They could have approved it. There is no law saying they could not have approved it, therefore strengthening their treaty commitment.CameronPoe wrote:
Of course you can. I'm just pointing out the flaw in you using 'the treaty' as an argument. Where did I say you couldn't discuss it?usmarine wrote:
So we can't have an opinion on it? Or discuss it?CameronPoe wrote:
That is Article 11 of the NATO treaty. If supplementing the troop levels in Afghanistan hasn't been passed in the German parliament then sending more would not be 'in accordance with their ... constitutional processes'.
They could have but they didn't. That was there choice in their democracy. A military alliance designed to counter the threat from Soviet Russia seems ever so slightly outdated if you ask me. I wouldn't see the point in them strengthening their commitment to an organisation where when Afghanistan should have been the primary concern following 9/11 a load of NATO nations independetly decided it would be more fun to invade Iraq. They're now independently deciding that Afghanistan isn't worth risking further German lives.usmarine wrote:
They could have approved it. There is no law saying they could not have approved it, therefore strengthening their treaty commitment.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-04 01:54:59)
disscuss sure. but ignore other peoples arguments and flame germans for not sending troops should be left out of itusmarine wrote:
So we can't have an opinion on it? Or discuss it?CameronPoe wrote:
That is Article 11 of the NATO treaty. If supplementing the troop levels in Afghanistan hasn't been passed in the German parliament then sending more would not be 'in accordance with their ... constitutional processes'.usmarine wrote:
?
There is no law saying they had to approve it either.
Countries ratify treaties as it suits them *- I don't like it either.
So the argument fails.
*The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on Torture for example, as discussed before.
Countries ratify treaties as it suits them *- I don't like it either.
So the argument fails.
*The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on Torture for example, as discussed before.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
what flaw? the german parliament does not want to honor treaty commitments? nothing too complicated or confusing about that. really not much you could do to defend it either. Germany wants to be a part of NATO, but they dont want to meet the commitment NATO is asking for.CameronPoe wrote:
Of course you can. I'm just pointing out the flaw in you using 'the treaty' as an argument. Where did I say you couldn't discuss it?usmarine wrote:
So we can't have an opinion on it? Or discuss it?CameronPoe wrote:
That is Article 11 of the NATO treaty. If supplementing the troop levels in Afghanistan hasn't been passed in the German parliament then sending more would not be 'in accordance with their ... constitutional processes'.
I think this just means its time for NATO to go the way of the dodo bird.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 07:18:27)
I think that's what I'm saying GS. NATO is a bit of a joke. The role it was designed for no longer exists. It's time to call it a day. The flaw is that Germany are well within their rights not to plough further resources - human beings capable of being killed - at a mission nobody really seems to be taking seriously anyway. The NATO treaty doesn't demand an unconditional commitment of endless resources to whatever cause they're pursuing.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what flaw? the german parliament does not want to honor treaty commitments? nothing too complicated or confusing about that. really not much you could do to defend it either. Germany wants to be a part of NATO, but they dont want to meet the commitment NATO is asking for.
I think this just means its time for NATO to go the way of the dodo bird.
NATO seems ever more pointless the further the US and Europe diverge in opinion on how best to deal with general matters. In the old days we were all in unison against the red horde of communism, today we are sharing fewer and fewer views on international matters.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-04 08:47:22)
I provided information possibly supporting my opinion that increased troop numbers are not necessarily a recipee for success.GunSlimger wrote:
DO I want personal experience? No. I have enough, you could keep your fancy shmancy journalist reporting on stories to yourself. My experience has also showed journalist dont care about the soldiers that protect them while they report. They wouldnt be there if it wasnt a shitty story. Low blow? no sir, I simply told you were where I was coming from and gave you an opportunity to give me more than just a hyperlink so I could understand where you are coming from. But, you gave me more linky linkies. no thanks.
If you want to discredit that based on the fact that you have served in Afghanistan and I haven't, fine. However, a couple of pages ago, you accused me of having fixed beliefs, regardless of the information presented. Ironic, isn't it ?
And sure it was a low blow. Your statement implied, that whatever information or arguments I might present, they'd be worth shit because you served there and I didn't. And that is simply not true. Our opinions can be valid just as much, and are worth being considered. Or are we only second-class citizens ? You are in no position to accuse me of talking condescendingly, dear sir.
Moreover, if combat experience is so important when it comes to formulating valid opinions on military matters, why did you elect a draft dodger as your commander in chief ? yeah, I know, a low blow. sorry about that.
let me tell you where I am coming from. I am coming from a nation that is reminded on every possible opportunity of the horrors and the pain that our military caused to the world in the 20th century. Even here in D&ST.
Consequently, ever since the Hitler era, it has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy to not use our military in an offensive, aggressive way again. it is in our constitution that our army has one purpose only, and that is to defend our borders against aggressors.
By definition, we are not an offensive force, but a defending one. Never again, we swore to our children, would war be waged from our lands.
The horrors and atrocities of the Nazi regime have been part of our national conscience since that day, GS, and consequently, we are very, very, very, veeeery cautious indeed when it comes to sending german troops abroad.
I know this must be hard to understand for someone whose country has such a proud history in military matters, but WWII is still very much present in the hearts and minds of germans.
During the last 16 years, this has begun to change somewhat, starting with the first german UN Mission in somalia in 1992/1993, but when I served in '94/'95, the army was still mostly a territorial defense force. More importantly, the decision-makers in the military and the government were still heavily influenced by the Nazi regime, as most of them had witnessed it first-hand. personal experience, remember ?
They wanted to make sure that we'd never again make those mistakes, and use the military to suit imperialistic goals.
That's why we have very strong parliamentary oversight. And we take that seriously.
Moreover, the armed forces aren't really well liked among the population. It is not considered a valuable profession to be a soldier, and career soldiers are often belittled and laughed at. Back in the day, when someone joined the armed forces to make a living in germany, it was normal to suggest that he wouldn't have gotten a "proper job" anyway.
of course, with the recent and increased involvement of german troops in NATO and UN missions, the attitude towards the armed forces has begun to change somewhat, especially among the younger generation. But it will take a long time until this change resonates in the political leadership of this country. Until then, you will have to live with the fact that we reserve the right to utilize our military according to our laws.
And if that means not giving in to US political pressure from falcons such as Bob Gates, then so be it.
With that being said, maybe now you can imagine what kind of impact WWII and the Nazi regime have had on germany, and where I'm coming from. As I have said, you can't fix a country with bullets. Believe me, we know....
what flaw ? the NATO treaty specifically acknowledges the right of each member to provide support according to their national laws and constitutional processes. And in germany, this process includes a mandatory parliamentary mandate for certain combat operations, especially when the scope of the deployment would go beyond what was previously authorized. We are honoring our commitment to NATO by following the provisions of the treaty, not by giving in to any demand, regardless of the consequences.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what flaw? the german parliament does not want to honor treaty commitments? nothing too complicated or confusing about that. really not much you could do to defend it either. Germany wants to be a part of NATO, but they dont want to meet the commitment NATO is asking for.
As far as NATO itself is concerned, it is a dinosaur, a leftover from the cold war, and should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. my 2c.
so, Germany doesnt like honoring treaty commitments. whatever bull you wanna spew, the fact remains, Germany is part of NATO, NATO is in Afghanistan, NATO needs more from member states, Germany is a member state, Germany doesnt want to commit any more. You could word it anyway you like, but not honoring a treaty is exactly what is it.B.Schuss wrote:
I provided information possibly supporting my opinion that increased troop numbers are not necessarily a recipee for success.GunSlimger wrote:
DO I want personal experience? No. I have enough, you could keep your fancy shmancy journalist reporting on stories to yourself. My experience has also showed journalist dont care about the soldiers that protect them while they report. They wouldnt be there if it wasnt a shitty story. Low blow? no sir, I simply told you were where I was coming from and gave you an opportunity to give me more than just a hyperlink so I could understand where you are coming from. But, you gave me more linky linkies. no thanks.
If you want to discredit that based on the fact that you have served in Afghanistan and I haven't, fine. However, a couple of pages ago, you accused me of having fixed beliefs, regardless of the information presented. Ironic, isn't it ?
And sure it was a low blow. Your statement implied, that whatever information or arguments I might present, they'd be worth shit because you served there and I didn't. And that is simply not true. Our opinions can be valid just as much, and are worth being considered. Or are we only second-class citizens ? You are in no position to accuse me of talking condescendingly, dear sir.
Moreover, if combat experience is so important when it comes to formulating valid opinions on military matters, why did you elect a draft dodger as your commander in chief ? yeah, I know, a low blow. sorry about that.
let me tell you where I am coming from. I am coming from a nation that is reminded on every possible opportunity of the horrors and the pain that our military caused to the world in the 20th century. Even here in D&ST.
Consequently, ever since the Hitler era, it has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy to not use our military in an offensive, aggressive way again. it is in our constitution that our army has one purpose only, and that is to defend our borders against aggressors.
By definition, we are not an offensive force, but a defending one. Never again, we swore to our children, would war be waged from our lands.
The horrors and atrocities of the Nazi regime have been part of our national conscience since that day, GS, and consequently, we are very, very, very, veeeery cautious indeed when it comes to sending german troops abroad.
I know this must be hard to understand for someone whose country has such a proud history in military matters, but WWII is still very much present in the hearts and minds of germans.
During the last 16 years, this has begun to change somewhat, starting with the first german UN Mission in somalia in 1992/1993, but when I served in '94/'95, the army was still mostly a territorial defense force. More importantly, the decision-makers in the military and the government were still heavily influenced by the Nazi regime, as most of them had witnessed it first-hand. personal experience, remember ?
They wanted to make sure that we'd never again make those mistakes, and use the military to suit imperialistic goals.
That's why we have very strong parliamentary oversight. And we take that seriously.
Moreover, the armed forces aren't really well liked among the population. It is not considered a valuable profession to be a soldier, and career soldiers are often belittled and laughed at. Back in the day, when someone joined the armed forces to make a living in germany, it was normal to suggest that he wouldn't have gotten a "proper job" anyway.
of course, with the recent and increased involvement of german troops in NATO and UN missions, the attitude towards the armed forces has begun to change somewhat, especially among the younger generation. But it will take a long time until this change resonates in the political leadership of this country. Until then, you will have to live with the fact that we reserve the right to utilize our military according to our laws.
And if that means not giving in to US political pressure from falcons such as Bob Gates, then so be it.
With that being said, maybe now you can imagine what kind of impact WWII and the Nazi regime have had on germany, and where I'm coming from. As I have said, you can't fix a country with bullets. Believe me, we know....
Lesson learned: Dont trust germans when you need them.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 09:54:21)
You know GS, maybe we are just simple minded? I mean, this is about as clear as it gets, yet people start talking about constitution and democracy and blah blah blah.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
so, Germany doesnt like honoring treaty commitments. whatever bull you wanna spew, the fact remains, Germany is part of NATO, NATO is in Afghanistan, NATO needs more from member states, Germany is a member state, Germany doesnt want to commit any more. You could word it anyway you like, but not honoring a treaty is exactly what is it.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-02-04 09:55:29)
I dont see where the message gets lost at. Democracy is well and good. Constitution too. The fact remains, you are part of an alliance. Perhaps if germany is unwilling to fullfill its commitment, be it through constitutional limitiations or whatever, they should leave NATO. Canada does have every right to be pissed.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 10:08:28)
I don't get you two, I really don't. When we discussed the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, you guys were all like "this is what the constitution says you have to honor it", and so on an so forth.
And now, when I point out that Germany would like to do the same with regard to possible troop increases in Afghanistan, I still get shit thrown at me, and get ridiculed.
You might just as well admit that you really don't give a damn about democratic processes in other countries, unless it suits your agenda.
Your black and white view of the world amazes me. Someone is either with the US or against it, no middle ground.
And now, when I point out that Germany would like to do the same with regard to possible troop increases in Afghanistan, I still get shit thrown at me, and get ridiculed.
You might just as well admit that you really don't give a damn about democratic processes in other countries, unless it suits your agenda.
Your black and white view of the world amazes me. Someone is either with the US or against it, no middle ground.
To cut a long story short here: disband NATO.
And who does Robert Gates think he is 'demanding' another country provide more troops? Fuck him.
And who does Robert Gates think he is 'demanding' another country provide more troops? Fuck him.
refresh my memory where I was so vocal about the 2nd amendment. You could say Germany doesnt intend to fulfill commitments when it doesnt fit their agenda. Has nothing to do with democracy. Its about contractual obligation, and guess what, Germans default on theirs.
and all you are doing is apologizing for your governments disregard of a an agreement with allies. and throw insults. Im actually shocked. Just because I dont agree with you, I see the world in black and white. Im against democracy. I want everyone to own guns. Amazing. True colors shining through.
and all you are doing is apologizing for your governments disregard of a an agreement with allies. and throw insults. Im actually shocked. Just because I dont agree with you, I see the world in black and white. Im against democracy. I want everyone to own guns. Amazing. True colors shining through.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 11:10:45)
allow countries to hire mercs
From what I read in the article they are in fact meeting the requirements of their mandate. Correct me if I'm wrong.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
refresh my memory where I was so vocal about the 2nd amendment. You could say Germany doesnt intend to fulfill commitments when it doesnt fit their agenda. Has nothing to do with democracy. Its about contractual obligation, and guess what, Germans default on theirs.
well, different nations have different approaches as to how the deployment of military forces is regulated. Some have more constitutional "hurdles" than others.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont see where the message gets lost at. Democracy is well and good. Constitution too. The fact remains, you are part of an alliance. Perhaps if germany is unwilling to fullfill its commitment, be it through constitutional limitiations or whatever, they should leave NATO. Canada does have every right to be pissed.
You know, the funny part is, personally I would not have a problem with us going into the south. Part of NATO's principles is solidarity, i.e. sharing the burden equally among member states. From that point of view, one could argue that we have a moral responsibility to take up our share of combat operations. And from what the news reports here in Germany indicate, there are some ( not many, though ) politicians here who have issued statements along that lines.
However, whatever I or individual politicians might think about this, we can not and should not get around the constitutional issue and we have to follow due process. And just because there might not be sufficient support for an extended mandate among parliament members now, doesn't mean that can never happen.
As I suggested in my little history class about germans and the military after WWII ( which you two happily ignored, btw ), change takes time.
I read it, and I went right past the melodramatics, save that for a book or movie. This is not a debate on the morality of sending soldiers into war. Why is Canada and the UK doing a disproportional amount of the work? Alliance member, only when they see fit and at minimal priority. Your country has every right to act the way it is acting. But that just paints a positive picture of modern germany I have always had into something less honorable.B.Schuss wrote:
As I suggested in my little history class about germans and the military after WWII ( which you two happily ignored, btw ), change takes time.
This is the German government's commitment as per the German Government website:
Hardly the most militaristic commitment. The NATO treaty demanded that if a member nation was attacked, they had all effectively been attacked and should respond in unison. In 2001 NATO did respond and militarily defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The NATO treaty contains no provision to my knowledge for the rebuilding of vanquished nations. As such, Germany are actually outdoing their commitment.The German Government will:
- step up its activities aimed at enhancing the ability of the Afghan Government to
plan and implement effective policies on its own in the key ministries;
- promote strategies to strengthen local structures in the provinces and districts
and urge the further expansion of the UNAMA presence in all parts of the
country;
- in cooperation with the political foundations and the German Bundestag, help
strengthen parliamentary structures in Afghanistan and, in particular, implement
programmes aimed at supporting the members of parliament;
- in cooperation with other countries encourage the Afghan Government to
practise good governance and to curb corruption and nepotism. Particularly in
the north, where Germany shoulders special responsibility, it will urge the
Afghan government to appoint suitable, capable and non-corrupt officials;
- provide concrete assistance for the elaboration and implementation of an anticorruption
action plan for Afghanistan, work on which has already begun under
the aegis of the World Bank;
- work towards ensuring that the conditions for a long-term viable and effective
electoral system are created and support the census process. It will play an active
role in the training of election officers and in the administrative preparation of
the elections due to take place in 2009/2010.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-04 11:23:45)
but that still doesnt erase the fact that certain member states are doing way more than others compared to their capabilities.
what is wrong with you ? what "contractual obligation" are you talking about ? The NATO treaty specifically acknowledges the right of each member state to provide support in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
refresh my memory where I was so vocal about the 2nd amendment. You could say Germany doesnt intend to fulfill commitments when it doesnt fit their agenda. Has nothing to do with democracy. Its about contractual obligation, and guess what, Germans default on theirs.
and all you are doing is apologizing for your governments disregard of a an agreement with allies. and throw insults. Im actually shocked. Just because I dont agree with you, I see the world in black and white. Im against democracy. I want everyone to own guns. Amazing. True colors shining through.
If we do that, how can we not honor our commitment to NATO ? There is simply no way we can get around due process here.
And I didn't say you are against democracy. But your statements here would indicate that you have a certain disregard for democratic processes when they not fit your own personal opinion about what is right or wrong.
Fixed beliefs and such, eh ?
I'd say we both have them.
Well I believe he thinks he is the Secretary of Defense for the most powerful military on the planet. And the Secretary of Defense who is sick of the US, UK, Canada and a few others doing all of the fighting while the other ones whimp out.CameronPoe wrote:
To cut a long story short here: disband NATO.
And who does Robert Gates think he is 'demanding' another country provide more troops? Fuck him.
eh?B.Schuss wrote:
I don't get you two, I really don't. When we discussed the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, you guys were all like "this is what the constitution says you have to honor it", and so on an so forth.
look man, i dont see how hard it is to understand. I say "Why isnt Germany picking up more of a load, why are Canada and the UK footing most of the fight. Why cant Germany send more troops. They are part of an alliance. Alliance members help each other out when they can, or else, whats the point of an alliance"
you say " what good is more troops gonna do"
I say " More troops do good"
you say" No, not what this thing says, I dont care where you have been you know nothing compared my abilities to research articles. You hate democracy. Whats wrong with you"
I say "German parliament doesnt want to help their friends in the alliance"
you say "You americans love spreading democracy, why dont you like german democracy"
I say "Democracy has nothing to do with what Im talking about."
you say "Blah Blah Blah....never again....blah blah blah....hitler wermacht...yadda yadda...cue violin"
I say "has nothing to do with the issue at hand."
You start apologizing for your governments actions and justifying them instead of just admitting that the German people only want to be a pro active member of an alliance only when it suits their agendas.
And now Im done typing like a 5 yeard old.
you say " what good is more troops gonna do"
I say " More troops do good"
you say" No, not what this thing says, I dont care where you have been you know nothing compared my abilities to research articles. You hate democracy. Whats wrong with you"
I say "German parliament doesnt want to help their friends in the alliance"
you say "You americans love spreading democracy, why dont you like german democracy"
I say "Democracy has nothing to do with what Im talking about."
you say "Blah Blah Blah....never again....blah blah blah....hitler wermacht...yadda yadda...cue violin"
I say "has nothing to do with the issue at hand."
You start apologizing for your governments actions and justifying them instead of just admitting that the German people only want to be a pro active member of an alliance only when it suits their agendas.
And now Im done typing like a 5 yeard old.
well, that's probably because other member states have smaller constitutional "hurdles" as far as the deployment of troops abroad is concerned.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
but that still doesnt erase the fact that certain member states are doing way more than others compared to their capabilities.
Germany's "hurdles" are a bit more complex, and as I explained ( or at least tried to ) for good reason.
and btw, as I have said, just because there seems to be no sufficient support for an extended mandate among members of parliament now, doesn't mean that can never happen.
I would vote for such a mandate, but unfortunately, I am not an MP...