EU army - would you support it? (mk 2) (revised, public poll)

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

WARNING! Public poll!

I have decided to create a new poll - for more precise poll results - to my former thread, which can be located here:
EU army - would you support it? (mk 1) (it can be closed and thanks for the help of Noble Savage )

Just for the record here is the previous OP:

At present, there is no military of the European Union, only minor joint projects such as the Eurofighter, forums for armaments cooperation, French-German joint operations etc.

However the new Treaty of Lisbon says:

'The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides'. (TEU, Article 27).

So if the Treaty comes into force, the further development of this article would be to finally establish a regular EU army with both peacekeeping and operational capabilites. In previous years both French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor urged to create the unified EU army at once.

Would you support an EU army?

Here is the wiki article, not too informative, but at least comprehensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...European_Union

Here are some news articles about the topic, arranged in chronological order (if you have any new, please post it and I will update the OP):
German foreign minister favours EU army - EUobserver.com
Call for EU to build its own army - BBC News
France is plotting to create an Euro Army - DailyMail Online
EU looks to the next 50 years – and an army? - Times Online

Some facts that may come in handy for the debate.

Current joint EU military forces and groups

EUFOR Althea (peacekeeping force composed of 7,000 troops stationed in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
European Union Force - the title used for EU peacekeeping deployments, which have included Bosnia/Hercegovina in 2002-, Chad/CAR, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Eurocorps (independent military force composed of 60,000 troops that can be deployed for various missions)
Eurofor (rapid reaction force under command of the Western European Union)
European Gendarmerie Force (crisis intervention force composed of 900 personnel, with 2,300 additional personnel that can be deployed as reinforcements)
Helsinki Headline Goal (listing of rapid reaction forces composed of 60,000 troops managed by the European Union, but under control of the countries who deliver troops for it)
European Union Battlegroups (closest thing to an EU military, composed of 15 battlegroups, each one numbering 1,500 troops)
European Union Military Staff (supervises military operations carried out by the EU; its chief is General Henri Bentegeat, a former chief of the French Defence Staff)
Euromarfor

It is quite obvious that EU army (with full French and German support) will one day or another become a reality, so the proper questions is: when?

Continue the debate here, please.

[LoZz]

britain will never agree to join a united european army.
the uk may well lend troops to an eu force, like it does to nato and the un, but thats as far as it goes. britains intrest around the world differ to mainland europe, take iraq and afganistan for example, and for an older example take the falklands. we need our own independant force to look after our own intrests which are vastly different to those of mainland europe.

[Norge]

Yes, Europe needs to unite to have a say in the world. Otherwise we'll always be at the mercy of nations like the U.S, Russia and China.

[Philos Sophos]

Well,because my nation is too small and doesn't have an proper army,I would support some kind of joint forces...

[Sven788]

I am an EU citizen and I would support only joint military forces/operations of European nations.

Only joint operations because losing our identity becomes dangerously close if the army is European.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I am an EU citizen and I would support only joint military forces/operations of European nations.

Only joint operations because losing our identity becomes dangerously close if the army is European.

How does national identity come into play?
Identity is about national culture, not national army.
I think what you are suggesting, that you don't want your country to lose its national sovereignity.

[Jacob Debroedere]

I would support a full grown EU army, but I don't see it happening in the near future.

A joint military operations organisation, somewhat similar to NATO is a more realistic idea. In that way separate nations can still send troops to whatever conflict they like (like Britain mentioned above).At the same time it would allow the EU to make a strong fist by sending a task force without relying on the US or any other non EU member.

There are however some obstacles to such a force;for example the EU nations lack sufficient transportation to organise large scale troop movements and of course some EU members strongly oppose any further 'EUropisation', let alone the forming of a EU army.

[bigfootedfred]

I am an EU citizen and I would support only joint military forces/operations of European nations.

Only joint operations because losing our identity becomes dangerously close if the army is European.

Agreed.
We dont need one. EU Forces can come together if they need to.
Many still have the NATO structure anyway.

i really dont see a need for a european army.

[Azog 150]

Another things Norge. You say we are an island nations and that is why we weren't beaten. In WW2 Norway practically was an island nation as Sweden was Neutral- I am pretty sure the Norwegians Army was beat within weeks. Most of your arguments against the British Military apply to Norway too.

Also, you keep on making this argument that Britain was getting beaten in World War 2 until the Americans showed up. That is wrong in so many ways I am not even going to get into it. Obviously your education has failed you.

[VALIS]

Another things Norge. You say we are an island nations and that is why we weren't beaten. In WW2 Norway practically was an island nation as Sweden was Neutral- I am pretty sure the Norwegians Army was beat within weeks. Most of your arguments against the British Military apply to Norway too.

Also, you keep on making this argument that Britain was getting beaten in World War 2 until the Americans showed up. That is wrong in so many ways I am not even going to get into it. Obviously your education has failed you.

Britain and the British Armed Forces put more effort into defending Norway than the Norwegians did themselves!

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Britain and the British Armed Forces put more effort into defending Norway than the Norwegians did themselves!

Well, they didn't. Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany during the whole time of WWII.

[Norge]

Another things Norge. You say we are an island nations and that is why we weren't beaten. In WW2 Norway practically was an island nation as Sweden was Neutral- I am pretty sure the Norwegians Army was beat within weeks. Most of your arguments against the British Military apply to Norway too.

Also, you keep on making this argument that Britain was getting beaten in World War 2 until the Americans showed up. That is wrong in so many ways I am not even going to get into it. Obviously your education has failed you.

Obviously your education has failed you.
The invasion of Norway was a complete surprise attack, no declaration of war, no chance to mobilize. Most of the resistance was done by civillians. The comparison is horrible either way as the Germans never attempted an invasion of Britain. Not to mention the enormous population difference between Britain and Norway...

There's really no doubt. If you didn't have the English channel to hide behind, you would have been occupied within weeks.

Britain and the British Armed Forces put more effort into defending Norway than the Norwegians did themselves!

You failed... Thanks, I guess.
Funny thing is that Churchill had planned to invade Norway just months before Germany did.

[Elrond]

If you didn't have the English channel to hide behind, you would have been occupied within weeks.

But we did. Britains military doctrine has always been to have a small well trained army and a powerful Navy to protect Britain and our interests around the world - the fact is that the English Channel has protected Britain for centuries meaning that we can get away with stuff that other countries would have been occupied for. It would be iditioic to have a military doctrine that wasnt based around our geographical position.

If you weren't pissed about British soldiers beating you up and sleeping with your local women then you might actually realize that Britain has the most experienced army in Europe - it takes part in proper combat missions such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan - our troops actually fight the taleban every day rather than hiding in Kabul or safe regions like the other European troops. Britain's army is sort of setup like a smaller version of the US army - with a powerful airforce, a navy setup to be a global expeditionary force and a well trained army. To say that Germany's army is more powerful is idiotic - it never conducts proper combat missions, it still uses conscription and the german public want all troops removed from an area as soon as a solider dies.

I would support a EU army of sorts - one which was made up of components of several armies - perhaps and expansion of the EU battle groups from 2 to 100 - from 3000 to 150,000 men - all of which could be on campaign at once.

[Markas]

Let's just take it one step at a time and not be felt up by countries with a rushed agenda and reputation for being fast-movers (Italy and France, I'm looking at you). Let's take it slowly. Let's go through first base before we skip to third.

[Каие]

I seriously can't see how an EU army will work when the Germans/French were anti-Iraq but Britain was for.

[Norge]

Then again, Luxembourg could probably contribute better soldiers than what I've seen from Britain. They may be good enough to fight peasant insurgents in Iraq, but faced with an organized army and they would get absolutely demolished.

Let the real Europeans fight for Europe, not some "pseudo-European" island state that has trough its history relied solely on an advantageous geographic position to further its goals.

[Markas]

Then again, Luxembourg could probably contribute better soldiers than what I've seen from Britain. They may be good enough to fight peasant insurgents in Iraq, but faced with an organized army and they would get absolutely demolished.

Let the real Europeans fight for Europe, not some "pseudo-European" island state that has trough its history relied solely on an advantageous geographic position to further its goals.

Edit your post because you didn't think it was quite hateful enough for anyone to reply? What 'organized army' would we fall before, would you say?

[Каие]

Then again, Luxembourg could probably contribute better soldiers than what I've seen from Britain. They may be good enough to fight peasant insurgents in Iraq, but faced with an organized army and they would get absolutely demolished.

Let the real Europeans fight for Europe, not some "pseudo-European" island state that has trough its history relied solely on an advantageous geographic position to further its goals.

The British Army is the best in Europe. But good to know you're not bias or anything...aren't you from Norway.. ?

[Markas]

The British Army is the best in Europe. But good to know you're not bias or anything...aren't you from Norway.. ?

I think he is, or some other piddling little nation.

[Philos Sophos]

The British Army is the best in Europe. But good to know you're not bias or anything...aren't you from Norway.. ?

You can't judge armies how good they are...you'd never know,maybe if a real war comes some other troops would be better...only a true war would show that...so there are no "best" armies.