Eu head wants an EU army

Exactly and the war started in 1991!

In that time over 100,000 died and 4 million were displaced.
I don’t recall NATO being called on to act with ground troops until the Dayton Accord. Do you have a source for that?

If you mean the delay between ‘91 and ‘95, I think that can rest at the talking shop of the U.N. even when they did something it seemed too little too late.
 
Does that mean you haven't signed up to the Lisbon treaty and Article 42 (7) or not?
EUR-Lex - 12008M042 - EN - EUR-Lex
We have, otherwise the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t exist as all member states have to ratify it, note the Irish protocol

Notice the wording, so in other words don’t expect direct military assistance from Ireland if you are attacked. That doesn’t mean you won’t receive other types of assistance (eg we deployed a small amount of additional Irish troops to Mali when France was attacked)
 
The Europeans, the EU have a history, a record, of fielding, on the whole somewhat less that successful armies in the recent past than we have in the United Kingdom. A painful record written in the blood of our young men.

This country has contributed and continues to contribute to Europe's defence, it however might well be time, since their disregard for Cameron’s modest requests, and our vote to rule ourselves, for them perhaps to do a little more, for themselves.
 
Dayton Accord November 1995. NATO troops under IFOR arrived in December 1995 for one year until SFOR was established in December 1996.
I thought the question was regarding NATO deploying troops as we were talking IFOR and SFOR? If you're talking about UN Resolutions, peacekeepers and support to them, there may be a different answer. However, I don't believe NATO can be held to blame for a lack of action in the UN personally.
I don’t recall NATO being called on to act with ground troops until the Dayton Accord. Do you have a source for that?

If you mean the delay between ‘91 and ‘95, I think that can rest at the talking shop of the U.N. even when they did something it seemed too little too late.
So 4 years

3 NATO members also have a veto at the UNSC, grandad not used

The Europeans didn’t have the ability
 
That's why you need one European army as opposed to an alliance. Since no one member state controls that army or even a part of it agenda and historical enmities don't come into it.



In one way not a very good example since the operation to retake the Falklands wasn't a NATO one, it was a solo run by British forces.

In another way it's a great example of why NATO is a busted flush and an alliance is a less preferable option to a European Army. When UK forces invaded the Falklands, personnel were drawn from all parts of the UK, and Nepal and probably other parts of the world. Crucially they were operating under one command and loyal to one political entity.
???
 
Ineffective NFZ and sanctions enforcement ?

What was needed was troops on the ground
No shit Sherlock. As has been posted many times in the last 24 hours, the inability of the UN to act quickly was the stumbling block.
 
I thought the French played in Nato now?
I'm suggesting the future, and if France are playing in NATO now are they playing or just standing on the sideline making a bit of random noise.
 
I am, I wanted to vote the feckers away from us!
I'm with you Independence for England. The trouble is there'd just be a massive wave of migrants before we could get the fences up and we'd be stuck with all the Scots/Welsh/NI wastrels in our territory instead of at least keeping them on their own patch.
 
We have, otherwise the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t exist as all member states have to ratify it, note the Irish protocol

Notice the wording, so in other words don’t expect direct military assistance from Ireland if you are attacked. That doesn’t mean you won’t receive other types of assistance (eg we deployed a small amount of additional Irish troops to Mali when France was attacked)
I know what the wording means. It’s why I posted it. The point is, and back on thread, the Irish citizens who join the EU Army but will be expected to fight much like those who join the British Army, yet Ireland and others are neutral; but their Army is now Europe’s not a ‘foreign power’ per se
 
So 4 years

3 NATO members also have a veto at the UNSC, grandad not used

The Europeans didn’t have the ability
You mean a consensus wasn’t achieved. That’s the U.N., unlike NATO
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Military forces are deployed for political reasons. Who would be the decision makers on the political front-end?
Napoleon Buonaparte mk 2
 
I don’t recall NATO being called on to act with ground troops until the Dayton Accord. Do you have a source for that?

If you mean the delay between ‘91 and ‘95, I think that can rest at the talking shop of the U.N. even when they did something it seemed too little too late.

These things take time. I was the last Brit OC in Tuzla in the north, handing over to Nordbat, a force 4 times bigger than mine in the autumn of 1993. However, even by then, I'd hosted a visiting US Maj Gen for a recce.

The Nordic Bn was later replaced by an American led Division. It is usually the case in these matters that bad things have to get worse before they begin to get better.
 
These things take time. I was the last Brit OC in Tuzla in the north, handing over to Nordbat, a force 4 times bigger than mine in the autumn of 1993. However, even by then, I'd hosted a visiting US Maj Gen for a recce.
For me, that is the whole point of this discussion. A war actually in Europe, yet the US was still needed. Here we are, 25 years later and I doubt ‘Europe’ let alone the EU could do it alone
The Nordic Bn was later replaced by an American led Division. It is usually the case in these matters that bad things have to get worse before they begin to get better.
Always is. The media need to feed the people who then raise the questions.
 

Latest Threads

Top