Britain France and Germany - informally agree the EU must be able to plan and conduct limited military operations when needed, without having always to call on Nato assets.

How many white flags will this new EU military need? :D

Seriously, I say we let the EU do it on their own. Nothing like being responsible for their own defense to set the EU's priorities straight.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by whocares
Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Is Bush really affraid on this tinpot army were gonna/wonna put together?
2. Is it any of his god-damn business what we do over here to defend ourselves/our interests? We will/would be doing nothing different than what the US have been doing for the last 50 yrs.

He is not afraid of the army as a threat to the US. He is afraid it could some day lead to a end to NATO or at least a lessening of the importance of US involvement in European defense matters.

This move may have more to do with an attempt to drive divisions into the ranks of the EU nations than any particular importance the actual new force would represent. It is the growing economic powerhouse of a united Europe that the neoconservatives in the administration fear more than a military rival. We will see if Tony Blair plays the role of Bush's boy again.

Oh, and of course it is not our President's business to tell EU nations what is acceptable in their own affairs. It is a growing arrogance in the White House that believes this kind of interference is ok.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
This move may have more to do with an attempt to drive divisions into the ranks of the EU nations than any particular importance the actual new force would represent. It is the growing economic powerhouse of a united Europe that the neoconservatives in the administration fear more than a military rival. We will see if Tony Blair plays the role of Bush's boy again.


Growing economic powerhouse? Where do you see this? Germany is in the midst of a recession, with high unemployment and rising welfare costs. I think the other EU nations are in the same boat, except, maybe Ireland. (PowerMacs are made in Ireland :D )

I think that the EU should do it anyway. I think that the US should just quietly let the EU do their own defense establishment. Lets see if their economic powerhouse can pay for their own defense infrastructure. As it is now, the US is paying 25% (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2976&sequence=4) of the NATO budget.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Growing economic powerhouse? Where do you see this? Germany is in the midst of a recession, with high unemployment and rising welfare costs. I think the other EU nations are in the same boat, except, maybe Ireland. (PowerMacs are made in Ireland :D )

I think that the EU should do it anyway. I think that the US should just quietly let the EU do their own defense establishment. Lets see if their economic powerhouse can pay for their own defense infrastructure. As it is now, the US is paying 25% (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2976&sequence=4) of the NATO budget.

Hey, we agree on something! I'm for bringing those US troops home from Europe. Their mission has been successfully accomplished and now is a good time to close up shop on NATO. It's not going to happen, but I still think it's a great idea.

Frohickey, recessions come and go. It is pretty obvious that a new united Europe will have tremendous economic power and even greater potential. That is if they can ever agree on a constitution. I do agree that along with Guinness, it is the power mac production in Ireland that is the secret engine that powers the whole EU. :D At least that is a reflection of my buying habits.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Hey, we agree on something! I'm for bringing those US troops home from Europe. Their mission has been successfully accomplished and now is a good time to close up shop on NATO. It's not going to happen, but I still think it's a great idea.


Been saying that we ought to have brought the troops in Europe home for a long time now.

Now, if only we can change Iraq to be more like us. Religiously tolerant, constitutionally limited, respecting human rights... heck, with their oil reserves, I would bet they would be fighting Japan for #2 in the world economy if the only can suppress their religious fanatics.

[Inu]

As a matter of Fact, Oil alone doesnt make up a good base for a functioning economy.

Usually, Oil brings in foreign cash, but it doesnt create that many workplaces, thus either leaving large portions of the population without the foreign money, or dependend on on the government to spend oil money for the welfare, as it happens in some of the oil rich countries in the arab world (Emirates, Kuwait).

Since the Iraqi Govt. has been placed by the US who, themselves, want to cut welfare in their own country - I wouldnt bet on it.

[Desertrat]

I agree with sayhey about the economic issues. It's just the normal chess game of international politics. The overt or ostensible issues noted in the media rarely present the true causes.

IMO, we haven't really needed US troops in Europe since 1991 and the collapse of the USSR. The Europeans have the responsibility for their own security. NATO made sense in the face of the foreign policy and the military power of the USSR, but not now.

'Rat

[yamabushi]

Most of the US forces in Europe should be moved elsewhere. Peacekeeping operations in the balkans can continue, but most everything else should go. A small base could perhaps be established in Bulgaria to support operations in the balkan region with medical care, air support, training, and recreation. Non-US NATO forces can maintain and operate from the old bases in Germany and Italy until a united European military authority evolves. Afganistan might me a good destination for many troops since a stronger US presence has been requested there.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Inu
As a matter of Fact, Oil alone doesnt make up a good base for a functioning economy.

Usually, Oil brings in foreign cash, but it doesnt create that many workplaces, thus either leaving large portions of the population without the foreign money, or dependend on on the government to spend oil money for the welfare, as it happens in some of the oil rich countries in the arab world (Emirates, Kuwait).

Since the Iraqi Govt. has been placed by the US who, themselves, want to cut welfare in their own country - I wouldnt bet on it.

If you read my post, I did not say that oil alone would propel Iraq to #3 world economic superpower status. Oil would not hurt. Look at Japan. No natural resources of its own, and its #2.

Work ethic, governmental non-interference are needed as well.

[Desertrat]

yamabushi, the Balkans are a part of Europe. Why can't the Europeans deal with the troubles there? Why us? Sorry, I don't see a bit of U.S. national interest there.

I gotta rant for a minute. :)

The EU, in aggregate, is as many or more folks than the U.S. Yet, for all their natter about how neat they are, and how much more they know than we about how to behave in worldly actions, why don't they aggregate anywhere near our economic strength? Why can't they work together to take care of their own security? WW II was over in 1945; the western Europeans have been rebuilt since the 1950s.

If they want to be "equal in the eyes of the world" I think they oughta stand on their own hind legs and quit using us as their protector. "That dog don't hunt," as the saying goes.

They let us save their bacon from the bad guys, and then chastise us for being uncivilized, barbarian cowboy upstarts.

Ga-roo-vee! Let them clean their own sewers.

Rant off.

:), 'Rat

[yamabushi]

The Balkans are unstable and the European militaries are currrently unable to stabilize the region by themselves. It is going to ba a long time before that region is going to be stable. Leaving some forces in SE Europe can help to maintain stbility in the meantime. Since we already have quite a few active forces in the region, having a base somewhere nearby is a good idea. We have many heavy tanks in Germany that aren't doing anybody any good right now. In SE Europe they would be much closer to current hot spots and would be able to respond to or deter aggression in the region more effectively.

Germany has served as the primary base for advanced medical care. Similar facilities are needed somewhere close to the action in the mideast if the base in Germany were to close or transfer ownership. Bulgaria is about 700 miles closer than Germany is to the mideast. Bulgaria has also been a close ally and consistent supporter of U.S. interests(unlike Greece and Turkey).

Bulgaria happens to be about the same distance from Moscow as Germany, which will please the hawks in D.C. that want to keep our long range bombers and medium range missiles in range of the Russian capital. Not a bad idea considering that the Russian Duma has refused to ratify the current START (treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles).

Until Europe has a cohesive defense policy and stucture in place it is not prudent to abandon them entirely. Moving to the SE corner of Europe and reducing force strength by 75% or so could send a strong message to the leaders in Europe to take responsibility for their own defense more seriously without destabilizing the region.

[Desertrat]

:) I'll buy your Bulgaria strategy. Sounds like something from StratFor.

Still, I'm dubious about the Bosnia/Serbia/etc. stuff. We're not the only force there, and it just seems to me that the EuroGroup could find enough men and money to let us ease out. Doesn't have to be one swell foop.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How many white flags will this new EU military need? :D

Oh, I get it!! 'Cause the French are all pussies who surrender right away!!

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! That's like, so original and funny, dude. You should be a comedian or something.

[yamabushi]

I haven't followed the actual numbers for a couple of years, but unless things have changed dramatically they really don't have the forces they need. According to some Jane's publications I used to follow, their total combined forces are less effective than the fraction of our forces that we have stationed there.

As I recall, Britain, France, Germany, and Finland each have some fairly advanced equipment and Poland is catching up quickly. Most of the other nations can contribute mostly some outdated equipment and infantry. Their forces are also still separated and lack coordination, which may be their most serious problem.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Now, if only we can change Iraq to be more like us. Religiously tolerant, constitutionally limited, respecting human rights...

... Developing nuclear weapons, making up lies to invade countries that are no danger to them, helping to overthrow democratically elected Governments, promoting religious fanatics to positions of importance, holding people in jail indefinitely without trial, Political cronyism, blah blah....

Who wouldn't want all these American traits for their own country.

[Thanatoast]

I find it amusing that the conservatives on this board are saying "let Europe fight for itself!" whereas the conservatives in the White House are pissed that they wanna try.

Really, it's all about losing the axe we hold over the EU's head. If they no longer need us to "defend" them, then we no longer have *nearly* as much political clout with them. Why they might start disagreeing with us, competing with us, or *gasp*, forcing us to be decent international neighbors! The world would end! (probably because Bush'd nuke 'em if they gave him any ****) You know, basic mafia tactics.

Apparently the current administration has gone back to the zero-sum game theory, where more power for anyone else automatically means less power for us. Funny, since they claim that economics works on the opposite principle to justify their tax cuts. :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Maybe the conservatives on this board are not like the Republicans or Democrats that blindly vote for whomever the national party nominates? :)

Also, Pinto's comment about being more like us. There, I meant it with all the positive attributes for a modern Iraq. To quote Sgt Oddball... "Whats up with all of the negative vibes?" :D

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Also, Pinto's comment about being more like us. There, I meant it with all the positive attributes for a modern Iraq. To quote Sgt Oddball... "Whats up with all of the negative vibes?" :D

Because you never seem to mention the negatives.

You proudly comment about "being more like us", when halve the things you guys do is considered reasons for invasion when done by others.

Get those rose-coloured spectacles off occasionally.

[yamabushi]

I really hope that Europe becomes stronger and is better able to exert influence. I believe a stronger Europe will help to promote peace and may decrease the need for the U.S. military. My only worry is that Europeans may be just as arrogant as the U.S. in their policies in the future.

[Desertrat]

yamabushi, it might be seen as splitting hairs, but I don't think the policies, themselves, are arrogant. It's the execution thereof. Sorta like the way a bad cop can enforce a law with which we could all agree. We're against reckless driving, but that doesn't mean the driver should be yanked out of the car and slammed on the ground.

One thing I've watched that doesn't seem to be taken into account in discussions of US doings around the world is that our government must deal with whatever government is in power elsewhere. This puts us "in bed" with a lot of sorry SOBs. Saudi Arabia is a case in point. Our physical quality of life depends on them and others like them. (And we'd need them even without SUVs, to recall to mind another thread here. :D)

And, of course, there are a lot of foreign policy decisions which in hindsight look foolish, not arrogant. Not enough forethought or thought about the what-ifs of unintended consequences.

'Rat

[yamabushi]

Good points. I would like to express some reservations on just one, though. I believe that we are far too dependent on oil. We can boost our economy over the long run and protect our national interests better if we made very aggressive moves to support renewable sources of energy, cleaner coal technology, and reduce consumption of fuel oil. Gasoline is a more touchy subject, but some further encouragement to increase the average fuel economy of cars sold in the U.S. isn't out of line. Energy imports actually cause a good portion of our trade deficit. I strongly support moves to encourage energy independence.

[Desertrat]

:) No argument out of me. I'm in a minority as a proponent of nukes. And, having been around a fair number of drilling rigs and completed oil/gas wells, I'm not at all against development in areas that are now off-limits. I see these as a short-term help, however.

I sorta work at ignoring a lot of what I first railed against, some forty years back. Don't need ulcers. Our society (IMO) has increased its spoiled-brattishness behavior insofar as consumption, be it junk from Wally World or the throwaway aspects of buying new cars far more often than seems needful. When folks go to worrying about the "statement" of a BMW or a Volvo, IMO their heads are in fundamental darkness. Or brie or latte or Gucci...

Later,

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I sorta work at ignoring a lot of what I first railed against, some forty years back. Don't need ulcers. Our society (IMO) has increased its spoiled-brattishness behavior insofar as consumption, be it junk from Wally World or the throwaway aspects of buying new cars far more often than seems needful. When folks go to worrying about the "statement" of a BMW or a Volvo, IMO their heads are in fundamental darkness. Or brie or latte or Gucci...

Later,

'Rat

Ah a few less government regulations should cure that right up....;)

[Desertrat]

No, mac, I've not figured out how to get a mental turnaround on the part of voters who've been exposed for three generations to the world's most skilled psychologists: The "Madison Avenue" advertising folks.

You push people too hard with regulations and the backlash is the election of representatives who'll pander to them. I just wish there were some way to propagandize folks into believing that they don't need to keep up with or exceed "the Joneses".

This country has been on a Saturday night spree for a long, long time, and I really don't think a bunch of regulations are gonna stave off that Sunday morning hangover...

'Rat

[wwworry]

I've wondered for a long time why we have troops in Europe. I wish someone had the balls to stand up to defence department spending. It's the least efficient govenment agency. We have all heard the stories of them dumping perfectly good equipment overboard so they can buy new equipment so they can keep their budget. No accounting system either. Defence spending has become a measure of manliness, not defence.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, it's all about pork. Even guys like U.S. Rep. "Red" Ron Dellums, (D-Oakland, CA) who never passed up a chance to bad-mouth the military, just about pooped in his drawers when they closed the unneeded base at Oakland.

Others love to bring those military dollars to their home states or districts. U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), got enough military spending in Georgia that no state income tax is needed, and the sales tax is just 5%.

For some reason, though, there's rarely enough money for spare parts and training ammo...

'Rat

[wwworry]

There was a good report on Now with Bill Moyers about the lax accounting procedures and defence spending as pork. One deffence contractor, Lockheed Martin?, General Dynamics?, ... has facilities spread across the whole country and can quickly breakdown how a weapons program will affect each congressional district. It may be less efficient but probably brings them more business. I knew a guy who came over to General Dynamics from another industry and he told me that his job was to figure out the least efficient way of production because there was more profit to be made that way.

We could have the same military for tens of billions of dollars less and have money left over to actually fight a war. We could spend the money on education. We could pay down the debt. We could lower taxes because we spend less - not this credit card style of tax reduction. Anyway it does not seem like the republican controled legislature and executive branch has any interest in controling spending. Yes some democrats are bad too.

[yamabushi]

I fear that budget issues will be of even greater concern for military spending in Europe since they lack a unified fiscal policy and have greater diversity in the makeup of their forces.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
This country has been on a Saturday night spree for a long, long time, and I really don't think a bunch of regulations are gonna stave off that Sunday morning hangover...

'Rat

Nor will fewer regulations. Until you can come up with a way to convince each and every person to reevaluate what exactly the American Dream means to them individually and to our society collectively, the greed and "Saturday night spree" will continue.

Problem is, how do we convince everyone out there to live the kind of life you do? Barrel of a gun? Government regulation? No government regulation? Drug them all into submission? Totalitarianism?

[Desertrat]

mac, I sure don't have any answer. I guess it's one of those "I don't make the news; I just report it." deals. I watch folks' behavior, and read of the various problems in both personal and national level stuff, and just sorta shake my head.

Bits and pieces, like I read that the average household credit-card debt is $8,000 per each. Duh? And since I know of several households in my immediate vicinity with zero debt, all I can say is that somebody's in deep doodoo.

Record numbers of delinquents, in making house payments. Around 1.5 million bankruptcies filed last year, and a history of a steady rise thereof. How can this sort of stuff go on indefinitely?

Pork barrel waste by Congress. Single mother/illegitimate children/tax burden/low economic activity...Etc., etc.

Dollar's down. Gold's up.

Enough whoppin' on a dead horse.

I may have commented here, before, on this: My mother was grumping at what she saw as a lack of statesmen in Congress, compared to fifty years back. People who put the overall good of the country at least on a par with their political party. My response was that I had given up on statesmen; all I wanted was a few mature adults.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

My mother was grumping at what she saw as a lack of statesmen in Congress, compared to fifty years back. People who put the overall good of the country at least on a par with their political party. My response was that I had given up on statesmen; all I wanted was a few mature adults.


i won't pretend the democratic party has members who are greed-free, but i believe the party has more "good for the country" members than the GOP.

and that gets at the heart of my politics -- do what's best for the greater good. and that sentiment doesn't stop at the US' borders.

[wwworry]

As much as I hate to say it because I think the republicans of the last 15 years have been a scourge on this country, I am not sure that the democrats in congress have "the good of the country" in their hearts. However, they have decided, for one reason or another, to represent the middle class and people of color more than the republicans. By default, I would say that they are better for the country but not by courageousness or, in general, by insight.

Again, the republicans are a scourge.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
As much as I hate to say it because I think the republicans of the last 15 years have been a scourge on this country, I am not sure that the democrats in congress have "the good of the country" in their hearts. However, they have decided, for one reason or another, to represent the middle class and people of color more than the republicans. By default, I would say that they are better for the country but not by courageousness or, in general, by insight.

Again, the republicans are a scourge.

Represent the middle class and people of color?

How about becoming color-blind and do everything via merit/skill?

I think that the leftists are the scourge here.

[Inu]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Represent the middle class and people of color?

How about becoming color-blind and do everything via merit/skill?

I think that the leftists are the scourge here.

You have to value every color of skin the same before becoming color blind, you know.

Discarding voting rights of black people who got a speeding fine (example) isnt very color blind to me.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Inu
You have to value every color of skin the same before becoming color blind, you know.

Discarding voting rights of black people who got a speeding fine (example) isnt very color blind to me.

Why do you need to value any color of skin before becoming color blind and doing everything via merit/skill?

I don't care if my pro-football player is black, hispanic, indian, asian, white, or martian. If he can throw the football and have 90% connect rate, and run like the wind, catch every ball thrown at him/her and get up after every hit, why should I even care?

Also, if my scientist is as sharp as a diamond saw, can do complex calculations in his head, never forgets an equation, and works well with everyone, why should I care what color of skin he's got. He/she could be covered in fur, with black and white spots and I wouldn't care one bit. (As long as he doesn't have fleas.) :D

Why settle for someone that is not the best person for the task?

[Inu]

I am all for that Frohickey...

Seems some are not. And wwworry's opininon (and mine, as far as i can see in this issue) is, that the dems are a little better at being color blind than the reps.

But i agree with you that there shouldnt be any job or position or anything else be awarded to a person just because he/she appears to be from the right minority, but basically lacking the skill to do what needs to be done. There are times when the firm i work for has to defend herself because there isnt a single woman in the top-level management, for instance. For all i care, if there comes a woman who can do the job better than any of the nuts already in the gremium, she should have a chance to get the job (if there is a free opening, of course). But not because she is a woman, or has purple fur or anything.

[Desertrat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't race-norming of test scores a result of Democrats' efforts? To me, that's not only very racist, but it's a horrible insult: "You're not good enough to make it on your own." The associated message is, "If you're the right color, somebody will take care of you and help you."

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why settle for someone that is not the best person for the task?

One can only tell who is the best "person" for the task when all people have had an equal shot at education, health care, peace and quiet at home and in your neighborhood, along with other equalling factors in life. Sports is one of the few areas where minoritys are judged soley on their abilities. (Although if you believe Rush, there is a 'leftist' agenda at work getting black players on the field.) Music is another field where minorities, particularly blacks, have had a profound influence on American culture. The business world and the world of politics are not such places.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
No, mac, I've not figured out how to get a mental turnaround on the part of voters who've been exposed for three generations to the world's most skilled psychologists: The "Madison Avenue" advertising folks.

You push people too hard with regulations and the backlash is the election of representatives who'll pander to them. I just wish there were some way to propagandize folks into believing that they don't need to keep up with or exceed "the Joneses".

This country has been on a Saturday night spree for a long, long time, and I really don't think a bunch of regulations are gonna stave off that Sunday morning hangover...

'Rat

Now isn't this an admission of griping about a problem without a concrete solution in hand? Weren't all of us liberals castigated by you for doing just that not to long ago?

Show me the solution!:p

[Desertrat]

Well, mac, this seems to me to be one of those "If A, then B" deals. If folks follow a certain pattern, certain results will accrue. Trouble is, it's hard to stop legal and historic patterns of behavior, even when they're destructive.

It would take some sort of propaganizing along the lines of Pres. Carter era "less is more" stuff, those many years back. Persuade people to save more and spend less and to live more simply.

But I don't have a clue about how you get such a movement started on a scale that would be effective. And you can't outlaw advertising...

The downside of this "live more simply" deal, though, is that we're a consumer economy. If folks start staying home instead of shopping or eating out, what happens to jobs and money-flow?

Don't ever think I haven't given time to looking at a lot of the facets of all this...It's a bummer when something that would solve one problem creates more problems elsewhere. But, that's whence cometh the phrases, "unintended consequences" and, "unanticipated side-effects".

Remember Pres. Ford and his silly little "W.I.N" buttons? "Whip Inflation Now"? He advised people to leave their credit cards at home and not spend so much. Within a week, the screams and howls from the big retailers and the credit card companies broke the 150db level!

I dunno. Maybe there isn't any solution...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"If you're the right color, somebody will take care of you and help you."

Statistically, that's true.