NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_re_eu/gates_europe;_ylt=Aq7x3WewsMQjNimnlxRfTg5vaA8F
wow, i'm on a roll today, 4 thread in one day :p
so what is your opinon on this matter?

So? Nobody really needs it. The USSR is dead.

So? Nobody really needs it. The USSR is dead.But Russia and Islam are not.

And Fascist still there, hiding, yes, but it's follower shall return, whether in the east or in the west...

So? Nobody really needs it. The USSR is dead.

Not if Putin has his way...

(okay it won't be the Soviet Union exactly, but it will be a Russian Empire which is all the Soviet Union really was)

"In NATO, some allies ought not have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and the dying," Gates said.

So true! Either have an appropriate share in the fighting involved, or get out of NATO.

So true! Either have an appropriate share in the fighting involved, or get out of NATO.Why should NATO be in Afghanistan anyways?
Why should Germany or Spain or Canada be in Afghanistan?

Why should NATO be in Afghanistan anyways?

They shouldn't have been, but now they need to stay.


Why should Germany or Spain or Canada be in Afghanistan?

Because they are in NATO, if they don't want to be in Afghanistan, then they can leave NATO.

They shouldn't have been,...
Indeed.

This is the main reason why most NATO countries dont like this, because NATO should not be in Afghanistan, it should not stay in Afghanistan.

Indeed.

This is the main reason why most NATO countries dont like this, because NATO should not be in Afghanistan, it should not stay in Afghanistan.

Then get out of NATO and form another alliance.

Aaaagh! Aaaagh! Aaaagh! Aaaagh! Aaaagh!

Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism!
*yawn*

Good riddance to NATO, I say. It exists only to further the end of a political elite in Washington and their subsidiaries in Europe.

:confused:

Good riddance to NATO, I say. It exists only to further the end of a political elite in Washington and their subsidiaries in Europe.

Good riddance to NATO, I say. It exists only to further the end of a political elite in Washington and their subsidiaries in Europe.

Oh yes, because Peace-keeping is completely horrible and needs to be ended.

I continue to assert that, if we fought terrorism the way we fought any other crime and didn't afford it too much attention, we'd be more successful.

Terrorists are a bit like young children. They demand and thrive upon attention; except unlike young children, they've found the best way of getting that attention to be threatening the lives of others. I don't see why they should be treated any differently than, say, murderers or rapists or even burglars: arrested by normal police, tried in a fair court of law by a jury of their peers, and thrown into normal jails (or put to death if the judge so decides). None of this global-struggle axis-of-evil army-navy-airforce-and-marines fearmongering; that just fulfills their aims.

Well how you tackle terrorism at home is completely and utterly irrelevant to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. If we can't stabilize it then the shit is really going to hit the fan.

Not if Putin has his way...

what's he going to do? sell us really bad counterfeit watches or pull the Russian Mafia out of English football :p

*yawn*

I continue to assert that, if we fought terrorism the way we fought any other crime and didn't afford it too much attention, we'd be more successful.

Terrorists are a bit like young children. They demand and thrive upon attention; except unlike young children, they've found the best way of getting that attention to be threatening the lives of others. I don't see why they should be treated any differently than, say, murderers or rapists or even burglars: arrested by normal police, tried in a fair court of law by a jury of their peers, and thrown into normal jails (or put to death if the judge so decides). None of this global-struggle axis-of-evil army-navy-airforce-and-marines fearmongering; that just fulfills their aims.

I continue to assert that, if we fought terrorism the way we fought any other crime and didn’t afford it too much attention, we’d be more successful.
I completely agree.

Just look at the success Germany had in dealing with Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction as a criminal investigation.

Oh yes, because Peace-keeping is completely horrible and needs to be ended.

"Peace-keeping" merely puts the hands of the powerful around the throats of their newest prize. Hence why we have Miroslav Lacjak acting like an overlord in Bosnia-Herzegovinia and Albanians terrorizing the ethnic minorities in Kosovo, for instance. NATO is the perfect tool to bludgeon its neighbors into submission.

This is the main reason why most NATO countries dont like this, because NATO should not be in Afghanistan, it should not stay in Afghanistan.
Maybe they should have voted against going there in the first place then.

Well how you tackle terrorism at home is completely and utterly irrelevant to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. If we can't stabilize it then the shit is really going to hit the fan.

Well, first of all, Iraq was not actually suffering from terrorism before we went all Shock 'n' Awe on their butts. And Afghanistan.... well, the situation there could have been handled much better with the co-operation of local police and even paramilitary forces.

Also, it's been about six years, but I still don't really understand the connection between the Taliban and al-Qaida. Has anyone got a quick'n'nasty summary?

Well, first of all, Iraq was not actually suffering from terrorism before we went all Shock 'n' Awe on their butts.

No shit.


And Afghanistan.... well, the situation there could have been handled much better with the co-operation of local police and even paramilitary forces.


What makes you say that? The Taliban ran Afghanistan and had a tight grip over it, why would they set the police on themselves?


Also, it's been about six years, but I still don't really understand the connection between the Taliban and al-Qaida. Has anyone got a quick'n'nasty summary?

Google it?

Also, it's been about six years, but I still don't really understand the connection between the Taliban and al-Qaida. Has anyone got a quick'n'nasty summary?
The Taliban are a funny mix of ultra-conservative, regressive Pushtun nationalist Islamist autocrats. AQ are also ultra-conservative, regressive and Islamist, but rather than stick to one area they want to rebuild an Islamic caliphate that spans big parts of the world trying to eradicate ways of life that don't conform to their god's will.

So the two have common ground on a theological level. The Taliban are also poor, while AQ is rich. So since Bin Laden and the predecessor to AQ (which was a more mainstream militia group that had been created while fighting the Soviets) were getting kicked out everywhere else, he returned to Afghanistan and the Taliban agreed to host him. Training camps were built and so on and so forth.

Then 9/11 happened. Personally I'm not sure the Taliban were properly informed, but then Bin Laden et al didn't actually know it was going to happen there and then either since the hijacker cell was operating independently on its training and without direct instructions. Either way Mullah Omar and the Taliban government hadn't figured with the massive response they got. They got kicked out by a combination of western air power and their old domestic enemies (which weren't any better than them human rights-wise, but now called themselves "Northern Alliance" and were useful because then NATO wouldn't need to send ground forces).

But just because they got kicked out of Kabul didn't mean they were beaten. As Taliban fighters were pushed to the south (since the Pakistani border territories are Pushtun lands as well), the AQ militia fighters from the training camps joined them. In Battles like at Tora Bora, the two fought side by side against Coalition forces.

Today the two are basically the same. They have the same goal in mind, which is to kick NATO and company out of Afghanistan. They are using the same methods, which is using money made from poppy planting and conversion into heroin to launch attacks on the Afghan government, Coalition forces, civilians who don't do as they're supposed to as well as the odd suicide bombing. The leaders of the Taliban movement today are basically terror princes, now with their own contacts and cells in Europe and beyond (or so they say) and certainly with the ability to launch terror attacks in Pakistan (the Red Mosque massacre and perhaps Bhutto's assassination were due to this mix of AQ-type radical Islamists and Pushtun nationalists).

So the biggest threat to letting the Taliban take over again in Afghanistan is that this new leadership won't be isolationist like the old ones. They'll have beaten the supposedly strongest forces in the world and they'll have contacts all over because of it (Saudi radicals with lots of cash, etc). It wouldn't surprise me if in that case some future terrorist attacks in the west would have been organised in Kabul rather than in Pakistan. But even worse is that a new Taliban-controlled Afghanistan would be the end of Pakistan as we know it. They'd kick Pakistani troops out of the northern border territories, launch the same sort of campaign that they're doing in Afghanistan now against Pakistan. That country is going to collapse to the Islamist pressure, breaking apart and with nuclear weapons ending up who knows where.

And that's not even mentioning the problem Afghans themselves will have to face if the Taliban come back.

Thank you, NL. :fluffle:

It does seem as though NATO involvement there, "against terrorism", only seemed to make things worse. But it also seems as though whether or not the West got involved, that whole area was bound to explode sooner or later. So yeah, I can see why, in that case, it makes more sense to use the military rather than paramilitary police or even local law enforcement. And Afghanistan isn't part of the Axis of Evil, either. So point conceded.

Oh yes, because Peace-keeping is completely horrible and needs to be ended.

Dude,The US isn't peaceful.If a country knew what was good for them they'd stay away from the US.If you haven't noticed America has a habit of turning its allies into puppets and dragging them into wars.And I DO know what I'm talking about I live in the US.


And anyway NATO has long outlived its usefulness,it's totally obsolete.Europeans don't need the US to protect them anymore because they have the EU now.

NATO's reason for being, the red scare, and the Warsaw Pact are no more. It has fulfilled its purpose. The best thing now is to disband. Those nations that have common ground and a reason to form alliances and pacts should be free to do so in accordance with the balances of powers of the 21st century, not forced into a fossilized dinosaur of a bygone era.

Europeans don't need the US to protect them anymore because they have the EU now.
That's silly. The EU isn't a military alliance, all its military projects fizzled away as everyone tried to wiggle out of contributing money or troops and European militaries might have some fancy technology but not the numbers, nor the power projection capabilities.

If a European country gets taken seriously, for example in negotiating with someone like Iran, it's because of their connection with American firepower. That's realpolitik for you.

What about OTAN? Is that going away too? I never liked that French poser.

What about OTAN? Is that going away too? I never liked that French poser.

lol

lol

Before I knew that OTAN was literally the French acronym for NATO, I thought they were just trying to be all trendy with their NATO flag.

Which reminds me... (http://jmc.jnumbers.com/archive/Feb2008/18.png)

Before I knew that OTAN was literally the French acronym for NATO, I thought they were just trying to be all trendy with their NATO flag.

Which reminds me... (http://jmc.jnumbers.com/archive/Feb2008/18.png)

ROFLMAO

That's silly. The EU isn't a military alliance, all its military projects fizzled away as everyone tried to wiggle out of contributing money or troops and European militaries might have some fancy technology but not the numbers, nor the power projection capabilities.

If a European country gets taken seriously, for example in negotiating with someone like Iran, it's because of their connection with American firepower. That's realpolitik for you.

Europeans don't need the US to be taken seriously.The European nations are powerful enough to deal with Iran.

Europeans don't need the US to be taken seriously.The European nations are powerful enough to deal with Iran.
Unfortunately, that's just not true. Two or three European air forces combined would probably be able to start bombing - if they had the airfields, which they don't. No European country, not even all of them put together, have the ability to field enough troops in that region to actually invade Iran. And any threat coming from European politicians wouldn't be taken seriously because an invasion could not be justified domestically.

I hope so.

Not if Putin has his way...

(okay it won't be the Soviet Union exactly, but it will be a Russian Empire which is all the Soviet Union really was)

"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." -Putin

Really? A guy who says that wants the Soviet Union?

"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." -Putin

Really? A guy who says that wants the Soviet Union?

I'm sure he'd settle for a feudal gangster regime ruled or effectively controlled by himself, that just happens to include everything the USSR useta. Best part is, they get to avoid all that moralistic, hypocritical twaddle about the proletariat and socialism. Get filthy rich by squeezing the serfs and not pretend to feel guilty about it. Czars, Boyars, Khans, General Secretaries, Presidents, what difference does it make what the Russian Emperor names himself or his slaves?

my understanding is that what was nato and what had been the warsaw pact, essentially merged, and until the u.s. starts behaving itself, whatever its called these days has every right to kick the u.s. out of it.

i'm probably dreaming, but what this world really needs right now is a mutual self defence aggreement against american bullying. not just europe or asia or the middle east or south and central america, but all of them togather.

so far this kind of mutual self defence hasn't entirely gelled, and i'm sure the u.s. state department would and will continue to do everything in its power to prevent it form doing so. and it certainly is very good at sabotaging anything to protect the citizens and their environments anywhere in the rest of the world.

but the u.s. HAS squandered whatever legitimate moral reputation in international affairs it may ever have had, and seems to be/have doing/done so with its economic base as well.

so, like so many other things, it all remains to be seen.

hopefully, maybe, someday, well get an administration that will actually chainge us forign policy from one of bullying the rest of the world to one of getting along with it.

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

hopefully, maybe, someday, well get an administration that will actually chainge us forign policy from one of bullying the rest of the world to one of getting along with it.

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

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

It goes deeper than bullying. By starting a war in Iraq, unprovoked, while our Allies fought for us in Afghanistan, a country that actively aided and harbored the group that attacked us, America dishonored itself by failing its allies. We dumped the burden of our war on them, while we chased pipeline dreams in Baghdad.

I'm not mad at the American regime for what it has made the other world think of us, I'm ashamed of what it has made me think of our country. It's shameful to treat our friends this way, not to speak of the political vilification we subjected some of them to in the run up to the Iraq War, while they had soldiers fighting our cause in Afghanistan.

It goes deeper than bullying. By starting a war in Iraq, unprovoked, while our Allies fought for us in Afghanistan, a country that actively aided and harbored the group that attacked us, America dishonored itself by failing its allies. We dumped the burden of our war on them, while we chased pipeline dreams in Baghdad.

I'm not mad at the American regime for what it has made the other world think of us, I'm ashamed of what it has made me think of our country. It's shameful to treat our friends this way, not to speak of the political vilification we subjected some of them to in the run up to the Iraq War, while they had soldiers fighting our cause in Afghanistan.

Well put.

Not if Putin has his way...
It's not going to be much like the Soviet Union, it'll just be like Tsarist Russia all over again.

A pretty good article and a hint to get the thread back on topic. :p

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,534524,00.html
The Coming Afghanistan Showdown

For months, NATO has been pressuring Germany to increase its commitment to the Afghanistan mission. Now, the complaints are getting louder. Berlin is doing its best to dodge the demands, but NATO may not be in a mood to listen.

[...]

The bickering, though, is a far cry from the occasional spat between players on the soccer field. Indeed, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has defined Afghanistan as a test case for the future success of the world's most powerful military alliance. So far, however, there is little evidence to suggest that the alliance might, in fact, pass the test. An alliance only works if its members support one another. This is clearly not the case in Afghanistan.

The Canadians alone have lost 68 of their soldiers in combat in Afghanistan since 2002. They have repeatedly asked other member states for assistance and support. Their requests were directed in part at the Germans, but the government in Berlin has shown no inclination to listen (more...).

[...]

The chancellor and the relevant members of her cabinet, familiar with the mood among Germans, are reluctant to openly campaign for the Afghanistan mission. Instead, their approach has been to try to please everyone. Merkel has made it clear to voters that there will be no permanent Bundeswehr combat missions. At the same time, Berlin hopes to keep its NATO allies happy by gradually expanding the Bundeswehr's mandate.

There is little to suggest that the NATO partners will fall for this strategy. "We can do somersaults if we want to, but the pressure will only increase," says a senior official at the defense ministry. In the past, he says, the Americans would wait until a few weeks before the relevant debates in the German parliament, the Bundestag, before attempting to exert political pressure. "Now they start up three-quarters of a year before the debates."

[...]

Much has yet to be resolved, but the basic elements of the evasive maneuver seem to have been determined. They include:

significantly enlarging the field of operations for German troops and extending it westward;
increasing troop strength from the current level of 3,500 to a ceiling of up to 4,500 troops;
amending the Bundeswehr's mandate within the parliament, which currently ends in October, in June -- before the parliamentary summer recess -- and extending it until early 2010.

Government strategists hope that this plan will satisfy the NATO partners, but they also expect it to achieve a domestic political purpose. An early extension of the Bundeswehr mandate, they reason, would ensure that the controversial mission in Afghanistan could be kept out of the parliamentary elections in the fall of 2009.

[...]

The German planners discarded other options. For instance, experts at the chancellery had initially proposed sending both the Tornado reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bombers to Afghanistan. But when the Social Democrats were consulted they refused to support the plan.

The military leadership was also uninterested, arguing that there are already enough bombers in Afghanistan. Great Britain wants to test its Eurofighters in combat missions in Afghanistan soon, while France is testing its competing product, the Rafale. According to one officer, Germany, with its more than 25-year-old Tornados, would "only end up looking outdated."

German Air Force Inspector Klaus-Peter Stieglitz suggested that the reconnaissance Tornados could also be used to fire on the Taliban. But other military officials quickly dismissed the idea, arguing that the risk of killing German troops and innocent civilians was "much too high."

[...]

Just an indication of the sort of BS they're mixing up in order to make sure it stays at everyone else doing the dying. Especially those damned Canadians, because they certainly deserve it. :rolleyes:

I thought the problem for Germany was that a) There weren't enough properly trained troops to go on Auslandseinsätze and b) that Germany doesn't want to look imperialistic and Nazi-tabulous by sending in forces to actually fight the Taliban outside of self-defence, in daytime.

I thought the problem for Germany was that a) There weren't enough properly trained troops to go on Auslandseinsätze and b) that Germany doesn't want to look imperialistic and Nazi-tabulous by sending in forces to actually fight the Taliban outside of self-defence, in daytime.
The former is a real problem, but not one of the scale that it would actually stop them from sending a battallion or two to Helmand or Kandahar on a permanent basis. The latter wouldn't apply here, since everyone knows what's going on and this is afterall a UN-approved NATO mission.

The real reason is that it would be unpopular domestically and politicians would have to answer questions that it seems right now to be much easier to ignore indefinitely, including some historical ones.

The former is a real problem, but not one of the scale that it would actually stop them from sending a battallion or two to Helmand or Kandahar on a permanent basis. The latter wouldn't apply here, since everyone knows what's going on and this is afterall a UN-approved NATO mission.
Helmand would be a bit hard on troops that haven't been out of their own country to fight a proper war for quite a while.

Kandahar, maybe.
The real reason is that it would be unpopular domestically and politicians would have to answer questions that it seems right now to be much easier to ignore indefinitely, including some historical ones.
Ah, I see.

Because they are in NATO, if they don't want to be in Afghanistan, then they can leave NATO.

Actually NATO can't force its member countries to partake in ANY military action, including military actions aimed at defending other members' territory. (read art.5 of the North Atlantic Treaty).

WEO can. NATO can't.
WEO is more useful to Europe than NATO (and always has been).

Oh, btw, NATO cannot be aimed lawfully at Russia, because Russia is a NATO Partner.

Not if Putin has his way...

(okay it won't be the Soviet Union exactly, but it will be a Russian Empire which is all the Soviet Union really was)"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." -Putin

Really? A guy who says that wants the Soviet Union?

In a way, yes.

so what is your opinon on this matter?
Gates remains an idiot.

Oh, btw, NATO cannot be aimed lawfully at Russia, because Russia is a NATO Partner.

:confused: Source?