Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 8

 

2008-02-02 04:54:09
c14u53w172
Member
+31|6014|tomania

MrCookie wrote:

i understand y the germans dont want to... i think they are tired of war!
exactly. ww2 and the inane giant loss of human lives in this war is still in the mind of many germans. every german government has to be very cautious in terms of sending german troops into combat missions.

plus, combat missions in the south of afghanistan would not be covered by the mandat given by the german parliament. and i don't think the representatives would extend this mandate.

it's as simple as this: a vast majority of the german people is against a committment in combat operations in the south. it would be political suicide for any german government to send the troops there. especially when dead german soldiers are being flown back to germany...
2008-02-02 05:10:11
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6638|Hanging in the Balance

jord wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

jord wrote:


It's the principle.
Its also principle vs. Cost. In the end the UK lost an extraordinary amount of money, men and machinery and for what? A few little islands that nobody cares about?
People lived there, I bet they cared about it...


Anyway, you let people take land and do nothing about it. What next? Maybe we should let Ireland take back N.Ireland, or maybe we should let Russia come over and take the whole of Britain...

Argentina can moan about the islands in meetings, but taking it back just like that was fucking wrong. Like you said, men were lost. That's Argentina's fault.
No. Just No.

There's a big difference between a few very small islands such as the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and a large chunk of land such as Northern Ireland. If you can't tell the difference then perhaps you should re-examine the size differential. Damn that sounded sexual...

Ultimately, the ownership of the Falklands/Malvinas is up in the air. 1 Country claims its theirs, another claims its theirs. Blaming the deaths on Argentina is stupid. They did what they thought was right. You did what you thought was right. Dont blame them tho.
2008-02-02 05:24:57
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6669|pimelteror.de

yuckfou09 wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

The german army is already involved in the north of afghanistan. Their equipment, infrastructure and training sucks. I don´t think, that they could replace well trained and combat experienced troops like the airborne divisions. i think, it´s also better for the fighting troops there, to not have those noobs fill up their lines.
you honestly have no idea do you. Go play something. Bundeswheir or however you spell it are great soldiers. No "noobs". ffs. kids
Do you know german soldiers? Do you know, how most of them are trained?
2008-02-02 05:25:26
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6597|SE London

Ghandi767 wrote:

jord wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:


Its also principle vs. Cost. In the end the UK lost an extraordinary amount of money, men and machinery and for what? A few little islands that nobody cares about?
People lived there, I bet they cared about it...


Anyway, you let people take land and do nothing about it. What next? Maybe we should let Ireland take back N.Ireland, or maybe we should let Russia come over and take the whole of Britain...

Argentina can moan about the islands in meetings, but taking it back just like that was fucking wrong. Like you said, men were lost. That's Argentina's fault.
No. Just No.

There's a big difference between a few very small islands such as the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and a large chunk of land such as Northern Ireland. If you can't tell the difference then perhaps you should re-examine the size differential. Damn that sounded sexual...
Perhaps before making outrageous statements like that you should examine the size differential.

They are virtually the same size. Both roughly 5000 sq miles.
2008-02-02 05:31:33
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6638|Hanging in the Balance

Bertster7 wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

jord wrote:


People lived there, I bet they cared about it...


Anyway, you let people take land and do nothing about it. What next? Maybe we should let Ireland take back N.Ireland, or maybe we should let Russia come over and take the whole of Britain...

Argentina can moan about the islands in meetings, but taking it back just like that was fucking wrong. Like you said, men were lost. That's Argentina's fault.
No. Just No.

There's a big difference between a few very small islands such as the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and a large chunk of land such as Northern Ireland. If you can't tell the difference then perhaps you should re-examine the size differential. Damn that sounded sexual...
Perhaps before making outrageous statements like that you should examine the size differential.

They are virtually the same size. Both roughly 5000 sq miles.
Falklands:
4,700 Square Miles

Northern Ireland:
5,345 Square Miles

Falklands:
3,060 People

Northern Ireland:
1,710,300 People


See the difference?
2008-02-02 05:47:38
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6758|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
how many of the Falkland islanders consider themselves  Argentinian though? not too many i'd hazard a guess, plus there are hugh oil fields attached to the Flakland islands..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-02-02 05:48:37)

2008-02-02 07:03:50
MrCookie
good times
+31|6013|In a wheelchair.

c14u53w172 wrote:

MrCookie wrote:

i understand y the germans dont want to... i think they are tired of war!
exactly. ww2 and the inane giant loss of human lives in this war is still in the mind of many germans. every german government has to be very cautious in terms of sending german troops into combat missions.

plus, combat missions in the south of afghanistan would not be covered by the mandat given by the german parliament. and i don't think the representatives would extend this mandate.

it's as simple as this: a vast majority of the german people is against a committment in combat operations in the south. it would be political suicide for any german government to send the troops there. especially when dead german soldiers are being flown back to germany...
what i wouldve said
2008-02-02 07:30:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6571
Fairplay to Germany. It's stupid trying to 'rebuild' stone age nations - throwing more troops at it is pointless. Afghans will never bend to the will of the west, just like how they never bent to the will of the Soviets. Nobody likes foreign occupation. The Afghan mission has outlived any usefulness it might have had. Ship out and toss cruise missiles at it whenever satellite imagery locates a training camp. Besides, Al Qaeda have pretty much moved into Pakistan at this stage.

NATO should have disbanded in 1989.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-02 07:46:00)

2008-02-02 07:42:26
The_Mac
Member
+96|6241

IRONCHEF wrote:

So?  Is that bad if Germany doesn't want to commit?
As part of NATO, it's their duty to. It's irresponsible, as well as cowardly. Although with all the damned terrorist cells in their own country, perhaps they should worry about their own affairs. Like regulating history and swimming pools.
2008-02-02 08:50:59
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6857|Cologne, Germany

The_Mac wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So?  Is that bad if Germany doesn't want to commit?
As part of NATO, it's their duty to. It's irresponsible, as well as cowardly. Although with all the damned terrorist cells in their own country, perhaps they should worry about their own affairs. Like regulating history and swimming pools.
NATO ain't requesting shit. It's the US that is complaining, and - with all respect - Gates can bite my ass. Who does he think he is demanding more troops from EU nations ? and why are we talking about Germany only here anyway ? Gates sent that letter to a number of EU nations, not just to us.
Do you think we owe you or what  ?

as part of NATO, we are already committing 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. That's the second biggest contingent in ISAF, after the UK.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with our contribution in Afghanistan.

Additional combat troops would require and extended parliamentary mandate, and at the moment, there is no majority for that.
Due to our history with military operations, we tend to be careful with jumping on anybody's military bandwagon these days. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Apart from that, I'd appreciate if you'd get off your high horse. You are in no position to judge our commitment. You seem to be quick with telling other people to worry about their own affairs, yet you bitch and moan how we are supposedly not doing our duty. How about you follow your own advice for a change ? Mind your own business. We're fine.

And seriously, "regulating history and swimming pools" ? how about you go troll someplace else ?
2008-02-02 09:02:04
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6545|Global Command

B.Schuss wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So?  Is that bad if Germany doesn't want to commit?
As part of NATO, it's their duty to. It's irresponsible, as well as cowardly. Although with all the damned terrorist cells in their own country, perhaps they should worry about their own affairs. Like regulating history and swimming pools.
NATO ain't requesting shit. It's the US that is complaining, and - with all respect - Gates can bite my ass. Who does he think he is demanding more troops from EU nations ? and why are we talking about Germany only here anyway ? Gates sent that letter to a number of EU nations, not just to us.
Do you think we owe you or what  ?

as part of NATO, we are already committing 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. That's the second biggest contingent in ISAF, after the UK.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with our contribution in Afghanistan.

Additional combat troops would require and extended parliamentary mandate, and at the moment, there is no majority for that.
Due to our history with military operations, we tend to be careful with jumping on anybody's military bandwagon these days. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Apart from that, I'd appreciate if you'd get off your high horse. You are in no position to judge our commitment. You seem to be quick with telling other people to worry about their own affairs, yet you bitch and moan how we are supposedly not doing our duty. How about you follow your own advice for a change ? Mind your own business. We're fine.

And seriously, "regulating history and swimming pools" ? how about you go troll someplace else ?
And on a side note, if Germany can send troops abroad isn't it about time we closed our bases there?
2008-02-02 10:02:08
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6777

WOW.  Look what happens when you talk about another country on this forum besides the US.  lol.  The one in the other section got people banned, and this one has people all fired up.  lol.  Guys, let's just talk about how bad the US is and leave it at that.
2008-02-02 10:11:49
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6857|Cologne, Germany

usmarine wrote:

WOW.  Look what happens when you talk about another country on this forum besides the US.  lol.  The one in the other section got people banned, and this one has people all fired up.  lol.  Guys, let's just talk about how bad the US is and leave it at that.
did I miss something ?

And yes, I'll admit that Mac's words got me all fired up. And you know why ? Because he didn't even take the time to address the issue properly. I have no problems with criticism, and I'll be the first one to admit that we've got our share of problems. But if you want to criticize, do it properly.
2008-02-02 10:13:52
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6777

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

WOW.  Look what happens when you talk about another country on this forum besides the US.  lol.  The one in the other section got people banned, and this one has people all fired up.  lol.  Guys, let's just talk about how bad the US is and leave it at that.
did I miss something ?

And yes, I'll admit that Mac's words got me all fired up. And you know why ? Because he didn't even take the time to address the issue properly. I have no problems with criticism, and I'll be the first one to admit that we've got our share of problems. But if you want to criticize, do it properly.
No you did not miss something.  Colonien or whatever his name is got all fired up and spammed the N word left and right.  So he got banned.

Oh, and I understand your point.
2008-02-02 10:19:14
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6857|Cologne, Germany

oh, ok. I thought you were implying that we are banning people for discussing certain topics, or because we disagree with what they say.

That would be outright wrong.
2008-02-02 10:56:23
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6453|Germany
The reason why Germany won't send troops to the south of Afghanistan can be found in the history of the Bundeswehr.

When the second world war was over, the winners said that Germany should no longer be allowed to have any military. Later, when the Sowjet union and the western nations became enemies, the US, Britain and France allowed western Germany to have a small army, but for defending purposes only. This was added to the constitution where you can still find it. In other words, the Bundeswehr is not allowed to attack but only to defend.

This "law" made sense in the time of the Cold War, when Germany was the border between east and west. Today, when joining the NATO forces, it became hard to decide whether an engagement was for defending or attacking purposes.

Securing the "peaceful" north of Afghanistan might even be more for attacking than defending, but it was allowed by the government. Sending troops only for battle purposes would, on the other hand, be a huge step into acting against the constitution.
2008-02-02 10:58:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6427|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Fairplay to Germany. It's stupid trying to 'rebuild' stone age nations - throwing more troops at it is pointless. Afghans will never bend to the will of the west, just like how they never bent to the will of the Soviets. Nobody likes foreign occupation. The Afghan mission has outlived any usefulness it might have had. Ship out and toss cruise missiles at it whenever satellite imagery locates a training camp. Besides, Al Qaeda have pretty much moved into Pakistan at this stage.

NATO should have disbanded in 1989.
It's not about bending anyone to the will of the West, Cam. It's about helping Afghanistan rebuild...as directed by the sovereign Afghan government.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-02-02 11:07:18
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6638|Hanging in the Balance
1. It is NATO. The ISAF (Which is a NATO organization) Commander Gen. Dan McNeill requested NATO send many more troops for the anticipated Offensive, and countries free up their troops for battle in the South. Gates sent a letter to many nations. We are talking about Germany because that is what the article is about. Spain and France need to man up as well. The point is the US responded to that request, UK, Canada and Netherlands are already in the thick of it. The other countries need to step itup

2. No, that's the 3rd Largest Contingent. US, UK, then Germany. Moreover, that may be the 3rd Largest Contingent, but that contingent isnt doing any of the real fighting where they are needed, which is in Helmand.

3. If you dont want to help ou
2008-02-02 12:05:53
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6857|Cologne, Germany

Ghandi767 wrote:

1. It is NATO. The ISAF (Which is a NATO organization) Commander Gen. Dan McNeill requested NATO send many more troops for the anticipated Offensive, and countries free up their troops for battle in the South. Gates sent a letter to many nations. We are talking about Germany because that is what the article is about. Spain and France need to man up as well. The point is the US responded to that request, UK, Canada and Netherlands are already in the thick of it. The other countries need to step itup

2. No, that's the 3rd Largest Contingent. US, UK, then Germany. Moreover, that may be the 3rd Largest Contingent, but that contingent isnt doing any of the real fighting where they are needed, which is in Helmand.

3. If you dont want to help ou
The mandate issued by the German Parliament, does not allow the Bundeswehr to take part in combat operations against the Taliban insurgency in the south and east of Afghanistan, other than in exceptional circumstances. We take parliamentary oversight very serious here, and for god reason.
If you cannot accept that, then there is nothing I can say.

Some nations are very quick to send in troops, others are more hesitant. Given our history, it is understandable that we are cautious.

2. We have been assigned the northern provinces, and are working there with some success. NATO cannot force us to contribute in a way that goes against national law.

3. we are helping out. The fact that we are not following America's strategy doesn't necessarily speak against us.
2008-02-02 12:13:45
jord
Member
+2,382|6694|The North, beyond the wall.

usmarine wrote:

WOW.  Look what happens when you talk about another country on this forum besides the US.  lol.  The one in the other section got people banned, and this one has people all fired up.  lol.  Guys, let's just talk about how bad the US is and leave it at that.
Actually you might of noticed the increase in UK threads. It's the new fashion...

I don't mind people discussing our matters, infact it's nice people outside Britain care at all. However it's pretty shitty to slate a country for whatever it's decisions. If Germans don't want to send in troops, the government wont do it.

Sometimes I wish saying

B.Schuss wrote:

Mind your own business
worked...
2008-02-02 13:39:16
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6122|eXtreme to the maX
The NATO treaty related to member nations being attacked, that was over six years ago?
NATO obligations don't extend to indefinite policing operations.
If Germany doesn't want to send troops thats for them to decide.
As their mandate is limited and due to their politcal situation unlikely to change there is not much point whingeing.

The US did not support the UK over the Falklands, the US wouldn't even let the UK use US airbases for fear of the hispanic vote. The closest we could get was Ascension island. Thanks guys!
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-02-02 14:10:57
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6638|Hanging in the Balance

Dilbert_X wrote:

The NATO treaty related to member nations being attacked, that was over six years ago?
NATO obligations don't extend to indefinite policing operations.
If Germany doesn't want to send troops thats for them to decide.
As their mandate is limited and due to their politcal situation unlikely to change there is not much point whingeing.

The US did not support the UK over the Falklands, the US wouldn't even let the UK use US airbases for fear of the hispanic vote. The closest we could get was Ascension island. Thanks guys!
You received Military Supplies, which is more than we can say about Grenada or Panama. Again, the ownership of the Falklands was contested. Neither side had a definitive claim in the eyes of many.
2008-02-03 03:03:58
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6122|eXtreme to the maX
You received Military Supplies, which is more than we can say about Grenada or Panama. Again, the ownership of the Falklands was contested. Neither side had a definitive claim in the eyes of many.
Well we were quite taken aback when Grenada and Panama attacked the US

The ownership of California is contested. Whats your point?
UN resolution 502 called for the Argentinians to leave.
British forces and territory were attacked, the US should have been behind us but no.

BTW I just checked a map, Ascension is closer than the US, although I understand US airbase use would have been helpful.

The Taleban did not attack the US, the US is not in a position to invoke NATO commitments to force the Germans to fight the Taleban IMO.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-02-03 03:06:23
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6665
Cowardice if you ask me.
2008-02-03 03:35:23
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6638|Hanging in the Balance
The Taleban did not attack the US, the US is not in a position to invoke NATO commitments to force the Germans to fight the Taleban IMO.
Are you f*cking me?

The Taliban host, base, support and supply Al Qaeda. They also gave them a large amount of their manpower.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard