NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepFeb07-e.pdf

I point to recommendation Number 6:
6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

The full report can be found here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=76).

That's it. They're telling NATO (read: countries like France and Germany who try their best to stay away from the fighting) that if they don't get help, they're gonna go home.

And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, that Canada is keeping 10% of its army there and barely hanging on while others are sitting by and watching can't be acceptable.

So, what do you reckon will happen now?

*points and laughs at NATO members*

That done, I have no other opinion. NATO is too peripheral.

Is France a part of NATO? Didn't they get annoyed about something years ago and withdraw, which is why NATO headquarters are in Brussels and not in Paris, where they used to be? I could be imagining this.

I could be imagining this.
No, they did try and go a more independent route. They're still in a political alliance with NATO, and taking part in ISAF for that matter, but their troops aren't part of the integrated command structure.

Maybe NATO should go. It's a relic of the Cold War.

The US will replace it on one side of the pond, the EU on the other.

Is France a part of NATO? Didn't they get annoyed about something years ago and withdraw, which is why NATO headquarters are in Brussels and not in Paris, where they used to be? I could be imagining this.

France withdrew from the military aspect of it but still demands a say in its policies. Ah, the French. . .

Anyway, I think NATO should be dissolved. It was good for the Cold War, the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact are gone, time for NATO to follow suit.

i think NATO should try to do something useful, like, say maybe stop the genocide in Darfur?

i think NATO should try to do something useful, like, say maybe stop the genocide in Darfur?
Well, I'd argue that creating a somewhat stable and peaceful Afghanistan and beating back the Taliban is almost as useful.

Who cares?

Is NATO anything more than a cold war relic?

Maybe NATO should go. It's a relic of the Cold War.

The US will replace it on one side of the pond, the EU on the other.

I agree. Too bad that EU is only a common market. Still we're well on our way to a sort federal government.

I agree. Too bad that EU is only a common market. Still we're well on our way to a sort federal government.

Oh deep fucking joy. The modern equivalent of the medieval papacy....

Oh deep fucking joy. The modern equivalent of the medieval papacy....

Meh who cares. We are all doomed anyway... one way or another

i think NATO should try to do something useful, like, say maybe stop the genocide in Darfur?

I grant you that, considering current popular opinion, it may be genial to suggest that intervening militarily in Darfur would be useful.

I challenge you to assert and support that active involvement in the ongoing operations in Afghanistan are not.

As interested as I am, as many are, to halt the atrocities in Sudan, and intervening action would, I fear, necessarily devolve into a peacemaking and nation-building operation. Such an option's feasibility given the previous track record (read: Somalia, Haiti, the current Iraq war) is negligible.

Given the available facts, any military involvement in the Sudan must be precluded on the basis of its usefulness to the parties involved.

Who cares?

Is NATO anything more than a cold war relic?

Yes. The nature of NATO's mission as an alliance of democratic Western nations, representing the most effective and capable coalition in the world, is continually evolving to meet new threats and challenges.

For further information, I recommend the following resources:

http://www.nato.int/

The official NATO handbook

Nations with forces in Afghanistan...
(Number of troops // Percentage of active duty forces deployed)

NATO
Canada - 2500 // 4.0%
Netherlands - 1900 // 3.58%
UK - 5800 // 3.09%
Estonia - 130 // 2.36%
Norway - 540 // 1.96%
Denmark - 389 // 1.7%
Germany - 3000 // 1.05%
USA - 20,000 // 0.90%
Italy - 1950 // 0.85%
Lithuania - 115 // 0.85%
Poland - 1300 // 0.80%
Belgium - 300 // 0.74%
France - 1700 // 0.66%
Slovenia - 49 // 0.54%
Hungary - 159 // 0.48%
Spain - 800 // 0.45%
Portugal - 156 // 0.35%
Bulgaria - 150 // 0.22%
Slovakia - 57 // 0.22%
Turkey - 825 // 0.16%
Czech R. - 67 // 0.12%
Greece - 171 // < 0.01%
Romania - 72 // < 0.01%

(Iceland, Lativa & Luxembourg not listed)

Non-NATO

Australia - 120 // 0.22%
Croatia - 216 // 0.42%
Finland - 100 // 0.27%
New Zealand - 50 // 0.56%
Sweden - 220 // 0.65%

(Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Ireland & Switzerland not listed)

---
TOTAL: 42,836 troops
---

A big, sincere THANK YOU to the bolded nations...especially Canada, you guys rock! :)

A smaller, but equally sincere THANK YOU to unemphasized nations... :)

A BIG, angry WTF??? to the italicized nations... :mad:

---

When countries like the U.S., Italy, Poland, France, Spain and Greece aren't even contributing the equivalent of 1% of their active duty force...it makes me so angry...

If Bush's surge were directed at Afghanistan instead of Iraq, it would up troop levels there by nearly 50%. What kind of idiocy is this that the U.S. has such a comparatively low number of troops in Afghanistan??

...NATO needs to get it's act together! :mad:

Nations with forces in Afghanistan...
(Number of troops // Percentage of active duty forces deployed)

NATO
Canada - 2500 // 4.0%
Netherlands - 1900 // 3.58%
UK - 5800 // 3.09%
Estonia - 130 // 2.36%
Norway - 540 // 1.96%
Denmark - 389 // 1.7%
Germany - 3000 // 1.05%
USA - 20,000 // 0.90%
Italy - 1950 // 0.85%
Lithuania - 115 // 0.85%
Poland - 1300 // 0.80%
Belgium - 300 // 0.74%
France - 1700 // 0.66%
Slovenia - 49 // 0.54%
Hungary - 159 // 0.48%
Spain - 800 // 0.45%
Portugal - 156 // 0.35%
Bulgaria - 150 // 0.22%
Slovakia - 57 // 0.22%
Turkey - 825 // 0.16%
Czech R. - 67 // 0.12%
Greece - 171 // < 0.01%
Romania - 72 // < 0.01%

(Iceland, Lativa & Luxembourg not listed)

Non-NATO

Australia - 120 // 0.22%
Croatia - 216 // 0.42%
Finland - 100 // 0.27%
New Zealand - 50 // 0.56%
Sweden - 220 // 0.65%

(Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Ireland & Switzerland not listed)

---
TOTAL: 42,836 troops
---

A big, sincere THANK YOU to the bolded nations...especially Canada, you guys rock! :)

A smaller, but equally sincere THANK YOU to unemphasized nations... :)

A BIG, angry WTF??? to the italicized nations... :mad:

---

When countries like the U.S., Italy, Poland, France, Spain and Greece aren't even contributing the equivalent of 1% of their active duty force...it makes me so angry...

If Bush's surge were directed at Afghanistan instead of Iraq, it would up troop levels there by nearly 50%. What kind of idiocy is this that the U.S. has such a comparatively low number of troops in Afghanistan??

...NATO needs to get it's act together! :mad:


Bassically, go fuckyourself. Your basing your opinion of percentages, the US has more soldiers there than all those other nations COMBINED. I agree Iraq is retarded, but the US carries the bulk of effort over there. And just because those nations are smaller doesn't mean anything, the European nations have fielded armies numbering in the millions in the past.

Bassically, go fuckyourself. Your basing your opinion of percentages, the US has more soldiers there than all those other nations COMBINED.

Righty-ho, the US are in Afghanistan with a lot of troops.:rolleyes:
And since it is the US who:
1.supported the Taliban in the late '90s via Pakistan (islamic nuclear power, dictatorship and US ally)
2.invaded Afghanistan without a clue about what to do (I reckon that Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden are still alive and free)
3.did nothing to have Mr.Karzai (who's both citizen of Afghanistan and US iirc) stop opium production and drug dealing in Afghanistan, and most Afghan warlords and Taliban support themselves via drug trafficking
4.killed a lot of innocent people via meaningless bombings (it's called "collateral damage" I think), thus spreading even more hate towards the coalition
5.rejected all Western principles about habeas corpus, war prisoner policy and fair sentencing (Guantanamo lager, "special renditions" and "special" tribunals)
I say that the US should repair the damage they've done. ALONE. We Europeans have already paid too much for the behaviour of the USA: in Kosovo and Jugoslavia, in Somalia, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It's about time the US stop to act like world policemen, because no one has asked them to do so. Also showing some respect for the allies could be a good idea, if the US want to stay allied.

NATO has no place in Afghanistan. Nor in Europe anymore. Giulio Andreotti, former italian PM for the Democrazia Cristiana (centre-right, pro-atlantic party: not exactly a commie extremist!) said some years ago that NATO should have finished in 1989, with the end of Cold War.

I say, United European Defence now! It's time we Europeans take the full responsibility and authority over our military policies. United, the EU is a full-fledged superpower and needs no "help" from any other country.

Bassically, go fuckyourself. Your basing your opinion of percentages, the US has more soldiers there than all those other nations COMBINED. I agree Iraq is retarded, but the US carries the bulk of effort over there. And just because those nations are smaller doesn't mean anything, the European nations have fielded armies numbering in the millions in the past.

The percentages listed are not of each nations total contribution to the Afghanistan force...they are the percentage of each nation's active armed forces deployed.

Canada's 2500 troops total 4% of it's active duty forces...and about 6% of the NATO force in Afghanistan.

The U.S.'s 20,000 troops total almost 50 % of the NATO force...but represent less than 1% of the U.S.'s active duty forces.

I'm pissed at every nation with a strong economy that is involved in the operation that isn't sending at least 1% of it's forces to Afghanistan.

This includes the U.S.

I also never mentioned Iraq, so I don't know why you brought it up. The subject is NATO in Afghanistan. I didn't and don't expect NATO to support our misguided efforts in Iraq...frankly I'm suprised we still have the support that we do have.

So do you get it now? Or is reading comprehension not your thing?

United European Defence now! It's time we Europeans take the full responsibility and authority over our military policies. United, the EU is a full-fledged superpower and needs no "help" from any other country.

Let's wait until we and the Yanks finally admit defeat in Iraq, then side with China. Take that, America :p

The European nations have fielded armies numbering in the millions in the past.

And that would be either during World War 2, when they were faced with total annhilation, or during the Middle Ages where fielding an army meant giving your local peasant a spear and sending him off to die :rolleyes:

A big, sincere THANK YOU to the bolded nations...especially Canada, you guys rock! :)
Well, you don't have to include Germany. Apart from the KSK, those troops have been given so harsh restrictions by their government that they're not helping deal with the Taliban one bit.

And just because those nations are smaller doesn't mean anything, the European nations have fielded armies numbering in the millions in the past.
Yeah, at home. Not on the other side of the world.

Fact of the matter is that the US is doing a part, but it is the strongest military force in the world and should be doing a lot more. Iraq is an incredibly expensive distraction from what still is a worthwhile mission.

I say that the US should repair the damage they've done. ALONE.
Nope. NATO said that they were going to fight in Afghanistan. That was a collective decision after 9/11, and European countries need to stick to it.

We Europeans have already paid too much for the behaviour of the USA: in Kosovo and Jugoslavia...
When Europe was sitting there writing angry, teary letters and watching a genocide unfold, until finally the US stepped up and did what Europe should have done much earlier?

NATO has no place in Afghanistan.
Then they shouldn't have gone there in the first place. As it was, it was decided that 9/11 counted as an attack on a member state, and as such all of NATO considered itself under attack.

And you can hardly say that it was a bad thing to get the Taliban out of power. The mistake was that it wasn't done thoroughly enough (and a lot of the blame for that one lies with the US regarding Iraq, I agree), and basically now has to be done again, but properly.

I say, United European Defence now! It's time we Europeans take the full responsibility and authority over our military policies. United, the EU is a full-fledged superpower and needs no "help" from any other country.
Yeah, but it would be a joke of a superpower right now, squabbling with other member states about things like with the troop commitments for the Congo last year (what a mud fight that was) and desperately trying to make things look as if there wasn't a war, even when there was one.

Europe had its chance for a post-Cold War place in the world during the Yugoslavian civil war. No one did anything, and hundreds of thousands of people died. One of Europe's biggest countries was destroyed.

That sort of lack of willpower just means that when it occasionally becomes time to use force to help people, there will be hesitation. The US has that willpower (too much of it, even), and so its leadership is invaluable.

Nations with forces in Afghanistan...
(Number of troops // Percentage of active duty forces deployed)

NATO
Canada - 2500 // 4.0%
Netherlands - 1900 // 3.58%
UK - 5800 // 3.09%
Estonia - 130 // 2.36%
Norway - 540 // 1.96%
Denmark - 389 // 1.7%
Germany - 3000 // 1.05%
USA - 20,000 // 0.90%
Italy - 1950 // 0.85%
Lithuania - 115 // 0.85%
Poland - 1300 // 0.80%
Belgium - 300 // 0.74%
France - 1700 // 0.66%
Slovenia - 49 // 0.54%
Hungary - 159 // 0.48%
Spain - 800 // 0.45%
Portugal - 156 // 0.35%
Bulgaria - 150 // 0.22%
Slovakia - 57 // 0.22%
Turkey - 825 // 0.16%
Czech R. - 67 // 0.12%
Greece - 171 // < 0.01%
Romania - 72 // < 0.01%

(Iceland, Lativa & Luxembourg not listed)

Non-NATO

Australia - 120 // 0.22%
Croatia - 216 // 0.42%
Finland - 100 // 0.27%
New Zealand - 50 // 0.56%
Sweden - 220 // 0.65%

(Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Ireland & Switzerland not listed)

---
TOTAL: 42,836 troops
---

A big, sincere THANK YOU to the bolded nations...especially Canada, you guys rock! :)

A smaller, but equally sincere THANK YOU to unemphasized nations... :)

A BIG, angry WTF??? to the italicized nations... :mad:

---

When countries like the U.S., Italy, Poland, France, Spain and Greece aren't even contributing the equivalent of 1% of their active duty force...it makes me so angry...

If Bush's surge were directed at Afghanistan instead of Iraq, it would up troop levels there by nearly 50%. What kind of idiocy is this that the U.S. has such a comparatively low number of troops in Afghanistan??

...NATO needs to get it's act together! :mad:
I'm not sure I understand- your emphasis doesn't relate to the percentages at all. Why are you cutting countries like Bulgaria, Slovakia and Turkey slack when Spain, Hungary, Portugal etc have 2-3 times as many troops as both percentages and raw numbers?

And the US doesn't have many troops in Afghanistan because there's not as much oil, durr. :rolleyes:

Germany is making such a fuss about sending troops to more dangerous regions of Afghanistan. But they are a NATO member, for hell's sake! They have to accept that they have a responsability towards the other members.
All members shoudl send at least 1%, although that's still a ridiculously small part. What do they have a military budget for, to have some soldiers learn to fight without doing a damn thing?

Nations with forces in Afghanistan...
(Number of troops // Percentage of active duty forces deployed)

*snip details and analysis*

That's a good post. Perhaps you should extend your "wtf?" to countries that aren't there at all.
3000 German troops? You'd never know it ... quiet achievers there :)

i thing the biggest problem with nato is that a bushwacked america is still part of it. what the world needs in an aliance to protect the rest of it FROM america. to stop pseudo-conservative's america's drive to become world dictator.

an aliance of aliances of everyone but america, to end america's arrogant and wanton, even defacto genocidal destructiveness, the way it's alliances were able in WWII to put an end to hitler's deprevities.

unless things very much chainge here and soon, i live in america btw, and never have any place else, i very much fear it is likely to come to that.

america has the most powerful military on the planet. well so did hitler, at the biggining of it. what america had that hitler didn't was the production capacity to keep up and surpass it. america today, has shipped its production capacity off shore and outside of its own borders, and thus the rest of the world could do what it has to if and when it comes to that.

i think if such an alliance existed, washington would be forced to behaive at least a little more politely.

hasn't nato absorbed most of what used to be warsaw pact? all it really needs, what it really needs, is to kick the u.s. out and make it stick.

=^^=
.../\...

i thing the biggest problem with nato is that a bushwacked america is still part of it. what the world needs in an aliance to protect the rest of it FROM america. to stop pseudo-conservative's america's drive to become world dictator.

The problem is getting all of the world to agree and be friends


an aliance of aliances of everyone but america, to end america's arrogant and wanton, even defacto genocidal destructiveness, the way it's alliances were able in WWII to put an end to hitler's deprevities.

An alliance that quickly fell apart and created a situation with the potential to be far more devastating than World War 2.



i
hasn't nato absorbed most of what used to be warsaw pact? all it really needs, what it really needs, is to kick the u.s. out and make it stick.


It is in the process of doing so, but many Eastern European nations still have strong military ties with Russia, I think one nation even has a shared air defence system or somesuch...

Nope. NATO said that they were going to fight in Afghanistan. That was a collective decision after 9/11, and European countries need to stick to it.

NATO members have the right to change their minds, you know. Also, it wasn't a collective decision about going to fight in Afghanistan: for example Italy didn't partake in the attack, but joined the NATO peace-enforcing mission after the US attack (that wasn't a joint NATO attack).


When Europe was sitting there writing angry, teary letters and watching a genocide unfold, until finally the US stepped up and did what Europe should have done much earlier?

1.The US didn't do that alone.
2.The US-allied Albania funded the UCK (a terrorist organisation, according to CIA reports).
3.The NATO (including the US) didn't do anything when the Croats killed and expelled the Serbs from Krajina. Or when the islamic bosnian militias led by Alija Izetbegovic attacked the bosnian orthodoxes and fired mortars on their own people at the market of Sarajevo. Or when the bosnian Serbs massacred the people in the refugee ONU enclaves. Mr.Holbrooke (aide to Mrs.Albright) stated in 1996 that Slobodan Milosevic was the only one in the Balkans who was willing to use diplomacy. Also in 1998 Milosevic asked for an interposition force in Kosovo to stop the violence, but was denied by the alliance between USA, Albania and UCK (Rambouillet Castle talks). Why did the US choose the military option?
There has been quite an ambiguous attitude about the Jugoslav wars. Also, go look at the numbers of Kosovo albanians killed by Serbs. Compare it with the number of Serbs killed by NATO bombings on Jugoslavia (a sovereing UN country).
[/QUOTE]


Then they shouldn't have gone there in the first place. As it was, it was decided that 9/11 counted as an attack on a member state, and as such all of NATO considered itself under attack.

Actually, it was the US who claimed it was a military attack. Other countries declared it a non-military attack.


And you can hardly say that it was a bad thing to get the Taliban out of power. The mistake was that it wasn't done thoroughly enough (and a lot of the blame for that one lies with the US regarding Iraq, I agree), and basically now has to be done again, but properly.

I don't even dream to say that it would have been a bad thing to get the Talibans out of power. But I say that:
1.The Talibans aren't out of power, as proven by the fact that some weeks ago the Talibans managed to kick out of a town the coalition troops.
2.The Talibans wouldn't have come to power if US-allied Pakistan hadn't supported them in the first place.
3.Osama Bin Laden was financed by the US throughout the '80s in anti-soviet function: look at "Rambo III" (hardly a commie movie) to discover what was the US attitude towards islamic terrorism in the '80s.


Yeah, but it would be a joke of a superpower right now, squabbling with other member states about things like with the troop commitments for the Congo last year (what a mud fight that was) and desperately trying to make things look as if there wasn't a war, even when there was one.

Agreed. A stronger EU foreign policy is needed. A good example of what I mean by "stronger EU foreign policy" is the UNIFIL mission. Also I would support similar intervention in Darfur, Kosovo etc. But Iraq and Afghanistan, I think that the only solution there is a UN interposition/peace-enforcing mission, composed by UN soldiers from islamic countries only. We westerners are most unwelcome there.


Europe had its chance for a post-Cold War place in the world during the Yugoslavian civil war. No one did anything, and hundreds of thousands of people died. One of Europe's biggest countries was destroyed.

Mainly because of Germany wanting a puppet state on the Adriatic shore. It was the first country, together with the Vatican, to recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, while the Croats were ousting and killing Serbs throughout Krajna.
Iirc, there was also a document from a US republican think-tank (led by Wolfovitz) who called for a "low-intensity war" in the Balkans to prevent the EU from getting the upper hand in Europe.
I think that the most intelligent thing to do would have been to send a joint european/russian interposition (not invasion) force there. We could still have the Jugoslavs living together in peace like they did until the '90s. I visited Jugoslavija in 1985 and there was no ethnical problem back then.
Also today's Croatian president, Stipe Mesic, carries a lot of responsibility about the Jugoslav wars. He was president of Jugoslavija when the war started, and, as such, he was the chief of the Federal Armed Forces. But I see that no-one even dreams about taking him to testify before the Hague court.


That sort of lack of willpower just means that when it occasionally becomes time to use force to help people, there will be hesitation. The US has that willpower (too much of it, even), and so its leadership is invaluable.
US leadership has been misused too many times, and is polluted by US lobbying groups (Halliburton, Carlyle etc). A multipolar world is needed. And the EU is perhaps the most important piece of a multipolar world.

And that would be either during World War 2, when they were faced with total annhilation, or during the Middle Ages where fielding an army meant giving your local peasant a spear and sending him off to die :rolleyes:

I think that EU sets an example of peaceful cohabitation between former enemies.
France and Germany have been almost constantly at war in the last 10 centuries. Italy has been invaded by Spain, Austria, France, Germany and has in turn invaded Albania, Jugoslavija, Austria, France etc. Britain has been at war with the Netherlands, France, Spain and Germany. Poland has been invaded by almost anyone, including Sweden.
But now we all live together in peace. Wow.

*snip rant about how it's all the USA's fault*

I say that the US should repair the damage they've done. ALONE. We Europeans have already paid too much for the behaviour of the USA: in Kosovo and Jugoslavia, in Somalia, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It's about time the US stop to act like world policemen, because no one has asked them to do so. Also showing some respect for the allies could be a good idea, if the US want to stay allied.
That, and that, are a direct contradiction. In the same paragraph. Nice work.
Leaving out the "world policeman" tag, you seem to be saying the US should finish what it started, but also not do what it has been doing. That's a contradiction, isn't it?

...
I say, United European Defence now! It's time we Europeans take the full responsibility and authority over our military policies. United, the EU is a full-fledged superpower and needs no "help" from any other country.
Only the EU countries aren't united to that extent, are they? Crikey, you haven't even settled the 'borders' of the EU yet.
Nice dream, though. The US behaved more responsibly when it wasn't the only superpower.

I'm not sure I understand- your emphasis doesn't relate to the percentages at all. Why are you cutting countries like Bulgaria, Slovakia and Turkey slack when Spain, Hungary, Portugal etc have 2-3 times as many troops as both percentages and raw numbers?

And the US doesn't have many troops in Afghanistan because there's not as much oil, durr. :rolleyes:

Regarding Turkey...they are the only Muslim majority nation in Afghanistan, and frankly I'm glad they sent anyone at all.

As for the rest...I was going based on GDP. Despite the low numbers of troops sent by some nations, deployments half-way around the world aren't cheap, even with NATO support, so I cut the poorer nations a little slack.

...
hasn't nato absorbed most of what used to be warsaw pact? all it really needs, what it really needs, is to kick the u.s. out and make it stick.


... and take the NA bit out of it's name, of course.

Hang on ... "Non-American Treaty Organization" ! Phew, saved a lot of letterhead there.

That, and that, are a direct contradiction. In the same paragraph. Nice work.
Leaving out the "world policeman" tag, you seem to be saying the US should finish what it started, but also not do what it has been doing. That's a contradiction, isn't it?

Appearing. I'll make my thought clearer.
I think that the US have the reponsibility for that mess. Since they're not going to build a safer, democratic Afghanistan, they should take their troops back home and fund and support a coalition of islamic countries under UN mandate instead. Pay for their own mistakes, that is.


Only the EU countries aren't united to that extent, are they? Crikey, you haven't even settled the 'borders' of the EU yet.
Nice dream, though. The US behaved more responsibly when it wasn't the only superpower.
Yep, not yet united to that extent. But every day, more EU citizens become aware that a stronger unification is needed. The EU is a work-in-progress after all. And I don't think that the EU needs 'borders': if a European country wants to join and fulfills the requirements, it has the right to become a member state. Why should we rule them out?
I think that the ultimate goal of the EU should be to unite Western, Central and Eastern Europe (possibily including Russia if it gets more democratic, damn Putin, stop acting the tsar!), and Iceland and Greenland. Plus, a free trade area and mutual defence pact between EU and all Mediterranean countries, and the same with Central Asia (Kazakhstan etc. and maybe Mongolia).
This mega-EU would work on equal terms with the USA, China, India, and (hopefully) with EU-like organisations of Latin America, Africa, and of the Near and Middle East. A multipolar world with a military stalemate.

i think the whole idea of an alliance is to come to each other's assistance (millitarily, but it doesn't HAVE to be just millitarily, that's just what it usualy means, or used to usualy mean), when both the nation requiring such assistence and at least one other in a possition to provide it aggree that such assistence is neccessary, WITHOUT having to have any particular great deal of love or mutual admiration for each other.

i think that's why it's called an ALLIANCE rather then a "friendship".

implimented friendships with mutualy open borders among other things are of course even more desirable imho.

a minor quibble. otherwise i have to concur with skgorra's response.

i like what risottia's is saying there too. which is basicly what i was getting at.

=^^=
.../\...

Appearing. I'll make my thought clearer.
I think that the US have the reponsibility for that mess. Since they're not going to build a safer, democratic Afghanistan, they should take their troops back home and fund and support a coalition of islamic countries under UN mandate instead. Pay for their own mistakes, that is.
Clear now. Expect trouble.


Yep, not yet united to that extent.
*snip for brevity*
This mega-EU would work on equal terms with the USA, China, India, and (hopefully) with EU-like organisations of Latin America, Africa, and of the Near and Middle East. A multipolar world with a military stalemate.

I like what you're smoking there. Four major centres of power would be more stable than three or five, while avoiding the "with us or against us" dilemma for small countries in a duopoly.
China stands by itself, likewise the US. A hypothetical South America Union. The EU (without Russia, seriously. With it, you have a US / EU dualism and no viable others.) ... OK, four is too few. Six perhaps?

NATO members have the right to change their minds, you know.
If I were mean, I'd say that Italy knows all about that sort of thing. But I'm not. ;)

Also, it wasn't a collective decision about going to fight in Afghanistan: for example Italy didn't partake in the attack, but joined the NATO peace-enforcing mission after the US attack (that wasn't a joint NATO attack).
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm

Italy made this decision just like anyone else. There was no trying to wriggle one's way out of it then: back then everyone said they were going to do what is necessary.

This was before the (frankly ridiculous) division between a "peacekeeping" mission and the fight against the Taliban as well. This division makes no military nor organisational sense, it's only being kept in place so various people can criticise the Americans and still feel good about themselves. It's all political. In reality, without Enduring Freedom there could be no ISAF.

These Canadians, Brits, Dutchmen and Americans are dying so Italian or German soldiers can get the occasional good PR from opening another school. I think it's only fair that this burden is shared.

1.The US didn't do that alone.
But they started it. Nothing would have happened otherwise until the Serbs had cleared out everyone they didn't like.

2.The US-allied Albania funded the UCK (a terrorist organisation, according to CIA reports).
That's irrelevant. What happened in the past is no excuse to not fix problems today.

3.The NATO (including the US) didn't do anything when the Croats killed and expelled the Serbs from Krajina.
You see, I'm not big on the denial or trying to justify genocides or ethnic cleansings. So while I accept that everyone behaved like crap on the Balkans, I will not for a second accept that Milosevic didn't deserve what came to him.

Every Serb civilian death caused by NATO bombing was his fault, because he was given a very clear ultimatum. He just happened to think he didn't have to listen.

Also in 1998 Milosevic asked for an interposition force in Kosovo to stop the violence, but was denied by the alliance between USA, Albania and UCK (Rambouillet Castle talks).
First of all he thought he could refuse the offer put to him because he thought he had to play empire down there.

Why did the US choose the military option?
Because no one else would.

Actually, it was the US who claimed it was a military attack. Other countries declared it a non-military attack.
Article 5 was invoked. It doesn't talk about military or otherwise, it talks about an attack from the outside. This was, Article 5 counted, that was the end of the discussion.
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

2.The Talibans wouldn't have come to power if US-allied Pakistan hadn't supported them in the first place.
That's irrelevant. What happened in the past is no excuse to not fix problems today.

I completely agree that Pakistan is such a problem to be fixed, and if I got my will NATO would bomb the shit out of the Taliban centres across the border and Musharraf better like it.

Agreed. A stronger EU foreign policy is needed. A good example of what I mean by "stronger EU foreign policy" is the UNIFIL mission.
You mean the mission that it took weeks to get troops together for after France suddenly qualified all its big speeches and the various governments suddenly realised they might actually have to send troops afterall?

I think that the most intelligent thing to do would have been to send a joint european/russian interposition (not invasion) force there.
Like in Srebrenica? Protecting the refugees by standing between the sides worked well then.

Fact of the matter is that the Serbs had no interest in cooperating whatsoever. They were busy building their fantasy empire full of right-thinking people. They pointed a gun at the blue helmets, they would have pointed a gun at anyone else who stood in their way.

An invasion force was the only sort of force that could make them stop.

I visited Jugoslavija in 1985 and there was no ethnical problem back then.
That's like saying WWII was wrong because you went to Germany in 1931 and saw no tensions between ethnic groups.

There are folder after folder of evidence stored away in Den Haag. It happened, NATO put a stop to it. End of story (even though perhaps it doesn't cover the beginning).

But I see that no-one even dreams about taking him to testify before the Hague court.
I dream about transporting just about everyone who ever held a political office down there to a war crimes tribunal. Unfortunately too few people listen to me.

And the EU is perhaps the most important piece of a multipolar world.
The EU can be multipolar all by itself, it doesn't need the world for that.

If I were mean, I'd say that Italy knows all about that sort of thing. But I'm not. ;)


I'd say that Germany also knows (trying to wriggle itself out of the Red Army's grip via separated peace treaties with the Allies back in 1945, iirc)... but is less successful.;) ;)


These Canadians, Brits, Dutchmen and Americans are dying so Italian or German soldiers can get the occasional good PR from opening another school.

The solution: Canada, Britain etc might also start building schools instead of bombing around. Oh yea, I forgot that the US idea for PR is about "lick my boots and you'll live another day".


But they started it. Nothing would have happened otherwise until the Serbs had cleared out everyone they didn't like.

Yea. And a wagonload of shit has ensued. And now the Serbs are under genocide threat at the hands of the Albanian. That's a lot better? I doubt it.


That's irrelevant. What happened in the past is no excuse to not fix problems today.

It isn't irrelevant. It shows that NATO and USA have constantly fucked the situation wherever they intervened. So it's about time to stop that.


You see, I'm not big on the denial or trying to justify genocides or ethnic cleansings. So while I accept that everyone behaved like crap on the Balkans, I will not for a second accept that Milosevic didn't deserve what came to him.
Read the old newspapers, and you'll get another picture. Not that Slobo wasn't a criminal, but I don't believe that he had genocide on his mind. And he wasn't the only one with ethnical cleansing - Tudjman and Izetbegovic were also quite keen on racism. But, guess what, only Serbia gets bombed and only Slobo dies in a prison while defending himself in a trial. Why this difference? Isn't it a matter of alliances?


Every Serb civilian death caused by NATO bombing was his fault, because he was given a very clear ultimatum. He just happened to think he didn't have to listen.
So, if you are killed while trying to defend yourself from a robbery, it is your fault because you were given a clear ultimatum like "your purse or your life"?
Yeah.
Great.


First of all he thought he could refuse the offer put to him because he thought he had to play empire down there.

Offer? Go read the Rambouillet papers. They ordered Jugoslavia to give NATO free access to ALL Jugoslav territory, air, ground and sea, including government seats, military bases etc. That isn't an offer of a treaty, it is an offer of unconditioned surrender. No country in the world will ever subject to that without fighting. And mind, the conditions Jugoslavia received after the war were better.


Article 5 was invoked. It doesn't talk about military or otherwise, it talks about an attack from the outside. This was, Article 5 counted, that was the end of the discussion.

The fact that it was invoked doesn't mean it made sense in that case.


I completely agree that Pakistan is such a problem to be fixed, and if I got my will NATO would bomb the shit out of the Taliban centres across the border and Musharraf better like it.

Ok down with Musharraf, but I don't think that bombing a nuclear power will ever lead to any good. Maybe economical sanction and an embargo on weapons (like with Iran) would be better and lead to less deaths.


You mean the mission that it took weeks to get troops together for after France suddenly qualified all its big speeches and the various governments suddenly realised they might actually have to send troops afterall?

Exactly, that one.


Like in Srebrenica? Protecting the refugees by standing between the sides worked well then.

Actually, UN French (and Dutch iirc) troops left Srebrenica like cowards. Interposition means that you're there, and won't move.


Fact of the matter is that the Serbs had no interest in cooperating whatsoever. They were busy building their fantasy empire full of right-thinking people. They pointed a gun at the blue helmets, they would have pointed a gun at anyone else who stood in their way.

Don't get mixed Bosnia and Kosovo. These are two different stories - and intervention in Bosnia was supported by Jugoslavia also - it was the Serbs of Bosnia who didn't want anyone around.
Again, go read the old newspapers. In 1998, Jugoslavia called for UN interposition in Kosovo, but was denied that. This is history, not an opinion or propaganda.


That's like saying WWII was wrong because you went to Germany in 1931 and saw no tensions between ethnic groups.

Are you bananas?
WW2 didn't begin because of tension between ethnic groups in Germany. How does your sentence relate with mine?
Are you saying that the Balkans wars were good?


There are folder after folder of evidence stored away in Den Haag. It happened, NATO put a stop to it. End of story (even though perhaps it doesn't cover the beginning).
And I assume you have full access to it... And seeing what happens every day against the Serbs in Kosovo, I don't say that this is the end of the story.


I dream about transporting just about everyone who ever held a political office down there to a war crimes tribunal. Unfortunately too few people listen to me.

Agreed, and, surprise surprise, this happens to me also.


The EU can be multipolar all by itself, it doesn't need the world for that.
Ha, ha, ha.

Clear now. Expect trouble.
I always do. But in this case, maybe lesser trouble.


I like what you're smoking there.

Meeee toooo. Wanna join?


Four major centres of power would be more stable than three or five, while avoiding the "with us or against us" dilemma for small countries in a duopoly.
China stands by itself, likewise the US. A hypothetical South America Union. The EU (without Russia, seriously. With it, you have a US / EU dualism and no viable others.) ... OK, four is too few. Six perhaps?
Why not? As long as there is a military stalemate and small countries coalesce into something stable and helpful... if the EU model is working in Europe, why - given enough time - couldn't it work somewhere else, too?

A BIG, angry WTF??? to the italicized nations... :mad:

I noticed Sweden was italicised. Even a single person sent by our state to Afghanistan is one too many if you ask me. It is the USA's and NATO's cock up to clean up, it has nothing to do with us at all and it is monumentally stupid of the Swedish government to have gotten involved.

I'm pissed at every nation with a strong economy that is involved in the operation that isn't sending at least 1% of it's forces to Afghanistan.

Where did this arbitrary 1% figure come from?

it is monumentally stupid of the Swedish government to have gotten involved.

I'm surprised that Sweden sent soldiers. Why? Just to appease some pro-Bush feelings in some parts of swedish society?

Where did this arbitrary 1% figure come from?

You win (this part of) the thread.:)

I'm surprised that Sweden sent soldiers. Why? Just to appease some pro-Bush feelings in some parts of swedish society?

There are no "pro-Bush feelings in some parts of Swedish society" - at least not in any parts of it that are not seen as an infinitesimally small lunatic fringe.

No, Sweden sent troops for the same reason it always claims to send them: peace-keeping, love-dovey, "we must have solidarity with the world" crap. Solidarity is fine and dandy, but troops are not the way to show it, especially when it's a US created quagmire they're being sent to.

I don't really see the point in NATO any more. The cold war is over so I don't see how the vast majority of member states benefit from it. But one thing's for sure, I wouldn't want to see it replaced by a European defence force. We already get too involved in other people's wars. We should just declare neutrality.

There are no "pro-Bush feelings in some parts of Swedish society" - at least not in any parts of it that are not seen as an infinitesimally small lunatic fringe.
...
Solidarity is fine and dandy, but troops are not the way to show it, especially when it's a US created quagmire they're being sent to.

Totally agreed. I think I might like living in Sweden.

But one thing's for sure, I wouldn't want to see it replaced by a European defence force. We already get too involved in other people's wars. We should just declare neutrality.

Why? Having a european defence force doesn't mean you go around invading other countries in the name of the EU superpower. It means that, since EU wouldn't owe its defence capability to the USA anymore, it would have no obligations to follow the USA when they go in huge shits like Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, you need an army to declare you're neutral (Switzerland teaches), else you're going to be invaded.

I think I might like living in Sweden.

Well, that makes one of us.

NATO is fine, no need to dissolve it, especially as there aren't any effective replacement.

Why? Having a european defence force doesn't mean you go around invading other countries in the name of the EU superpower. It means that, since EU wouldn't owe its defence capability to the USA anymore, it would have no obligations to follow the USA when they go in huge shits like Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, you need an army to declare you're neutral (Switzerland teaches), else you're going to be invaded.
But being part of an EU defence force would probably mean we'd end up getting dragged into all these peacekeeping missions, crap like the Balklans. I don't see how it's our responsibility to sort out the rest of the world's problems. And I realise we'd still need an army, this is something I'd never consider getting rid of. It's the Swiss example I'd want to follow, but with our nuclear deterrent to back it up.

Where did this arbitrary 1% figure come from?

Is one whole percentage point somehow worse than other benchmarks I could set? :p

I noticed Sweden was italicised. Even a single person sent by our state to Afghanistan is one too many if you ask me. It is the USA's and NATO's cock up to clean up, it has nothing to do with us at all and it is monumentally stupid of the Swedish government to have gotten involved.

I can understand that sentiment...

...but if "peace-keeping, love-dovey" is the reason you're there, perhaps send about 110 more and get up to that arbitrary 1% mark? :p

I can understand that sentiment...

...but if "peace-keeping, love-dovey" is the reason you're there, perhaps send about 110 more and get up to that arbitrary 1% mark? :p

It's the semblance of the reason that is the reason, not the reason itself.

And no. With any luck, they'll cut back more on the military and we'll withdraw.

It's the semblance of the reason that is the reason, not the reason itself.

So I gathered. :)

And no. With any luck, they'll cut back more on the military and we'll withdraw.

Oh, fine...we'll just ask Finland for more. Sound good? :p

Oh, fine...we'll just ask Finland for more. Sound good? :p

Swedes have traditionally been indifferent to using Finns as cannon fodder (we did it for like a half millennium), and I see no reason to break that tradition.

Swedes have traditionally been indifferent to using Finns as cannon fodder (we did it for like a half millennium), and I see no reason to break that tradition.

Tradition is important. ;)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepFeb07-e.pdf

I point to recommendation Number 6:


The full report can be found here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=76).

That's it. They're telling NATO (read: countries like France and Germany who try their best to stay away from the fighting) that if they don't get help, they're gonna go home.

And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, that Canada is keeping 10% of its army there and barely hanging on while others are sitting by and watching can't be acceptable.

So, what do you reckon will happen now?

France and Germany will do jack shit and Canada will go home and we can all blame the French and Germans for being dickheads.

Nations with forces in Afghanistan...
(Number of troops // Percentage of active duty forces deployed)

NATO
Canada - 2500 // 4.0%
Netherlands - 1900 // 3.58%
UK - 5800 // 3.09%
Estonia - 130 // 2.36%
Norway - 540 // 1.96%
Denmark - 389 // 1.7%
Germany - 3000 // 1.05%
USA - 20,000 // 0.90%
Italy - 1950 // 0.85%
Lithuania - 115 // 0.85%
Poland - 1300 // 0.80%
Belgium - 300 // 0.74%
France - 1700 // 0.66%
Slovenia - 49 // 0.54%
Hungary - 159 // 0.48%
Spain - 800 // 0.45%
Portugal - 156 // 0.35%
Bulgaria - 150 // 0.22%
Slovakia - 57 // 0.22%
Turkey - 825 // 0.16%
Czech R. - 67 // 0.12%
Greece - 171 // < 0.01%
Romania - 72 // < 0.01%

(Iceland, Lativa & Luxembourg not listed)

Non-NATO

Australia - 120 // 0.22%
Croatia - 216 // 0.42%
Finland - 100 // 0.27%
New Zealand - 50 // 0.56%
Sweden - 220 // 0.65%

(Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Ireland & Switzerland not listed)

---
TOTAL: 42,836 troops
---

A big, sincere THANK YOU to the bolded nations...especially Canada, you guys rock! :)

A smaller, but equally sincere THANK YOU to unemphasized nations... :)

A BIG, angry WTF??? to the italicized nations... :mad:

---

When countries like the U.S., Italy, Poland, France, Spain and Greece aren't even contributing the equivalent of 1% of their active duty force...it makes me so angry...

If Bush's surge were directed at Afghanistan instead of Iraq, it would up troop levels there by nearly 50%. What kind of idiocy is this that the U.S. has such a comparatively low number of troops in Afghanistan??

...NATO needs to get it's act together! :mad:

The US still has the largest contigent of forces inside Afghanistan. Yes it is a lower percentage of troops but look how large our military forces is compared to that of the other nations. To put us in italics is rather stupid.

i think NATO should try to do something useful, like, say maybe stop the genocide in Darfur?

As Hotel Rwanda pointed out...no one cares about Africa

So basically if the US sent another 2,000 troops to Afganistan you wouldn't have that much to bitch about. We may have sent a lower contigent but we have the largest worldwide commitment and the largest amount of territory to cover with our armed forces.


We have a Military Presence in
E. Africa
Iraq
Korea
Japan
Pacific Islands
Puerto Rico
CONUS
Alaska
Hawaii
Germany
Italy
I think we still have some air force assets in UK and Netherlads
Belgium
Iceland
Afganistan
Diego Garcia
Phillipines
Colombia
Uzbeckistan
Tajikistan
Kosovo
Egypt
Cuba
Qatar
Kuwait


and many more.......So you might want to cut us some slack on a measely .1% of overall forces. So judging by your subjective and arbirtary calculations I think that the US is meeting them.

I have several points to make:

The US *is* the world’s police. The US military is relied upon to keep the world relatively safe. Everyone takes great joy in bashing the US while your nations are still relying on American military to deal with any problems that arise.

Every nation has an interest in Afghanistan and should be involved in a meaningful way, not just “Keep our troops out of harms way – we will do piddly little crap and let you do all the hard work. Meanwhile we will try to take all the credit for rebuilding and criticize you for any casualties.” The reason why the US, UK, and Canada are not getting more kudos for rebuilding and get blamed for all the problems is precisely because they have to devote all their resources to doing the dirty work.

If you don’t want the US to be the world’s police force, then step up and accept responsibility instead of whining like some snot-nosed emo-kid teenager. Being an adult means you have to take some personal responsibility for the world. They do not always make the right decisions but nobody is perfect. At least the US has the maturity to step up and try, instead of always sitting on the sidelines complaining about things not being perfect.

It is funny how the same people who are bitching about being involved in Afghanistan tend to be complaining about not being in Darfur. This is an absurd contradiction of principles, but not surprising coming from those who will complain at the drop of a hat but will never lift a finger to do anything.

Until a nation steps up and puts their lives on the line for their principles, they have no right to bitch. The same goes for you as an individual. What have you, personally, done to improve the situation?

This thread is about Afghanistan, and not Iraq, but the topic has been raised and I have to get this off my chest.

There have been a lot of mistakes made in Iraq. That is a given. I am appalled by the people who laughingly say nobody else should be involved because the US should be left swinging in the breeze on this. Even if you think we should never have gotten involved in Iraq in the first place, we are there now, and your complaining isn’t going to change the past. That you laughingly hope for the US to fail miserably and want to see continuing violence and a descent into religious purges and ethnic cleansing, that you want to see hundreds of thousands of people dead out of a feeling of spite… that is truly sick.

how many of these nations have supplied Air Forces to the region?

So if you want to be fair you should count Ground Forces only. I.E. The percentage of the US Army/Marine Corps that is in Landlocked Afganistan.

So lets figure that 20,000 taken out of our total of 600,000ish Active Duty Army and 180,000ish Active Duty Marine Corps.



Wow thats a whopping 2.5% of ground forces deployed over there.

I have several points to make:

The US *is* the world’s police. The US military is relied upon to keep the world relatively safe. Everyone takes great joy in bashing the US while your nations are still relying on American military to deal with any problems that arise.

Every nation has an interest in Afghanistan and should be involved in a meaningful way, not just “Keep our troops out of harms way – we will do piddly little crap and let you do all the hard work. Meanwhile we will try to take all the credit for rebuilding and criticize you for any casualties.” The reason why the US, UK, and Canada are not getting more kudos for rebuilding and get blamed for all the problems is precisely because they have to devote all their resources to doing the dirty work.

If you don’t want the US to be the world’s police force, then step up and accept responsibility instead of whining like some snot-nosed emo-kid teenager. Being an adult means you have to take some personal responsibility for the world. They do not always make the right decisions but nobody is perfect. At least the US has the maturity to step up and try, instead of always sitting on the sidelines complaining about things not being perfect.

It is funny how the same people who are bitching about being involved in Afghanistan tend to be complaining about not being in Darfur. This is an absurd contradiction of principles, but not surprising coming from those who will complain at the drop of a hat but will never lift a finger to do anything.

Until a nation steps up and puts their lives on the line for their principles, they have no right to bitch. The same goes for you as an individual. What have you, personally, done to improve the situation?

This thread is about Afghanistan, and not Iraq, but the topic has been raised and I have to get this off my chest.

There have been a lot of mistakes made in Iraq. That is a given. I am appalled by the people who laughingly say nobody else should be involved because the US should be left swinging in the breeze on this. Even if you think we should never have gotten involved in Iraq in the first place, we are there now, and your complaining isn’t going to change the past. That you laughingly hope for the US to fail miserably and want to see continuing violence and a descent into religious purges and ethnic cleansing, that you want to see hundreds of thousands of people dead out of a feeling of spite… that is truly sick.

Yes. You win the thread.

The solution: Canada, Britain etc might also start building schools instead of bombing around. Oh yea, I forgot that the US idea for PR is about "lick my boots and you'll live another day".
No, actually the Canadians are probably more committed to rebuilding and all the nice stuff than anyone else. It's just a bit of a problem to build a school if anyone who wants to teach there is abducted and beheaded and the school fired at with rocket launchers on the day of the opening.

They ordered Jugoslavia to give NATO free access to ALL Jugoslav territory, air, ground and sea, including government seats, military bases etc. That isn't an offer of a treaty, it is an offer of unconditioned surrender.
Look, I'll be honest with you here: I don't particularly like Yugoslavia. The people there seem to be quite content slaughtering anyone who's not like them, on all sides.

Much like I don't believe most African governments can't really be trusted to rule their people, I don't think any of them in former Yugoslavia can. If I'd had my wish (and it had been practical), we would have dissolved all these "countries" and put the place under UN rule or something.

The fact that it was invoked doesn't mean it made sense in that case.
IIRC, the vote was unanimous.

Ok down with Musharraf, but I don't think that bombing a nuclear power will ever lead to any good. Maybe economical sanction and an embargo on weapons (like with Iran) would be better and lead to less deaths.
I'm not saying to bomb Pakistan, I'm saying to bomb the Taliban in Pakistan. Places like Quetta (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,450605,00.html) for example. Musharraf either can't or doesn't want to do anything about them, so I say we might as well go in there and help him.

Interposition means that you're there, and won't move.
Which in this case would have meant to open fire on the Serbs.

WW2 didn't begin because of tension between ethnic groups in Germany.
No, but the Holocaust pretty much did (if you wanna call Jews and the other victims "ethnic groups", but you get the picture).

The US still has the largest contigent of forces inside Afghanistan. Yes it is a lower percentage of troops but look how large our military forces is compared to that of the other nations. To put us in italics is rather stupid.
The point of the italics is to show countries that could do more but don't. The US definitely falls in that category.

My question for a while now has been...where the fuck is Turkey? They're a NATO member, have a huge, well-equipped army and are a Muslim country.

Why aren't they providing 20,000 or 30,000 troops?

The point of the italics is to show countries that could do more but don't. The US definitely falls in that category.

My question for a while now has been...where the fuck is Turkey? They're a NATO member, have a huge, well-equipped army and are a Muslim country.

Why aren't they providing 20,000 or 30,000 troops?

My point is that Afganistan is not the only commitment of the US military, so can we REALLY afford to send more troops there?

Iraq Notwithstanding, we can't really spare troops anywhere else. And if we weren't involved in Iraq we'd still have opposition to more troops in Afganistan in the american public.

NATO's first end, as with every institution, is to preserve itself, and its second end, as with every institution, is to expand itself. So it's no surprise to see it interfere on the behalf of certain governmental and business interests regardless of morality, as this provides the best yield, and to see it do nothing or little when it provides little yield, even if morally correct.

My point is that Afganistan is not the only commitment of the US military, so can we REALLY afford to send more troops there?
Well, you somehow managed to send 20,000 more dudes to Iraq, so I dare say, yes. If the will was there, the US government could find a few more.

Iraq Notwithstanding, we can't really spare troops anywhere else.
Question: Does the US really need bases both in Germany and in the UK and Italy?

I see the point of having a big hub like Ramstein in central Europe. But there don't have to be nearly 80,000 dudes stationed there...the Russians aren't gonna attack any time soon*.

And the 24,000 in Italy and Britain definitely aren't necessary.

Oh, and then there still are 960,000 in the continental US. Unless you're expecting an immediate attack by Canada or Mexico, I think a division or two could probably be spared either.

My point is: if the will were there, it could be done. But it's not. The administration is too hung up on Iraq, and the Neocons are in no mood to recognise that the easy victory for their new reformed fighting style wasn't actually won afterall.

*and I know that the troops are being reduced...but the redeployment of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry is actually to the US, not to anywhere where they might be useful.

That's it. They're telling NATO (read: countries like France and Germany who try their best to stay away from the fighting) that if they don't get help, they're gonna go home.Most Canadians do NOT want their troops on a Combat role in Afghanistan.. regardless of what the US or Germany or France do.


the only reason for the more aggressive Canadian interversion (Combat) in Afghanistan is... Harpo AKA Bush Lap-dog.

Well, you somehow managed to send 20,000 more dudes to Iraq, so I dare say, yes. If the will was there, the US government could find a few more.


Question: Does the US really need bases both in Germany and in the UK and Italy?

I see the point of having a big hub like Ramstein in central Europe. But there don't have to be nearly 80,000 dudes stationed there...the Russians aren't gonna attack any time soon*.

And the 24,000 in Italy and Britain definitely aren't necessary.

Oh, and then there still are 960,000 in the continental US. Unless you're expecting an immediate attack by Canada or Mexico, I think a division or two could probably be spared either.

My point is: if the will were there, it could be done. But it's not. The administration is too hung up on Iraq, and the Neocons are in no mood to recognise that the easy victory for their new reformed fighting style wasn't actually won afterall.

*and I know that the troops are being reduced...but the redeployment of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry is actually to the US, not to anywhere where they might be useful.



I agree, we don't need them in Germany, and there is no problem in bringing them home. Right now the US is working on opening up bases in Eastern Europe to move away from the traditional NATO allies. And as far as invasion from Russia, with Putin in charge I really wouldn't put it past them(not a huge threat but still.....)

The additional surge to Iraq is putting more strain on our reserve forces than you'd think. In my state we've avoided sending units twice from our state guard for now, but that won't last. Your forgetting the massive amounts of troops deployed in other countries. US troops don't want to be the world's police any more than other's want us to be. But our job is not to ask why but to do or die(i fucked that quote up but you get the picture).

I have a question for you, how many other countries have so many troops stationed outside their borders to the extent the US does, do we really have to? And we are putting 2.5% of our Active Duty Land forces in Afganistan which isn't a small percentage and we are making up more than 50% of the total forces there, really do we need to do more? I think our commitment is more than adequate in Afganistan.

And we are putting 2.5% of our Active Duty Land forces in Afganistan which isn't a small percentage and we are making up more than 50% of the total forces there, really do we need to do more? I think our commitment is more than adequate in Afganistan.
The thing is that no one else could provide something like what is needed. The US is at least a decade or more ahead of the other NATO countries in terms of the ability to get troops fighting anywhere on the planet.

I mean, the German Army doesn't have all that many troops overseas (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Operations)), but it's already a huge strain on them to the point where they probably couldn't send any more even if they wanted to.

It's similar for the rest of NATO. So the US is going to have to carry a big share of the extra burden, simply because no one else can.

I agree, we don't need them in Germany, and there is no problem in bringing them home. Right now the US is working on opening up bases in Eastern Europe to move away from the traditional NATO allies. And as far as invasion from Russia, with Putin in charge I really wouldn't put it past them(not a huge threat but still.....)

The additional surge to Iraq is putting more strain on our reserve forces than you'd think. In my state we've avoided sending units twice from our state guard for now, but that won't last. Your forgetting the massive amounts of troops deployed in other countries. US troops don't want to be the world's police any more than other's want us to be. But our job is not to ask why but to do or die(i fucked that quote up but you get the picture).

I have a question for you, how many other countries have so many troops stationed outside their borders to the extent the US does, do we really have to? And we are putting 2.5% of our Active Duty Land forces in Afganistan which isn't a small percentage and we are making up more than 50% of the total forces there, really do we need to do more? I think our commitment is more than adequate in Afganistan.

The vast majority of troops that USED to be stationed in Germany have long since come home or been disbanded.

Back in the 1980s, there were almost 400,000 in West Germany alone.

Rhein-Main isn't even an airforce base anymore.

Most Canadians do NOT want their troops on a Combat role in Afghanistan.. regardless of what the US or Germany or France do.
Yeah, the problem is that the Taliban haven't asked them for their opinion.

The thing is that no one else could provide something like what is needed. The US is at least a decade or more ahead of the other NATO countries in terms of the ability to get troops fighting anywhere on the planet.

I mean, the German Army doesn't have all that many troops overseas (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Operations)), but it's already a huge strain on them to the point where they probably couldn't send any more even if they wanted to.

It's similar for the rest of NATO. So the US is going to have to carry a big share of the extra burden, simply because no one else can.


They are already carrying a huge share of the burden, hell if we could finance the deployment of German soldiers and give the ride why shouldn't we?

Yeah, the problem is that the Taliban haven't asked them for their opinion.

Be proud of the Canadian troops, with an American .50 Cal sniper rifle they currently have the record for the longest range kill by a rifleman.

They are already carrying a huge share of the burden, hell if we could finance the deployment of German soldiers and give the ride why shouldn't we?
Hehe, that would make for a few interesting headlines. Actually, write your local congressman to suggest that, I wanna see Merkel squirm. :D

Hehe, that would make for a few interesting headlines. Actually, write your local congressman to suggest that, I wanna see Merkel squirm. :D


Hehe, you know I used to not like you, but since my absence from this forum and my sudden come back I'm starting to like your opionions.

Sadly my Rep is a republican and therefore doesn't hold that much clout in the House of Reps.


Hehe, you used to call me a Neo-Con too.

NATO is still usefull as a military alliance in this conflict (against Islamo-fascism) because this conflict has characteristics of the Cold War, which is what formed NATO in the first place. Namely, these are
1: Assymetrical guerrila warfare
2: Proxy wars in distant countries
3: Economic competition

There are more, but those are just a few. Of course, there is no Islamic superpower like the USSR was a communist superpower, and terrorism wasn't such a big concern during the Cold War either.

Well, you somehow managed to send 20,000 more dudes to Iraq, so I dare say, yes. If the will was there, the US government could find a few more.


Question: Does the US really need bases both in Germany and in the UK and Italy?

I see the point of having a big hub like Ramstein in central Europe. But there don't have to be nearly 80,000 dudes stationed there...the Russians aren't gonna attack any time soon*.

And the 24,000 in Italy and Britain definitely aren't necessary.

Oh, and then there still are 960,000 in the continental US. Unless you're expecting an immediate attack by Canada or Mexico, I think a division or two could probably be spared either.

My point is: if the will were there, it could be done. But it's not. The administration is too hung up on Iraq, and the Neocons are in no mood to recognise that the easy victory for their new reformed fighting style wasn't actually won afterall.

*and I know that the troops are being reduced...but the redeployment of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry is actually to the US, not to anywhere where they might be useful.

The surge is a demonstration of our more compelling commitment to Iraq than Afghanistan.

As for the bases in Europe, they provide a good point for our transportion needs.

As for the ones in the US, you have to remember that in order to send forces overseas in the first place, you need to have an enormous logistics system on the ground. This is especially true for a rapid-deployment force such as the US military. Most of the Continental units aren't the kind that could be of any use in Iraq.

The surge is a demonstration of our more compelling commitment to Iraq than Afghanistan.

Most of the Continental units aren't the kind that could be of any use in Iraq.

Elaborate please.

Well, I'd argue that creating a somewhat stable and peaceful Afghanistan and beating back the Taliban is almost as useful.
Can't be done, at all.

The land's pure shite, can't farm anything other than poppies on it, and the drug money's worth fighting for.

People are always going to be fighting there - if it's not a civil war, it'll be someone else who's got pissed off invading, plus the system of local rule has been in place, well... forever... there, so you're not going to get an ostensibly democratic state set up properly there.

I think we still have some air force assets in UK
You do indeed. They went mental after the July 7th bombings, and we had to basically force them back into their airbases near London to stop them from doing anything too stupid.

Is one whole percentage point somehow worse than other benchmarks I could set? :p



I can understand that sentiment...

...but if "peace-keeping, love-dovey" is the reason you're there, perhaps send about 110 more and get up to that arbitrary 1% mark? :p

Why not set it at 2% or 3% if we're setting arbitrary marks? If Afghanistan is important why not 4% or 5%?

Why not set it at 2% or 3% if we're setting arbitrary marks?

Is Germany planning on sending 3000 to 6000 more troops?

Is the U.S. planning on sending 15000 to 40000 more troops?

Are Italy and Poland going to send 2000 more troops each if we ask real nicely??

I'm trying to be realistic with my arbitrary numbers! :mad: :p

I thought your number was what you thought they should send, not what they actually will send. It's highly unlikely any of the coalition partners will increase their commitment by more than a handful of troops.

Hence my 1% number...no nation that has not met that mark needs to contribute a significant number of additional troops to reach it. Unlike a number such as 2% or 3% as you suggested.

Well...except Turkey, France and Spain. *shrugs*

EDIT: Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeee Waaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrppppppp!!!!!!!!1!

Is Germany planning on sending 3000 to 6000 more troops?

Is the U.S. planning on sending 15000 to 40000 more troops?

Are Italy and Poland going to send 2000 more troops each if we ask real nicely??

I'm trying to be realistic with my arbitrary numbers! :mad: :p

I thought your number was what you thought they should send, not what they actually will send. It's highly unlikely any of the coalition partners will increase their commitment by more than a handful of troops.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepFeb07-e.pdf

I point to recommendation Number 6:


The full report can be found here (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=76).

That's it. They're telling NATO (read: countries like France and Germany who try their best to stay away from the fighting) that if they don't get help, they're gonna go home.

And rightly so, in my opinion. I mean, that Canada is keeping 10% of its army there and barely hanging on while others are sitting by and watching can't be acceptable.

So, what do you reckon will happen now?
Death to NATO!!!!

Maybe the vatican should send its swiss guard to bolster the stabilization force..
That'd be funny..