• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Bringing Nato and the EU together


Sucker Punch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
1,561
Well, it's no secret, yet its interesting nonetheless. Of course our govt ridiculed those who pointed to this eventual development and even threw into the mix dis-information regarding the "conscription" agruement which was first raised by govt ministers to debase the advocates of what remains of Irish neutrality.


"If Europeans expect that the United States will close Guantanamo, sign up to climate change treaties, accept EU leadership on key issues, but provide nothing more than encouragement, for example in Afghanistan – then they should think again," the NATO secretary-general warned."

EUobserver

http://www.pana.ie/download/AFET_PR(2008)414153_EN.pdf

Here's a excerpt by Francis A. Boyle on the morality of NATO's much lauded humanitarian Intervention.


"How could NATO member Turkey ever credibly claim some fictive right of "humanitarian intervention" anywhere given its longstanding campaign to submerge the Kurds as well as its previous extermination of the Armenians, a genocide which it still denies today. Only the Nazi-German genocide against the Jews in Germany and elsewhere has been recognized for what it was. Yet today a generation later the gullible world is supposed to believe the NATO fairy-tale that the German Wehrmacht is now on some type of "humanitarian" mission in Afghanistan. The wanton aggression by the U.S.-U.K. and their "Coalition of the Willing" against Iraq in the name of bringing human rights and democracy has resulted in four million refugees, over a million Iraqi deaths, and the wholesale destruction of the country's infrastructure - outright genocide.



The United States and its NATO Alliance constitute the greatest collection of genocidal states ever assembled in the entire history of the world. If anything the United Nations Organization and its member states bear a "responsibility to protect" the U.S. and NATO's intended victims from their repeated aggressions as they should have done for Haiti, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and now Palestine. The United States and the NATO Alliance together with their de facto allies such as Israel constitute the real Axis of Genocide in the modern world. Humanity bears a "responsibility to protect" the very future existence of the world from the United States and NATO."

Z Space - Francis A.Boyle
 


Bobert

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,072
Well, the headline of the EUObserver article is
"NATO chief admits failure in drawing EU closer"


So how is this bringing them together?
 

Sucker Punch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
1,561
Well, the headline of the EUObserver article is
"NATO chief admits failure in drawing EU closer"


So how is this bringing them together?

It's clearly high on the agenda, and the previous quote has him throwing down the guantlet. If you read the article you will also note the statement "I hope that after the end of July my successor, NATO and the EU will have a fresh look and see how we can bring the parties together," Mr Scheffer said on Monday (26 January)."

Also, see the EP pdf, it makes quite an impression.
 
Last edited:

setanta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
649
You berk, SuckerPunch. The article clearly states that the ambition of the outgoing Sec Gen of NATO for closer ties with the EU has failed. He may well "hope" (to use his word) that his successor has more luck than he did, but it really is straining credulity (typical for a europhobe) to spin this into something that warrants the comment that it is "clearly high on the agenda" of the EU.

What is your next lie about the EU?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Also, see the EP pdf, it makes quite an impression.
Ah, the favoured eurosceptic tactic of "see this bland yet somehow sinister-sounding document! See how it mentions both the EU and NATO! Clearly it means they will merge into a hyper-militarised imperial power!".

Give it up, laddie - you'll go blind.
 

eurosceptic

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
83
Every treaty gradually nudges the EU closer to NATO and gives us a new looser definition of "neutrality". So its a very valid concern.
 

Sucker Punch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
1,561
You berk, SuckerPunch. The article clearly states that the ambition of the outgoing Sec Gen of NATO for closer ties with the EU has failed. He may well "hope" (to use his word) that his successor has more luck than he did, but it really is straining credulity (typical for a europhobe) to spin this into something that warrants the comment that it is "clearly high on the agenda" of the EU.

What is your next lie about the EU?

Well if it has failed there clearly was an effort to achieve it previously. It follows that if there was such an effort to which the Sec Gen has refered to in the article, then it is quite reasonable to consider a redoubling of efforts. Of course you neglect the quote in the OP calling for the EU to get its hands dirty in cleaning up the "coallition of the not so willing's" mess.
 
Last edited:

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Well if it has failed there clearly was an effort to achieve it previously. It follows that if there was such an effort to which the Sec Gen has refered to in the article, then it is quite reasonable to consider a redoubling of efforts. Of course you neglect the quote in the OP calling for the EU to get its hands dirty in cleaning up the "coallition of the not so willing's" mess.
The call...by NATO. Clearly if we are willing to consider calls by people who are not the EU for the EU to do things as evidence for what the EU will actually do, then UKIP's calls for the EU to disappear can be taken as evidence that the EU's plan is to disappear.

Every treaty gradually nudges the EU closer to NATO and gives us a new looser definition of "neutrality". So its a very valid concern.
Bollox. Every EU treaty says pretty much the same thing about NATO - that NATO is the defence arrangement for Europe. Let's do a quick comparison of the mentions of NATO in Nice and Lisbon, shall we?

Nice:

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

and

4. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union (WEU) and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this title.

Lisbon:

BEARING IN MIND that the policy of the Union in accordance with Article 42 shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in NATO, under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework,

and

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
Only a purblind idiot - or someone with an agenda willing to utterly ignore the facts - could claim that the second somehow "nudges us closer to NATO". If anything, Lisbon contains less about EU/NATO cooperation than Nice - but neither contain anything that suggests the EU and NATO are going to cooperate at all. Instead, the exclusive competence of NATO in the field of defence is clearly recognised.

Are you aware that your EU-bashing would have a great deal more credibility if occasionally your statements were factually accurate?
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,892
The call...by NATO. Clearly if we are willing to consider calls by people who are not the EU for the EU to do things as evidence for what the EU will actually do, then UKIP's calls for the EU to disappear can be taken as evidence that the EU's plan is to disappear.
To be fair, one might think that the proportion of EU members who are also members of NATO would have some relevance at this point.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
To be fair, one might think that the proportion of EU members who are also members of NATO would have some relevance at this point.
Only to the extent that the agenda of the Secretary-General of NATO represents the agenda of the EU member states within it. That is, pretty much to the same extent that Vaclav Klaus or Nicolas Sarkozy represents the agenda of the EU - and, let's face it, they can't both do so. It's a bit like saying that a reforming CEO represents the wishes of his/her company.

If anything, the fact that he was unable to bring the two organisations closer together despite their membership overlap strongly suggests that there is no appetite amongst the member states for such cooperation.
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,039
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
"If Europeans expect that the United States will close Guantanamo, sign up to climate change treaties, accept EU leadership on key issues, but provide nothing more than encouragement, for example in Afghanistan – then they should think again," the NATO secretary-general warned."
well thats up the european countries in nato, to provide troops


and nobody should expect anything else but the closure of guantanamo
 

spartacus

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
18
Lisbon said:
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
ibis
Why should the EU agree in advance that its policy will be compatible with NATO policy?
Leaving aside the fact that there may be criticisms to be made of existing NATO policy, we don't even know what NATO policy will be in the future.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
ibis
Why should the EU agree in advance that its policy will be compatible with NATO policy?
Leaving aside the fact that there may be criticisms to be made of existing NATO policy, we don't even know what NATO policy will be in the future.
Because (a) the EU has no choice, (b) the EU doesn't cover the same areas as NATO, and (c) they're not talking about day-to-day policies (the clue is the singular).
 

spartacus

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
18
Because (a) the EU has no choice,
Why not?
Does NATO not give the EU the choice?

(b) the EU doesn't cover the same areas as NATO,
Therefore slight policy differences would appear to be inevitable?

and (c) they're not talking about day-to-day policies (the clue is the singular).
From dictionary.com (search for "policy")
pol⋅i⋅cy1   /ˈpɒləsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pol-uh-see] –noun, plural -cies.
a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.
From dictionary.com (search for "policies")

pol⋅i⋅cy1   /ˈpɒləsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pol-uh-see] –noun, plural -cies.
a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.
Not sure I see the point you're getting at here?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Why not?
Does NATO not give the EU the choice?


Therefore slight policy differences would appear to be inevitable?



From dictionary.com (search for "policy")


From dictionary.com (search for "policies")



Not sure I see the point you're getting at here?
Are you going to pretend that it's possible to persuade you this isn't a vast sinister plot (or, rather, not to keep pretending that for the benefit of the public)? If you are, you'll need to try harder.
 

spartacus

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
18
Are you going to pretend that it's possible to persuade you this isn't a vast sinister plot (or, rather, not to keep pretending that for the benefit of the public)? If you are, you'll need to try harder.
I'm just telling you what the Treaty says and asking you why you think it's a good thing.
Are you going to deal with the issue or are you going to carry on pretending that anybody who has legitimate issues is involved in some big sinister plot ?
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
I'm just telling you what the Treaty says and asking you why you think it's a good thing.
Are you going to deal with the issue or are you going to carry on pretending that anybody who has legitimate issues is involved in some big sinister plot ?
I know what the Treaty says - I quoted it. It says the EU won't get in the way of member states' NATO commitments. If you think that's sinister, I advise hiding under the bed in case you see a postman.
 

spartacus

Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
18
I know what the Treaty says - I quoted it. It says the EU won't get in the way of member states' NATO commitments. If you think that's sinister, I advise hiding under the bed in case you see a postman.
And (quoting your quote, which is a very interesting one) I asked you:

spartacus said:
Why should the EU agree in advance that its policy will be compatible with NATO policy?
Leaving aside the fact that there may be criticisms to be made of existing NATO policy, we don't even know what NATO policy will be in the future.
It would be nice if you actually answered.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
And (quoting your quote, which is a very interesting one) I asked you:


It would be nice if you actually answered.
It would be nice if there were any point to doing so, but there ain't. Playing "ooh that sounds sinister" with EU treaties only holds the interest so long, particularly since all your side of the game consists of is innuendo.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
The United States and its NATO Alliance constitute the greatest collection of genocidal states ever assembled in the entire history of the world. If anything the United Nations Organization and its member states bear a "responsibility to protect" the U.S. and NATO's intended victims from their repeated aggressions as they should have done for Haiti, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and now Palestine. The United States and the NATO Alliance together with their de facto allies such as Israel constitute the real Axis of Genocide in the modern world. Humanity bears a "responsibility to protect" the very future existence of the world from the United States and NATO."

Z Space - Francis A.Boyle
I think you need to buy a dictionary and look up the word genocide. While you're at it you should buy a copy and send it several world leaders i.e. Chavez.

It's amazing that so many people have no idea what a simple word means.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top