|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 23084
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:51 am
dog77_1999 dog77_1999: bootlegga bootlegga: NATO isn't sitting on its hands in Afghanistan, they are doing what was originally asked of them. I might not like the caveats many nations have placed on their troops, but when they offered to help in Afghanistan, it was to help rebuild the country, not chase the Taliban into Pakistan. They came to restore government and rebuild a county and that's what their doing.
NATO did help in the Falklands. The US lent intel to the Brits and many nations supported the Brits actions there. Had the Brits asked for military assistance from NATO, it would have been given.
A lot of NATO countries might get oil/gas from the Russians, but if push came to shove, they'd come here, if only to prevent the Russians from getting a huge chunk of oil reserves worldwide (just like they'd prevent the Russians from attacking the Middle East). Look at how the Saudis use their 'oil power' and tell me you think that Europeans would be a-okay with the Russians doing the same...
Yeah, that NATO. You know, the ones who told you, don't go into Iraq, it's a mess, yet, like a spoiled child, you went anyways. Then you got pissed that we wouldn't help you fix what you yourselves broke. If the US wasn't always so pissy to NATO (especially 'Old Europe' as Rumsfeld once called it), the USA might find NATO a little more willing to help out.
The US would not ask for any more help from certain European Allies because they know they won't. The forces there are a token force that is in there. It's just a political operation, not a military operation. When push comes to shove, they will be neutral. Look at Iran and how dependent Europe is on Iranian oil. All they can muster is a letter? And they seriously think that Iran is doing anything else then buying time? Heh, hopefully people are not that ignorant. Token force? You're reading too much Republican propaganda... Out of 41,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, about 16,000 are US. Hardly sounds token to me. It's only when you add in the US forces not under ISAF (about another 13,000 troops), that the US has more than half of the forces in Afghanistan, amounting to roughly 29,000 out 54,000. Had the US deployed enough forces to Afghanistan in the first place, it might not be such a hotbed of insurgency. I'd argue that given who trained El-Qaeda and hosted them (Afghanistan), it the US forces that are a token. The 'token forces' were those sent on your ill-fated quagmire in Iraq. But that was a US show, not a NATO one. But what do you expect when your coalition of the willing includes military powerhouses like Tonga, Moldova, Iceland, etc.
|
dog77_1999
Forum Elite
Posts: 1240
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:11 am
bootlegga bootlegga: dog77_1999 dog77_1999: bootlegga bootlegga: NATO isn't sitting on its hands in Afghanistan, they are doing what was originally asked of them. I might not like the caveats many nations have placed on their troops, but when they offered to help in Afghanistan, it was to help rebuild the country, not chase the Taliban into Pakistan. They came to restore government and rebuild a county and that's what their doing.
NATO did help in the Falklands. The US lent intel to the Brits and many nations supported the Brits actions there. Had the Brits asked for military assistance from NATO, it would have been given.
A lot of NATO countries might get oil/gas from the Russians, but if push came to shove, they'd come here, if only to prevent the Russians from getting a huge chunk of oil reserves worldwide (just like they'd prevent the Russians from attacking the Middle East). Look at how the Saudis use their 'oil power' and tell me you think that Europeans would be a-okay with the Russians doing the same...
Yeah, that NATO. You know, the ones who told you, don't go into Iraq, it's a mess, yet, like a spoiled child, you went anyways. Then you got pissed that we wouldn't help you fix what you yourselves broke. If the US wasn't always so pissy to NATO (especially 'Old Europe' as Rumsfeld once called it), the USA might find NATO a little more willing to help out.
The US would not ask for any more help from certain European Allies because they know they won't. The forces there are a token force that is in there. It's just a political operation, not a military operation. When push comes to shove, they will be neutral. Look at Iran and how dependent Europe is on Iranian oil. All they can muster is a letter? And they seriously think that Iran is doing anything else then buying time? Heh, hopefully people are not that ignorant. Token force? You're reading too much Republican propaganda... Out of 41,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, about 16,000 are US. Hardly sounds token to me. It's only when you add in the US forces not under ISAF (about another 13,000 troops), that the US has more than half of the forces in Afghanistan, amounting to roughly 29,000 out 54,000. Had the US deployed enough forces to Afghanistan in the first place, it might not be such a hotbed of insurgency. I'd argue that given who trained El-Qaeda and hosted them (Afghanistan), it the US forces that are a token. The 'token forces' were those sent on your ill-fated quagmire in Iraq. But that was a US show, not a NATO one. But what do you expect when your coalition of the willing includes military powerhouses like Tonga, Moldova, Iceland, etc. June 10 (Reuters) - Afghanistan is due to meet its international donors on Thursday in Paris, where President Hamid Karzai will ask for $50 billion to fund a development plan THAT his government has drawn up. Here is a breakdown of current national deployments within the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, which according to NATO had some 52,908 troops as of June 3: Country Troops United States 23550 Britain 8530 Germany 3370 Canada 2500 Italy 2350 Netherlands 1770 France 1670 Poland 1140 Australia 1100 Spain 800 Turkey 760 Denmark 690 Norway 580 Romania 570 Other countries 3528 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10501306.htmConsidering that the US, UK, and Canada are the only ones that leave the bases and actually engage the insurgency in operations, my point still stands.
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:16 am
mtbr mtbr: Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace: ny bias or stereotyping...
I also proved that most people who make racist remarks tend to be Conservative-minded.
I called you on this point which you still haven't proven . Actually, I do have to say that all the racism I've ever suffered--and there have ben three or four occassions--was at the hands of Liberals.
|
Posts: 17037
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:19 am
mtbr mtbr: Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace: ny bias or stereotyping...
I also proved that most people who make racist remarks tend to be Conservative-minded.
I called you on this point which you still haven't proven . Except I totally did. You're just blind and ignorant. 
|
Posts: 10503
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:36 am
The problem with Afghanistan to completely stamp out the insurgency the US and Allies are throwing around numbers to what the Soviets said were needed to effectively occupy the country which is 800,000 troops. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... fghanistan
|
Posts: 23084
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:32 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999: bootlegga bootlegga: Token force? You're reading too much Republican propaganda...
Out of 41,000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, about 16,000 are US. Hardly sounds token to me. It's only when you add in the US forces not under ISAF (about another 13,000 troops), that the US has more than half of the forces in Afghanistan, amounting to roughly 29,000 out 54,000. Had the US deployed enough forces to Afghanistan in the first place, it might not be such a hotbed of insurgency. I'd argue that given who trained El-Qaeda and hosted them (Afghanistan), it the US forces that are a token.
The 'token forces' were those sent on your ill-fated quagmire in Iraq. But that was a US show, not a NATO one. But what do you expect when your coalition of the willing includes military powerhouses like Tonga, Moldova, Iceland, etc.
June 10 (Reuters) - Afghanistan is due to meet its international donors on Thursday in Paris, where President Hamid Karzai will ask for $50 billion to fund a development plan THAT his government has drawn up. Here is a breakdown of current national deployments within the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, which according to NATO had some 52,908 troops as of June 3: Country Troops United States 23550 Britain 8530 Germany 3370 Canada 2500 Italy 2350 Netherlands 1770 France 1670 Poland 1140 Australia 1100 Spain 800 Turkey 760 Denmark 690 Norway 580 Romania 570 Other countries 3528 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10501306.htmConsidering that the US, UK, and Canada are the only ones that leave the bases and actually engage the insurgency in operations, my point still stands. Sorry, your point is still incorrect. You said NATO had a token force, when, by your own numbers, there are more NATO troops in Afghanistan than US. Your basic argument is flawed. Every NATO country has troops that leave their bases. Ever hear of a Provinicial Reconstruction Team (PRT)? They may not fight insurgents in the south like you mentioned, but they do leave their bases to help rebuild Afghanistan. Helping to train the Afghan Army/police, reopen schools, build infrastructure, etc is important too. Ultimately, the Afghans have to be able to run their country themselves. There's a reason why out of Canada's 2500 troops not all of them are in the combat arms.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:39 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace: mtbr mtbr: Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace: ny bias or stereotyping...
I also proved that most people who make racist remarks tend to be Conservative-minded.
I called you on this point which you still haven't proven . Except I totally did. You're just blind and ignorant.  by citing a few names you proved it?  is that what you call scientific 
|
Posts: 9956
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:39 pm
Not going to nit pick and rehash everything but it looks like Chagrin needs to go back to history 101 or at least go to certified versions instead of Americanized (we are the greatest!!) versions. Nobody needs to be a country to create history, you of all people know that. Your belittlement of Canadian (your own lack of knowledge of it speaks for itself) history being insignificant merely because you think Canadian history is less meaningful for these people because they weren't a country or "Britian did everything" mentality? Sorry, I'm not going to be so forgiving as some on here. Seems to me you were determined to undermine anything Canadian other than we have no history because we were a "colony" type thing.
Yeah, everythings cool, give you a thumbs up but other than that, pick up a book. Please.
|
Posts: 11829
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:46 pm
The lack of history as we were a colony thing is a favorite line of some Americans. You're great-great-grandfather didn't burn down the White House as a Canadian, there were no 'Canadian Citizens" then. My Mom wasn't either, but she'd pound you to jelly with her walker if you said that. She got the strap in 1944 for telling her teacher she didn't need a goddam paper to tell her she was Canadian and neither did (her interred Japanese schoolmate). They got those papers in 1947, but they were Canadians the minute they were born here. I've wasted my time for years trying to explain that the fucking Queen doesn't "do" anything but wave and give speeches but it's wasted on people who fought a long and bloody war to simply replace a foreign tyrant with their own tyrant and an aristocracy with celebrities and the wealthy. We do our own shit here, not the Brits, nor our 'leaders'. We don't even need 'term limits' as we're capable of tossing everyone who starts telling us what to do out on their arse, and if you read a book on Canadian history you'll see that.
|
|
Page 11 of 11
|
[ 159 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests |
|
|