The Instigator
Milukas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
brittwaller
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

European Union should have an army .

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,236 times Debate No: 3920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Milukas

Pro

My argument is that EU (27 member states) should have one army .

1 - One army for EU would be good politically ,
it would make them more unite and they would exercise more power .

"United we stand, divided we fall. " Aesop

2 - They would spend less money in long term , because
they would produce more of the same weapons , mass production .

3 - All military secret technologies would be shared and scientist
would cooperate more .
"Two heads are better then one ."
brittwaller

Con

Thank you to my opponent Milukas for posting this topic. May we have a good debate.

I do not wish to debate semantics, but I must provide two definitions for clarification.

Should - aux.v. P.t. of shall. - Used to express obligation, necessity, probability, or contingency. (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Ed.)

My opponent clearly wants to express necessity in his resolution. So be it. If he thinks my interpretation incorrect, I'm sure I'll know.

Necessary - adj. - 1. Absolutely essential; indispensable 2. Unavoidably determined; inevitable 3. Required, as by obligation, compulsion, or convention.

I will be dealing with the first definition of necessary in this case, as again I assume this was Milukas' intent.

Unfortunately, there is no necessity as regards the creation of a European Union Army. The present forces of each individual nation are sufficient, especially for the rather vague and limited mandate they act on. In addition, 22 of the 27 "independent and sovereign nations" of the EU are also members of NATO. The member nations already cooperate quite well and frequently with each other. Naturally there are logistical problems; this should not come as a shock for any who grasp the rich diversity of Europe's peoples. With care, however, these problems can be worked down to a bare minimum. I fail to see how a new EU-military-unto-itself could do much better than whatever that minimum happens to be. Again, it is not a necessity, therefore by definition my opponent's stance toward the resolution at hand is incorrect.

"1 - One army for EU would be good politically ,
it would make them more unite[d] and they would exercise more power .

'United we stand, divided we fall.' Aesop"

-The EU is already "united," hence European *Union*
And to what end would they [the EU] exercise their added power? That is, if one can really claim that they would have more power. The EU has as much power as it has, regardless of whether they have a single military or each nation cooperates accordingly with its own forces. A single military may give the appearance of more power, but nothing more unless great policy changes went along with its creation. A single military would undermine the sovereignty of all of its member states, however. This is about one step away from a new "European Empire." You also speak of the "exercise of more [military] power" as if it were automatically a good thing. Anyone remember Napoleon?

"2 - They would spend less money in long term , because
they would produce more of the same weapons , mass production."

-I gathered from this wreckage of verbiage that you are referring to a logistical problem. Perhaps the best minds in Europe could find solutions without a requisite EU ARMY.

"3 - All military secret technologies would be shared and scientist[s]
would cooperate more .
'Two heads are better th[a]n one.'"

-I request proof to verify the validity of this claim. What part of the EU is lacking in secret military technology? Also, if the owners of these secrets told the rest of the EU, it wouldn't really be secret, would it? :)

I submit that all of my opponent's arguments are invalid, even if we excuse his blunder in the creation of the debate resolution. I look forward to a response.

Back to you, Milukas

Britt
Debate Round No. 1
Milukas

Pro

First of all i am sorry for not posting debate resolution and for my English grammar mistakes .

1 - Eu is not united on my causes about the war .

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom send troops to Iraq or gave political support.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But other countries of Eu protested against the war like
Austria , Belgium , Croatia , France , Germany , Greece , Liechtenstein , Slovenia , Sweden , Vatican City
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So even if European Union has union in it's name it does not that they are
united about the decision they should or should not support a war .

2 - "A single military would undermine the sovereignty of all of its member states"
They could always do a vote and see if the majority accepts the decision ,
like American politician do it in the Senate.

3 - And if Eu had more military power it could help America more in the war of Afghanistan and it would be a good thing .

4 - If a country in Eu told to other countries about the secret , it would not
mean that they would tell the secret to the rest of the world . :)

And secondly if look for example Eastern Europe of Eu you will see that
the use some old weapons look for example Lithuanian (i am from this country) army ,they use soviet type helicopters Mil Mi-8 and it is not really modern .
And i can say Eastern Europe lacks military secrets .

Back to you , Britt

Milukas
brittwaller

Con

There is no need to apologize. You are Lithuanian and write better English than many of the native English-speakers on this site. It is good for any debater to be wary of using "should" too casually, so just consider that friendly advice.

I am assuming that you did mean "Eu is not united on many causes about the war" and not "Eu is not united on my causes about the war" even though you didn't confirm it. However, I fail to see how creating an army would change the stances of the peoples and governments of these sovereign nations one way or the other. I am also assuming that you think that the army should contribute in a greater way in the Iraqi theatre, although my point applies to both interpretations equally. That would most certainly be this EU army's de facto justification for creation. In any case, having a single army would not change whether any particular country is "united [with the decision of use of new found military force and leadership of the EU army] about the decision they should or should not support a war." Also, have you any idea of the existing division in the US itself as to the Iraq War? Why be so eager to have the whole of Europe step into the same economically damaging and civilly divisive quicksand the US has?

"They could always do a vote and see if the majority accepts the decision ,
like American politician do it in the Senate."

-Although it is ostensibly the job of the legislature to represent the interests and feelings of citizens, this does not always happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"3 - And if Eu had more military power it could help America more in the war of Afghanistan and it would be a *good* thing."

-You have now added a specific moral dimension to your position. I ask for an explanation. *How/Why* is it a "good thing"?

"If a country in Eu told to other countries about the secret , it would not
mean that they would tell the secret to the rest of the world . :)

And secondly if look for example Eastern Europe of Eu you will see that
the use some old weapons look for example Lithuanian (I am from this country) army ,they use soviet type helicopters Mil Mi-8 and it is not really modern .
And I can say Eastern Europe lacks military secrets."

-Be that as it may, this in itself does not justify the creation of an EU army.
An immediate threat from say, China, might, but nothing less.

Britt
Debate Round No. 2
Milukas

Pro

First

1 - If Eu had one army all the 27 member states would have to make one decision about the war ,they all have to support it or not . So Eu would not be divided on the subject of war and their foreign policy would be the same .So Eu would be more united and exercise more power .So EU could help more USA in war situation and this is a good thing because we could end the war more quickly .
This is not just about Afghanistan and Iraq , it is more about what could happen in future .

2 - It is better to be prepared for any threat before it happens , than after it occurred .
"The future has a way of arriving unannounced." George Will
So one army of Eu would react more well than if each country armies did their own thing .Because they could cooperate and plan more easily on their defence or attack .

Milukas
brittwaller

Con

"1 - If Eu had one army all the 27 member states would have to make one decision about the war ,they all have to support it or not . So Eu would not be divided on the subject of war and their foreign policy would be the same ."

-I think you horribly miscalculate and oversimplify potential events in this case. This is precisely what I mean when I say this would erode the member nations' sovereignty: if your proposal were to be enacted, then by your own sources about half of the EU would not agree with the final policy - no matter what its decision.

"So Eu would be more united and exercise more power .So EU could help more USA in war situation and this is a good thing because we could end the war more quickly .
This is not just about Afghanistan and Iraq , it is more about what could happen in future ."

-However many troops you or anyone else sends, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to end for some time. In the case of Iraq, I have already shown that our country's involvement has proven to be anything but a uniting factor for our citizens. If a country does not want to step itself into this quagmire, then that is its right. A single army, acting on behalf of the entire EU, would undoubtedly lead to more unnecessary loss of life than there exists already. It would also give the enemies you speak of an easier front to attack, much closer than the US.

"2 - It is better to be prepared for any threat before it happens , than after it occurred .
'The future has a way of arriving unannounced.' - George Will
So one army of Eu would react more well than if each country armies did their own thing .Because they could cooperate and plan more easily on their defence or attack .'

-Fair enough, but in the here and now this idea could very well be the cause of new threats. It is simply unjustified escalation. Although your point here has a little merit, I don't think you have thought through the definite and potential consequences this would have on the world scene. Or perhaps you have and are just another imperialist hiding behind current events, counting on them to go in your favor.

Anyway, thanks for the debate. Take it Easy.

Britt
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Wow, what a record turnout for voters.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
This is a correction I take it?
Posted by Milukas 9 years ago
Milukas
1 - Eu is not united on many causes about the war .
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
MilukasbrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
MilukasbrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
MilukasbrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
MilukasbrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
MilukasbrittwallerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03