Eu Constitution

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

For your sake, Übel better not be a curse word. As you should know by now, you are <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=35' target='_blank'>breaking forum rule #1</a> by using non-english. Please edit now <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> .

And have you noticed yet how incredulous we are that you have no understanding of your proposed constitution, and no little desire to rectify that? If you had read any of the posts here in this thread before replying (Oh look, you just broke <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Forum rule #6</a>; really on thin ice today, aren't you? <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ), you would see that we have provided plenty of itemized commentary on the document and links to simplified versions. What you don't understand is, under the proposals for example, Finland's own laws will be supreceeded by the EU's. That means that you are no longer the country of finland, but more like the province. Whether or not that is a bad thing (I'm sure it's for the best for a backwards nation like yours <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ), it's something you should at least be aware of, don't you think? Or do you care if French law becomes your own (have you read about their prisons? They make a US max security lockup look like disneyland).

This is the root our of our disbelief in your (to us) odd attitude. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Edit: spelling and t3h smil3ys

Dread · December 2003

I've read the whole thread. I just haven't checked all the links, so i'm not actually breaking any rules. Individuals triumph over system! Woooooooo, they can't touch me! Besides, I like treading on thin ice, just to get on your nerves <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

o_O

Hokay, I read :/

Done with the reading. It seems like the major issues are with the President, Legal supremacy and defence/foreign policy. I didn't quite grasp how they are out to screw the small nations(I do care, I live in one, remember?). People whine because they think President will be picked from a bigger country; this is just matter of balance. Right balance so that big nations still have better chances(they have more population after all) but still so that small countries get their candidates picked every once and a while too. Legal supremacy is a hard one, but I'd delay it. Europe is not unified enough for EU to make decisions for it's member countries, not yet at least <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> We can add that later to the constitution, now getting A constitution is the most important task, if you want EU to hold it together. Defence/foreign policy is the most evil one. I don't think one can find a rational solution to that as long as some members are part of Nato. What happens when Nato decides to go after, say, Iran and EU condems it? GB and other Nato countries are torn between EU and Nato and that's just going to cause quarrel inside the Union. Not good.

That's my opinion, if anyone wanted it.

And ?bel is german for 'evil'. M?bel sounds just more fitting for you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Wouldn't I be HerrÜbel? <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Interesting observations you make (finally!). I shall consider them.

tbZBeAst · December 2003

I actually think Mabel sounds better.....

in order to rescue the threadjacking -

I'm not sure the EU should figure out a constitution, let alone can in future. Why would we need one? Britain has got by without one for long enough. Isn't it just the opportunity to give the Franco German Axis (ooh! emotive!) a written mandate to confirm what they assume anyway?

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Dec 18 2003, 06:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not sure the EU should figure out a constitution, let alone can in future. Why would we need one? Britain has got by without one for long enough. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Doesn't the Magna Carta count? Brits have a Constitution of sorts too, unless I'm mistaken.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>a written mandate to confirm what they assume anyway?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Spot on <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> .

On to Dread Zeppelin (he's full of hot air and always on a collision course with disaster <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> ) :

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I didn't quite grasp how they are out to screw the small nations(I do care, I live in one, remember?). </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Smaller and/or more junior nations will not get a vote in the EU legislature. If that's not being screwed, I don't know what is. Only 10 out of 25 nations will - guess who's in that group? Hint: rhymes with Dermany and Trance.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Legal supremacy is a hard one, but I'd delay it. Europe is not unified enough for EU to make decisions for it's member countries, not yet at least? We can add that later to the constitution, now getting A constitution is the most important task, if you want EU to hold it together.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The EU constitutional founders don't seem to have a clear amendment provision in what I read, so I'm unclear about how they would do this. But more importantly, a constitution is simply a legal framework. If you don't have supremecy, then why have a constitution? Any country could simply ignore it, legally.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't think one can find a rational solution to that as long as some members are part of Nato. What happens when Nato decides to go after, say, Iran and EU condems it? GB and other Nato countries are torn between EU and Nato and that's just going to cause quarrel inside the Union. Not good.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
True true. So do you think NATO (stop saying Nato, it's an acronym!!! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ) should be dissolved and the EU Armed Forces created in its stead? Should they be standardized, have a single army, use a common language? Or go the more NATO-like route and remain 'similar but different'? It's a pretty inefficient and expensive system in its current NATO form. Not to mention, without the US, it's wimpy as hell force-wise and strictly regional.

Keep it going, Dread Zeppelin!

Spooge · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Dec 17 2003, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> People whine because they think President will be picked from a bigger country; this is just matter of balance. Right balance so that big nations still have better chances(they have more population after all) but still so that small countries get their candidates picked every once and a while too.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
This sounds strangely similar to the Electoral College in the US. But as we all know from the last US Presidential election, the Electoral College is "antiquated and silly", right? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

[/sarcasm]

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Smaller and/or more junior nations will not get a vote in the EU legislature. If that's not being screwed, I don't know what is. Only 10 out of 25 nations will - guess who's in that group? Hint: rhymes with Dermany and Trance. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ok, what do you want me to do about it? Agree that it's shrewd? I do. Happy now? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The EU constitutional founders don't seem to have a clear amendment provision in what I read, so I'm unclear about how they would do this. But more importantly, a constitution is simply a legal framework. If you don't have supremecy, then why have a constitution? Any country could simply ignore it, legally.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The problem here is that EU countries can't agree what they want. Part of them want to become a one strong Union able to compete with the 'Big ones'. Imo this all makes sense and is reasonable. I'll rather see Finlands own nationality meld in to others if it only means that Europe gets something done and won't be left behind USA, China, Japan etc. in development, than keep our national identity, stay co*ky and just sit a thumb up our arse when other countries leave the whole Europe waving when they start counquering the space <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>
So, other EU nations want EU NOT being able to have any control over them, they shouldn't be in the Union in the first place. Others want complete cooperation, they are the ones working on constitution. We'll see what happens. Our opinions here in NS Discussions board have little effect on what happens in Br?ssel.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>True true. So do you think NATO (stop saying Nato, it's an acronym!!! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> ) should be dissolved and the EU Armed Forces created in its stead? Should they be standardized, have a single army, use a common language? Or go the more NATO-like route and remain 'similar but different'? It's a pretty inefficient and expensive system in its current NATO form. Not to mention, without the US, it's wimpy as hell force-wise and strictly regional.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Who the hell do you think I am? I'm no politician(I know this is shocking) so I don't have slightest clue what to do, so that everyone would be happy <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> Though, if I'd get ultimate power over this, all countries that are both EU and N<b>ATO</b> members would leave either Union or Organization and stick with one. Standardized EUF would have a moderate sized standardized army for quick reaction to crisis and military bases all over Europe. It would answer to EU only and EUs leading group could demand help for EUF from any/all EU country, depending on need. So that every country would still keep their own armies, plus EUF that would be EUs tip of the spear. That would be imo optional solution but I don't think NATO is an organization you actually ever leave, it's kinda like mafia <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Keep it going, Dread Zeppelin!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You can be most assured that I will, Dread Zeppelin actually has pretty cool sound to it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> However H?bel, keep in mind that Zeppelins are filled with hydrogen(helium nowadays) opposed to hot air <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This sounds strangely similar to the Electoral College in the US. But as we all know from the last US Presidential election, the Electoral College is "antiquated and silly", right?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Huh? I haven't said anything about Electoral College in this(or other) thread so I'm not sure if you are asking me. However it seems that that's about the only way to do it so that it stays fair. In matter of fact I don't know much about political ways of the USA, so I can't really criticize.

Edit: Fekking quotes. I hate this board.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ok, what do you want me to do about it? Agree that it's shrewd? I do. Happy now?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Errr, shrewd or divisive? How is making 2/3rds of an organization second-class citizens shrewd? They'll hate you and the organization will fall.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, other EU nations want EU NOT being able to have any control over them, they shouldn't be in the Union in the first place. Others want complete cooperation, they are the ones working on constitution. We'll see what happens. Our opinions here in NS Discussions board have little effect on what happens in Brüssel.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Well said, all the way up the point where you say the ridiculous <i>'Our opinions here in NS Discussions board have little effect on what happens in Brüssel'</i>. If that's the case, just stop posting, as nothing you ever say here really matters to the world, right?

Your whole NATO thing made no sense to me (make the armies even MORE complex and inefficient?) so I'll skip it and come back later. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However Hübel, keep in mind that Zeppelins are filled with hydrogen(helium nowadays) opposed to hot air</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Reealllyyyy??? It's called hyperbole, you missed the joke. Of course Zepplins were filled with Hydrogen, that's why the Hindenburg exploded into a fireball. Maybe they don't have the 'you're full of hot air' expression in Finland? <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

And I fixed your quotes, nubcaek. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ok, what do you want me to do about it? Agree that it's shrewd? I do. Happy now?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Errr, shrewd or divisive? How is making 2/3rds of an organization second-class citizens shrewd? They'll hate you and the organization will fall. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Okay, previously I thought shrewd was used as a replacing term for screwed in the forums to avoid moderator nazis. Mayhaps I have misunderstood the term so give me a break, english is my third <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>
(yeah, yeah, I checked the right meaning)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well said, all the way up the point where you say the ridiculous <i>'Our opinions here in NS Discussions board have little effect on what happens in Br?ssel'</i>. If that's the case, just stop posting, as nothing you ever say here really matters to the world, right?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'm not posting here to change things. If I wanted to change things I would be out there in the cold with a sign demonstrating and stuff. What we do here, DOESN'T echoe in eternity. Of course you're one of those hippies who think every little thing matters but there we can just agree to disagree. I'm here to stimulate my intellectual side. Ok, in reality I'm here to torment myself. What's the difference :F

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your whole NATO thing made no sense to me (make the armies even MORE complex and inefficient?) so I'll skip it and come back later. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

There's nothing wrong with my NATO explanation. Besides, you asked for it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>
To clear things out: I don't think it's possible for every EU country to combine effectively their whole armies in to one homogenous entity. It's just not possible to gather an army as big as other bigger countries have from so many little nations. Hence: one large scale task force that leads all the armies from all EU countries if/when crap hits the fan. And I said I'm no military expert, just my opinion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reealllyyyy??? It's called hyperbole, you missed the joke. Of course Zepplins were filled with Hydrogen, that's why the Hindenburg exploded into a fireball. Maybe they don't have the 'you're full of hot air' expression in Finland? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

We do in a form or another. In this case, lacking witty retort, I was just screwing with you. You have to learn to chill out, d00d! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And I fixed your quotes, nubcaek. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And I lub you for that. H?bel. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Too many quotes!!!

Re: shrewd - Answer the question and quit ducking me, Senator! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Re: posting matters or not - You and I both know it doesn't matter. So don't use it as part of your argument to weaken others' arguments. That's dirty pool. There's no reason for you to have said it.

re: NATO/EU Armed Forces - The large scale task force would basically be the replacement for a US force. It would have to be considerably larger and more expensive than anything europe has ever tried since... ehhh... WW2? Probably politically unfeasible, but there has to be an answer. If the EU makes an armed forces, that means the end of NATO and the end of leaning on the US to provide about 85% of your total forces. Europe has not had to make real armies in 60 years, you're in for some sticker shock.

re: chilling - your usual sense of humor went over my head. I apologise if you thought I was mad, I responded in a jokey manner I thought. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Maybe I've been missing something all along here. Does finland really have much of a national identity? You seem very eager to be assimilated by the EU. If the french were not running the EU like they are these days, and were instead on the receiving end of assimilation and loss of french law, culture, etc. I'm sure they'd be going berserk. Maybe you're so mellow about it just because that's the laplander way? I'm trying to understand you, you crazy snowman... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

othell · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If the french were not running the EU like they are these days, and were instead on the receiving end of assimilation and loss of french law, culture, etc. I'm sure they'd be going berserk.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Wasn't there something many moons ago about the French abandoning some common internet term... I want to say it was "emai", but I'm not completely sure on that. They wanted to use some new french term instead of the commonly used one out of fear of their culture being overtaken or something silly like that....

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 18 2003, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Too many quotes!!! </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Narf! You are taking that old confused man stance again but you aint foolin' me this time o_O I'll take them one by one.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Re: shrewd - Answer the question and quit ducking me, Senator! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
What was the question again? I said: yes, it's screwed. Every member nation should have some sort of voting right.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Re: posting matters or not - You and I both know it doesn't matter. So don't use it as part of your argument to weaken others' arguments. That's dirty pool. There's no reason for you to have said it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Argh! What argument, do you assume, I was trying to weaken? Your thinking pattern baffles me. I just said that there's no much we can do here, in a manner that I can't affect what happens in the EU, meaning that everything I say here is just my personal opinion that has nothing to do with anything. Was there a reason to say it? Prolly not, but it didn't do any harm and it didn't attack any of your arguments!

Hoozaa! Remember your stress points Dread. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>re: NATO/EU Armed Forces - The large scale task force would basically be the replacement for a US force. It would have to be considerably larger and more expensive than anything europe has ever tried since... ehhh... WW2? Probably politically unfeasible, but there has to be an answer. If the EU makes an armed forces, that means the end of NATO and the end of leaning on the US to provide about 85% of your total forces. Europe has not had to make real armies in 60 years, you're in for some sticker shock.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Lack of major combat doesn't mean we don't have any real armies <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> Besides, making real war-able armies has to happen sooner or later. Rather have it happen sooner.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>re: chilling - your usual sense of humor went over my head. I apologise if you thought I was mad, I responded in a jokey manner I thought. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yes, you are totally mad, but it's ok here in discussions <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Maybe I've been missing something all along here. Does finland really have much of a national identity? You seem very eager to be assimilated by the EU. If the french were not running the EU like they are these days, and were instead on the receiving end of assimilation and loss of french law, culture, etc. I'm sure they'd be going berserk. Maybe you're so mellow about it just because that's the laplander way? I'm trying to understand you, you crazy snowman... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I can't speak for other finns and I have to admit that I'm probably more eager than average guy. We have our traditions and national identity just as everyone else, a proud one if I might add. You might've seen how finns flag their nationality as much in the intraweb as yanks <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>
However I'm not so sure if we will even lose our national identity in the first place, but if that happens I'm not scared. World evolves and I'm willing to give up part of our nationality if that's what it takes to get this Union working. I think more people should think like that too. Maybe my little mind just has been poisoned with that 'teh big EU-nation' mentality. It would be so cool to have a nation that is actually able to compete with other big ones and can stand for itself instead of leaning on others. The more there is big super-nations guarding each other in the world, more balanced it is. Currently it's not very nice to see how USA/China goes and others watch, and none can do anything about it. With 2 or 3 big nations keeping each others on their toes, world would be more secure place too. And development would be faster, I want my jetpack! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> I guess I'm just different in them brainz0rs <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Besides, I don't live in Lapland. I live in Eastern-Finland province or in It?-suomen l??ni <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Now it's time to snoozors. I'm absolutely thrilled waiting to read your...arguments tomorrow. Thrilled I tell you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Edit: Do you think there is a reason that you and I are the only ones posting here and we get only 2 line side-comments from all the others?

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

Heh heh. You are fun to argue with, Dread - it's impossible to dislike you even when we're so diametrically opposed. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

But enough compliments, En Garde!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I said: yes, it's screwed. Every member nation should have some sort of voting right.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ahhhhh. finally, you make sense. Yes, you are right. That's screwed, and that's why the current Constitution and the thought patterns of the bully nations needs to be revamped. We agree!!!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lack of major combat doesn't mean we don't have any real armies? Besides, making real war-able armies has to happen sooner or later. Rather have it happen sooner.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As you yourself have said, you don't know much about the military <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>. None of the EU nations has a standing army capable of fighting even a small conflict on it's own. I'm not saying you don't have 'real' armies, I'm saying you don't have properly equipped ones for any kind of sizable task. Hell, Britain almost lost a war to Argentina for gosh sakes, and that was back when it had a much more sizable Navy than it does today. Force projection is not a european forte anymore. There aren't any sizable Marine or naval forces, no real aircraft carriers, no nuclear powered fleets, no large submarine forces, no intercontinental bombers, no stealth, no large heliborne units - nothing beyond modest air forces, coastal navies, and untested ground units. And let's not forget that Iraq used quite a lot of French and German military hardware to augment their Russian eqipment, all which managed to inflict just about no damage on the US in two wars. All of western europe navies combined equals roughly one US naval amphibious task force in terms of long-range force projection, for example. And that's only in size, not sophistication. If you are looking to influence events outside of your borders, you are starting almost from scratch.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, you are totally mad</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Touche! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can't speak for other finns and I have to admit that I'm probably more eager than average guy. We have our traditions and national identity just as everyone else, a proud one if I might add. You might've seen how finns flag their nationality as much in the intraweb as yanks?
However I'm not so sure if we will even lose our national identity in the first place, but if that happens I'm not scared. World evolves and I'm willing to give up part of our nationality if that's what it takes to get this Union working. I think more people should think like that too. Maybe my little mind just has been poisoned with that 'teh big EU-nation' mentality. It would be so cool to have a nation that is actually able to compete with other big ones and can stand for itself instead of leaning on others. The more there is big super-nations guarding each other in the world, more balanced it is. Currently it's not very nice to see how USA/China goes and others watch, and none can do anything about it. With 2 or 3 big nations keeping each others on their toes, world would be more secure place too. And development would be faster, I want my jetpack!? I guess I'm just different in them brainz0rs </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So what you describe is the equivalent of multinational conglomerates - USA Inc, China Services Ltd, and EU Industries. A fair analogy of how things are going. Does all this come down to keeping the EU competitive economically? Why monkey about with constitutions and foreign ministers and such, and just create some expanded trade laws? Seems like overkill - which is why I don't believe it. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Besides, I don't live in Lapland. I live in Eastern-Finland province or in It?-suomen l??ni </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
LOL. Now who's arguing over hot air? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

tbZBeAst · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Doesn't the Magna Carta count? Brits have a Constitution of sorts too, unless I'm mistaken. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Nope, not as such, there are pressure groups dedicated to the creation of an official written constitution, Charter 88 off the top of my head. Britain has always taken the view that human rights are encompassed within legislature and precedent.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not saying you don't have 'real' armies, I'm saying you don't have properly equipped ones for any kind of sizable task </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Doesn't stop you needing our help <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

As for your point on trade, I wholeheartedly agree, Britain never went into the EC with the aim of surrendering economic or political sovereignty, as a trade bloc the EU can work, and quite happily dominate, as a political union? I fear it will tear itself apart first.

Immacolata · December 2003

France and Germany are greatly contributing to that now. As long as they are unwilling to pave the way and give up national sovereignity and hand it over to a formal EU body, it won't be possible.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Dec 19 2003, 06:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Doesn't stop you needing our help <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Not to get even further O/T, but your help was not needed militarily at all - the US Marine Corps alone is larger than the whole British armed forces by almost double, and my beloved Corps is but 5% of the entire US Armed forces strength manpower-wise.

Your help was certainly appreciated though! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Vulgar_Menace · December 2003

here are my opinions : the polish pres really screwed up, and SNAFU is a funny word.

Dread · December 2003

I'm gone one day and this thread drops to the bottom <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ahhhhh. finally, you make sense. Yes, you are right. That's screwed, and that's why the current Constitution and the thought patterns of the bully nations needs to be revamped. We agree!!!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

\o/

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you are looking to influence events outside of your borders, you are starting almost from scratch.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Then be it so. However bullying smaller nations doesn't require large armies and I have no intentions of conquering the world, so why would EU need an army that could influence events outside our borders? Take a look at Finlands army(I'm talking about it because I know little of others): we have army that is enough to keep our country secured against foreign threats. At least in the sense of "it costs too much to take over Finland compared to the gain we get there." That's enough for me, of course I don't know what they are planning in the top sekrat EU-bunker with their attack plans to USA.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So what you describe is the equivalent of multinational conglomerates - USA Inc, China Services Ltd, and EU Industries. A fair analogy of how things are going. Does all this come down to keeping the EU competitive economically? Why monkey about with constitutions and foreign ministers and such, and just create some expanded trade laws? Seems like overkill - which is why I don't believe it. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I mentioned plenty of reasons: economy, scientific development, not being dependant on country defending you that violates human rights. Now that USA has gone solo from UN and all kinds of international agreements, there is bigger than ever need to be able to protect ourselves. Besides, if Europe becomes one powerful entity, militarily and economically, it has something to say when other big countries do something in the world. Currently European countries don't have any effect on what Coalition does in the middle east. Of course, few European countries are part of Coalition so that makes things quite complicated. Like I said before, we need separation of NATO and EU. When China attacks Taiwan or Nepal or whatnot, they might actually listen what EU has to say about the issue. They won't listen what German, GB and France has to say individually.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>LOL. Now who's arguing over hot air? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hey, I'm not calling YOU Californian or anything <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> Hell, did you actually live in California? Wasn't it Ohio? Some place with Tornados and shizzle...wait! It has to be Kansas <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Edit: WTH is with this board borking my quotes all the time? I bet you harcoded some Anti-Dread quote-killer bot.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>so why would EU need an army that could influence events outside our borders?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So if a repeat of the 1990-1991 gulf war occured, only this time you weren't going to get any help from the US, you'd be able to do something about it. Or if perhaps your friends the Russians decide that a good war is just the thing to keep Putin happy. Or perhaps some of your world allies require your help? No one ever lost a war by being too prepared; only not prepared enough.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Currently European countries don't have any effect on what Coalition does in the middle east. Of course, few European countries are part of Coalition so that makes things quite complicated. Like I said before, we need separation of NATO and EU. When China attacks Taiwan or Nepal or whatnot, they might actually listen what EU has to say about the issue. They won't listen what German, GB and France has to say individually.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Interesting points, although I disagree with the statement that few european nations are part of the Coalition ( <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-4.html</a> - I count 20).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some place with Tornados and shizzle...wait! It has to be Kansas</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Good lord, I know you live in a tiny ultra-homogenous unpopulated frozen wasteland, but how hard is it for you remember that it's HURRICANES and NORTH CAROLINA. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

And stop intentionally borking your quotes, I'm sick of cleaning up your messes. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 21 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>so why would EU need an army that could influence events outside our borders?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So if a repeat of the 1990-1991 gulf war occured, only this time you weren't going to get any help from the US, you'd be able to do something about it. Or if perhaps your friends the Russians decide that a good war is just the thing to keep Putin happy. Or perhaps some of your world allies require your help? No one ever lost a war by being too prepared; only not prepared enough.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Defending ourselves from Russia doesn't mean we have to influence events outside our borders. Influencing inside our borders is our primary goal. Then, we can perhaps advance to the level of conquering small nations just out of boredom. Isn't that the definition of superpower? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

And Finlands army alone could have managed your petty gulf war <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> We don't need huge arse armies for those small conflicts.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Interesting points, although I disagree with the statement that few european nations are part of the Coalition ( <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-4.html</a> - I count 20).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You Touche-d me inside. Right, so 20 european and few of them <b>EU</b> countries. I'm sure Iceland contributes a lot to these wars <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Good lord, I know you live in a tiny ultra-homogenous unpopulated frozen wasteland, but how hard is it for you remember that it's HURRICANES and NORTH CAROLINA. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

See, now you're asking me to remember FOUR things about you: that you live in USA's Hurricane-zone, in Caroline and in NORTHERN parts of it. That's just too much information for me to absorb when my brains are completely frozen. And I have to type with one hand only while I'm trying to get rid of that polar bear harassing me all the time.

Ooops, what's that button do? It says: "BREAK QUOTES!" Hmmm...

othell · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Defending ourselves from Russia doesn't mean we have to influence events outside our borders. Influencing inside our borders is our primary goal. Then, we can perhaps advance to the level of conquering small nations just out of boredom. Isn't that the definition of superpower? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No matter what you do you will influence events outside your border. The question here is do you want to influence them for the good or do you want to influence them for the bad? You WILL need an army capable of influencing events outside your borders if you want to influence things for the good... Not only that, but just having an army that is capable of defending yourself falls into the category of under-prepared. So now you have to look back on what Monse said about that....

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And Finlands army alone could have managed your petty gulf war <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> We don't need huge arse armies for those small conflicts.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Petty? Finland's army could not do what the coalition did. You should go do a little research on what actually took place.... About how the war was actually won... About the multiple fronts that totally desimated any opposing forces. The war was far more complex than you give credit for. It only appeared to be so simple because of the US military and its technological superiority to any other force in this world. Any other nation could not have done what was accomplished in Iraq as well, or even nearly as well, as we did...

Can Finland's army even work in sand? There's no snow or ice in Iraq... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>See, now you're asking me to remember FOUR things about you: that you live in USA's Hurricane-zone, in Caroline and in NORTHERN parts of it. That's just too much information for me to absorb when my brains are completely frozen. And I have to type with one hand only while I'm trying to get rid of that polar bear harassing me all the time.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You listed 3 things... What's the fourth?

tbZBeAst · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 19 2003, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Dec 19 2003, 06:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Doesn't stop you needing our help <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Not to get even further O/T, but your help was not needed militarily at all - the US Marine Corps alone is larger than the whole British armed forces by almost double, and my beloved Corps is but 5% of the entire US Armed forces strength manpower-wise.

Your help was certainly appreciated though! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Maybe, but I was thinking in terms of political legitimacy.

Oh and it reminds me of an old naval quote:

"How does it feel being the second largest Navy in the world?"
"Fine. How does it feel being the second best?"

Lets not go down the road of "my dad is bigger than your dad", though. Too often on these boards patriotism and a lack of a sense of humour combine at their worst to descend into aggressive jingoism. See how I **** the high ground? hurrah for me! - /edit weird it censored s.t.o.l.e.

Seriously now (since we're kinda in agreement here MonsE - ack!)

Dread -

Whats the point of having an army incapable of influencing events outside its own borders? I'd say thats not an army, its a civil defence force. the only thing civil defence forces can do is defend against attack. You might as well withdraw from the international arena completely. Allies under attack would be better helped with military support, than sympathetic words. How do you make an empire builder stop it? How do you persuade a dictator to free his people?

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Oh and it reminds me of an old naval quote:

"How does it feel being the second largest Navy in the world?"
"Fine. How does it feel being the second best?"  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Heh heh. Naturally, that quote was before the days of nuclear aircraft carriers - you truly are second best now, just ask Argentina <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> And hell, even France has a big ol' carrier these days (for delivering baguettes to their dictator allies at 35 knots, but still) <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> I kid, I kid - I've spent plenty of time training with Royal Marines and other limey troops, and you guys are top notch.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Whats the point of having an army incapable of influencing events outside its own borders? I'd say thats not an army, its a civil defence force. the only thing civil defence forces can do is defend against attack. You might as well withdraw from the international arena completely. Allies under attack would be better helped with military support, than sympathetic words. How do you make an empire builder stop it? How do you persuade a dictator to free his people? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Agreed. Better to simply have no armed forces and save your money for plane tickets that you'll use when you flee the country in terror.

othell · December 2003

lol mons

Fnarg · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Dec 19 2003, 06:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Whats the point of having an army incapable of influencing events outside its own borders? I'd say thats not an army, its a civil defence force. the only thing civil defence forces can do is defend against attack. You might as well withdraw from the international arena completely. Allies under attack would be better helped with military support, than sympathetic words. How do you make an empire builder stop it? How do you persuade a dictator to free his people?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well if you really do think so, I would prefer that every country in the world should just have a civil defense force. Seems like the main use for an "real army" is to pull the populations interest towards petty dictatorships a long way off, so that they wont notice the problems they have at home, re-elect the same president or to secure the needs of the big oil-companies or whatever campaing donors <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> . Sadly the potential to do war agains your fellow neigbours has nothing to do wether the attacking troops are called "civil defense force" or "army". IMHO there are no armies that are incapable to influence events outside its own borders, or do they make tanks/rifles/aeroplanes that only work inside their own borders?

tbZBeAst · December 2003

edit: I was just going to say: "That was kinda my point." and leave it there, but I don't think thats enough.

Of course its possible to have a civil defence force incapable of influencing events outside its own borders. Japan had one for years, not constrained by technology, but by treaty.

Also, if I want to get really pedantic, then you could have a state with a sufficiently large force that has no mechanism for deployment, staging or supply outside its own borders.

The thrust of the post was that Dread didn't WANT to be able to influence events outside his national borders, I was arguing that that was naieve.

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Dec 21 2003, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Petty? Finland's army could not do what the coalition did. You should go do a little research on what actually took place.... About how the war was actually won... About the multiple fronts that totally desimated any opposing forces. The war was far more complex than you give credit for. It only appeared to be so simple because of the US military and its technological superiority to any other force in this world. Any other nation could not have done what was accomplished in Iraq as well, or even nearly as well, as we did...

Can Finland's army even work in sand? There's no snow or ice in Iraq... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I was talking about the first Gulf war. My point is: there is no need for state of the art armies if you are going to invade a 10 times smaller country that is stuck in the 60s.

And Finlands army can work in any given terrain <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>See, now you're asking me to remember FOUR things about you: that you live in USA's Hurricane-zone, in Caroline and in NORTHERN parts of it. That's just too much information for me to absorb when my brains are completely frozen. And I have to type with one hand only while I'm trying to get rid of that polar bear harassing me all the time.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You listed 3 things... What's the fourth?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Four: Hurricanes, USA, Caroline and northern parts if it. Don't start with me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (H?bel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Agreed. Better to simply have no armed forces and save your money for plane tickets that you'll use when you flee the country in terror.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So you are saying that a nation has two options: Army capable of invading neighboring nations and no army at all? There, again, we disagree heavily. Same with you Othell and Beast. You are claiming that Finland should either have an army that can invade Sweden and our other neighbouring countries, or then we should just get rid of the army once and for all. However we've managed with an army that can't influence much outside our borders, but we can defend ourselves. I can't understand why the same couldn't work with EU. If course EU could have an army that is capable of defending itself and intervening small time conflicts outside EUs borders, but I don't understand why we would need an army capable of going head on with USA? Like I said before: maybe you do, but we don't have the need to take over the world. Just defend our small piece of land and mayhaps give a helping hand every now and then to our allies.

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

So many incorrect things to correct! I have my teaching cut out for me today <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well if you really do think so, I would prefer that every country in the world should just have a civil defense force. Seems like the main use for an "real army" is to pull the populations interest towards petty dictatorships a long way off</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Actually, it's the reverse. A civil-defense only type army is ideally suited to dictatorships, as it can easily and effectively repress its own population. Dictators sometimes build bigger armies for narcissistic reasons, or to threaten/invade weaker neighbors, control the economy, etc. But in say, Africa, they are almost exclusively civil-defense, for example.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>IMHO there are no armies that are incapable to influence events outside its own borders, or do they make tanks/rifles/aeroplanes that only work inside their own borders?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I could explain modern military logistics to you, or you could believe me when I say that this statement is incorrect. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> Yes, a tank does not stop at the border. Without the ability to maintain logistics and project force over long distances, esp. with a navy, you are a small regional civil defense force.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was talking about the first Gulf war. My point is: there is no need for state of the art armies if you are going to invade a 10 times smaller country that is stuck in the 60s.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Actually, you are even more incorrect if you meant the 1st gulf war. In that conflict the US armed forces were far less modern, and the Iraqi forces were far more modern (heavily bolstered with lots of fine European military hardware!) than they were in 2003. I can point you to lots and lots of information on this if you need a few weeks reading. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And Finlands army can work in any given terrain </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Sooooooo not true. If you bring your forces into a desert, you are going to be hurting for quite some time. I would certainly not want to meet you in the snow though! And you do have a small but excellent US-built air force <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> .

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Four: Hurricanes, USA, Caroline and northern parts if it. Don't start with me </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
There's no single northern part of Carolina. There's North Carolina and South Carolina - proper names, capitalized. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> You're doing far better than I am on Finlandia geography mind you!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but I don't understand why we would need an army capable of going head on with USA?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No one is saying that you MUST do these things as Finland. I am saying you should do these things as the <i>EU</i>, if the <i>EU</i> is to matter beyond being a pretty currency and some tax laws. Stay with me here, buddy! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Edits: content calrification, spellingz0r.

Dread · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 23 2003, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>IMHO there are no armies that are incapable to influence events outside its own borders, or do they make tanks/rifles/aeroplanes that only work inside their own borders?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I could explain modern military logistics to you, or you could believe me when I say that this statement is incorrect. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> Yes, a tank does not stop at the border. Without the ability to maintain logistics and project force over long distances, esp. with a navy, you are a small regional civil defense force.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Quite right. Again I take an example from Finlands army, because that is the one I know best. We would be having hard time attacking neighboring countries as we don't have equipment to attack Estonia or Sweden, however we excell at defending ourselves. Tank doesn't stop on borders but our army is based on mining and blocking all roads forcing the enemy to mostly advance by foot through forests for hundreds of kilometers in -30 degrees, I'd call it a defensive army. So yes, there are defensive and 'aggressive' armies.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was talking about the first Gulf war. My point is: there is no need for state of the art armies if you are going to invade a 10 times smaller country that is stuck in the 60s.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Actually, you are even more incorrect if you meant the 1st gulf war. In that conflict the US armed forces were far less modern, and the Iraqi forces were far more modern (heavily bolstered with lots of fine European military hardware!) than they were in 2003. I can point you to lots and lots of information on this if you need a few weeks reading. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But you don't need to have huge high-tech army to invade so much smaller nations. EU doesn't need an army as big as USA has to attack a mid-east country every now and then. You can do that with smaller army too.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And Finlands army can work in any given terrain </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Sooooooo not true. If you bring your forces into a desert, you are going to be hurting for quite some time. I would certainly not want to meet you in the snow though! And you do have a small but excellent US-built air force <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hence the smileee. I know our army has been formed cold conditions and forests in mind. And our air force is completely built in Finland. US-designed fighters though <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>
However I don't think 40 some F18 can do much against Russias(biggest threat) air force. Theirs is slightly older but there's not much we can do against thousand(s) of planes. That's another good reason for EU to form an integrated army capable of defending itself from Russia. However there's no need to have an army large enough to invade Russia or any other large country.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but I don't understand why we would need an army capable of going head on with USA?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No one is saying that you MUST do these things as Finland. I am saying you should do these things as the <i>EU</i>, if the <i>EU</i> is to matter beyond being a pretty currency and some tax laws. Stay with me here, buddy! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I was talking about 'we', as in EU and I don't still understand why we would need an ?ber army. It seems like you think there is only two options: super influence over everything or no influence at all. Why can't we just influence a bit?

PS. And let's leave the geography aside, please <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

MonsieurEvil · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So yes, there are defensive and 'aggressive' armies.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Aptly put.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But you don't need to have huge high-tech army to invade so much smaller nations</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You do if you want to minimize civillian and your own casualties, and completely destroy your enemy's armed forces in short order. I don't think you understand how amazingly stupendously unheard of the US military victory was in Iraq, as far as casualties on both sides, ground taken, etc. There is no parable in history at all, nothing even close. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a complete bloodbath by comparison, and that was in a much smaller theater of operations.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And our air force is completely built in Finland. US-designed fighters though </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Not according to the Finnish Defense Forces <a href='http://www2.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/00116_en.dsp' target='_blank'>website</a>. In fact from reading on, it seems that just about nothing of yours is designed or manufactured locally (hell, you even use ex-Soviet armored fighting vehicles, and we saw how well THAT worked out for the iraqi's!). I sure hope you don't get into a trade embargo with any of your defense contractor nations, you'll be breaking out the slingshots. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was talking about 'we', as in EU and I don't still understand why we would need an ?ber army. It seems like you think there is only two options: super influence over everything or no influence at all. Why can't we just influence a bit?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Good lord, finally almost back on topic! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> I am not saying super influence over everything, I am saying that with the current EU nations simply putting their forces together and calling it the 'EU Army', they pretty much don't influence anything. If you want to give your new Union any way to be more than an impotent economic version of the UN, you need to have an armed forces which works 5 miles outside the borders of your countries. If some crazed dictator takes control of Saudi Arabia and says 'no more oil!', the US simply starts pumping out of Alaska. You on the other hand, need to go in there and take charge, or fall back into the dark ages. A rather improbable scenario I realise, but like I said before, no one ever lost a war by being too prepared.

Eu Constitution

Comments