Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

 

2008-02-01 11:41:27
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6819|Hanging in the Balance
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02 … index.html

For those that have not been following, a quick overview:

1.ISAF (The NATO Structure in Afghanistan) is requesting that NATO send more troops to help combat an expected Taliban offensive in parts of Afghanistan in the spring. Right now, the USA, UK, and Canada are essentially the only ones doing the heavy lifting and fighting in the most dangerous parts. The Netherlands and Australia are also doing what they can.

2. Bush just signed off on 3,200 US Marines to supplement existing forces in the country, bringing US troop levels to ~30,000 in Afghanistan. This is in addition to the 101st Airborne Division which is slated to replace the 82nd Airborne in Afghanistan in February/March of 2008.

3. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has told NATO they need to step it up and start helping out, and asked for troops to replace the 3,200 Marines after their deployment as well as others to supplement right now. Moreover, he's told countries such as France, Germany, and Spain they need to start getting into the fight and not hide away from it.

4. Canada's Prime Minister has stated that unless NATO steps up their contributions, Canada will withdraw from Afghanistan in 2009 at the end of their current commitment.
2008-02-01 12:07:00
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6644|Chicago, IL
USA & friends pulling the weight of NATO?

big surprise there...
2008-02-01 13:09:19
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6708|Gold Coast
I saw somewhere that Canada was pulling heaps of shit for everyone in Afghanistan...

Id pull out of there too, if the EU didnt help.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
2008-02-01 13:12:32
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6688|Northern California
So?  Is that bad if Germany doesn't want to commit?
2008-02-01 13:13:25
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6304|Birmingham, UK

IRONCHEF wrote:

So?  Is that bad if Germany doesn't want to commit?
Depends how you feel about having more men in a war.
2008-02-01 13:17:46
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6818|London, England
It's upto them. In actual fact, it is the United States war (9/11 was an act on America, not the UK or anyone else in ISAF)

It's just that because of NATO that other countries committed. The Cold War is over, NATO is pretty useless and Afghanistan is showing how it aint relavent in these days. I won't be surprised if Germany left NATO just so they don't have to serve/have a bigger role in Afghanistan. I wouldn't blame them either.

But, the UK, the Dutch and Canada definitely seem to be doing the most legwork at the moment. The US have more than 3000 marines, why don't they commit more instead of bitching. Like I said, it's there war. (Well not anymore, since other countries have been attacked by terrorists. But than again they were only attacked because of the involvement in Afghanistan/Iraq)
2008-02-01 13:18:14
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6850|pimelteror.de
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.
2008-02-01 13:19:53
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6819|Hanging in the Balance

Mek-Izzle wrote:

It's upto them. In actual fact, it is the United States war (9/11 was an act on America, not the UK or anyone else in ISAF)

It's just that because of NATO that other countries committed. The Cold War is over, NATO is pretty useless and Afghanistan is showing how it aint relavent in these days. I won't be surprised if Germany left NATO just so they don't have to serve/have a bigger role in Afghanistan. I wouldn't blame them either.

But, the UK, the Dutch and Canada definitely seem to be doing the most legwork at the moment. The US have more than 3000 marines, why don't they commit more instead of bitching. Like I said, it's there war. (Well not anymore, since other countries have been attacked by terrorists. But than again they were only attacked because of the involvement in Afghanistan/Iraq)
Once these Marines are deployed they will have over 30,000 troops in-country. Thats many many more than anyone else. Its a NATO Mission, not a US one. Moreover, the US is doing the majority of the fighting, then the UK, then Canada, then the Netherlands, Then Australia, then whoever pissed off some farmer and got shot at with some leftover Enfield.

Fact: The Taliban was an oppressive regime.
Fact: The Taliban aided Al-Qaeda
Fact: Al-Qaeda is responsible for the murder of thousands of American Citizens and innocent persons around the world.

Last edited by Ghandi767 (2008-02-01 13:21:02)

2008-02-01 13:32:27
greensprite
awsm
+13|6363|Germany
well and i am happy about it because its always the same.
the americans are throwing the bombs and when its getting boring the leave. other countries have to do the rest and have to build it up.
the americans should really stop playing world police.
and to [pt] keios - the german army isn't as bad as your are saying, but they may don't have this fighting experience like american troops coz they are not at war the whole time
P.S.: don't forget we have the best tank on earth ( Leopard2) and the G36
2008-02-01 13:35:24
Dr.PhiL
Danmark
+30|6867|Up North

Mek-Izzle wrote:

It's upto them. In actual fact, it is the United States war (9/11 was an act on America, not the UK or anyone else in ISAF)

It's just that because of NATO that other countries committed. The Cold War is over, NATO is pretty useless and Afghanistan is showing how it aint relavent in these days. I won't be surprised if Germany left NATO just so they don't have to serve/have a bigger role in Afghanistan. I wouldn't blame them either.

But, the UK, the Dutch and Canada definitely seem to be doing the most legwork at the moment. The US have more than 3000 marines, why don't they commit more instead of bitching. Like I said, it's there war. (Well not anymore, since other countries have been attacked by terrorists. But than again they were only attacked because of the involvement in Afghanistan/Iraq)
Dont forget the Danes! Even though we only have a 1000 soldiers there, we are still out fighting the taliban, in the most dangerous places down there, like the Helman province, and we are doing a damn good job, like the Dutch, England, the US.

I think our Prime minister would send more if he could, but all the leftys are saying no, cause we lost soldiers both there, and in Iraq.

One thing pissin me off, is that France wont send more troops, and with the ones they have there, only doin peace keeping missions.
2008-02-01 13:41:18
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6819|Hanging in the Balance

greensprite wrote:

well and i am happy about it because its always the same.
the americans are throwing the bombs and when its getting boring the leave. other countries have to do the rest and have to build it up.
the americans should really stop playing world police.
and to [pt] keios - the german army isn't as bad as your are saying, but they may don't have this fighting experience like american troops coz they are not at war the whole time
P.S.: don't forget we have the best tank on earth ( Leopard2) and the G36
1.  "Throwing Bombs and When Its Boring They Leave"

Considering the US has 30,000 troops there, I'd hardly say they are leaving. Not sure, but US I believe has as many troops there as all other nations combined, possibly 2x.

2. Yeah. Lets Stop playing world Police. Except if we do, people whine that we wont do anything when we have the ability to. "From those to whom much has been given, much will be expected"

Moreover, its funny how people tend to pick and choose when the US is being world police to bash.
Nobody had objections to the US-led movement kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in '91.
Nobody had objections to the US entering WW2 in Europe.
Nobody has objections to the US being the #1 aid giving nation in the world.
Nobody has objections to the US being a deterrent to a North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Nobody had objections to the US-led intervention into Somalia.
Nobody had objections to the US military presence in Western Europe during the Cold War as a deterrent to the Soviet annexation of Western Europe.

3. "Leopard is best tank"

Based on?

Last edited by Ghandi767 (2008-02-01 13:54:23)

2008-02-01 13:44:25
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6818|London, England
I'm fine with the USA fighting who they want (I agree with the presence in Afghanistan), it's just that they shouldn't expect anyone else to fight if they don't want to. Military alliances or not.

Also, nobody in NATO helped the UK during the Falklands. And that was against an Adversary Militarily stronger than what's going on now, and it actually involved a country invading UK territory.
2008-02-01 13:49:26
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6819|Hanging in the Balance

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I'm fine with the USA fighting who they want (I agree with the presence in Afghanistan), it's just that they shouldn't expect anyone else to fight if they don't want to. Military alliances or not.

Also, nobody in NATO helped the UK during the Falklands. And that was against an Adversary Militarily stronger than what's going on now, and it actually involved a country invading UK territory.
In the words of Jon Stewart,

"Over some islands they'd never been to."

US didnt receive any help in Panama or Grenada did they?

The thing is, US asks for help from NATO. They get it from a few, some not.

So what reason does the US have to back up, say, Germany in a war? Germany bailed on them over Iraq (Their Chancellor was going to help Bush but backed out because it was close to election) and now Afghanistan. The entire point of NATO is to help member states out with military strength.

Last edited by Ghandi767 (2008-02-01 13:55:07)

2008-02-01 13:58:14
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6818|London, England
The US doesn't have a reason to back Germany in a war. I wouldn't say anything if the US decided not to help Germany if they found themselves in a war. Even though I just bitched about nobody helping the UK in the Falklands, I only said that to give an example. If a country doesn't want to help another one out, it's entirely their choice.
2008-02-01 14:02:31
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6819|Hanging in the Balance

Mek-Izzle wrote:

The US doesn't have a reason to back Germany in a war. I wouldn't say anything if the US decided not to help Germany if they found themselves in a war. Even though I just bitched about nobody helping the UK in the Falklands, I only said that to give an example. If a country doesn't want to help another one out, it's entirely their choice.
Well then I guess that boils down to a matter of personal opinion regarding obligations to other nations. I see your side though.
2008-02-01 14:15:29
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6708|Gold Coast
Ghandi stop F5'ing.

Anyway, I do think that France and Germany could send more troops, however it is true that they shouldnt be forced or pressured into it...only requests from the ones pulling shit, like as said before, the Canadians, the US's numbers and the Dutch.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
2008-02-01 16:23:27
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6887|Tampa Bay Florida

Ghandi767 wrote:

Nobody had objections to the US-led movement kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in '91.
Nobody had objections to the US entering WW2 in Europe.
Nobody has objections to the US being the #1 aid giving nation in the world.
Nobody has objections to the US being a deterrent to a North Korean invasion of South Korea.
Nobody had objections to the US-led intervention into Somalia.
Nobody had objections to the US military presence in Western Europe during the Cold War as a deterrent to the Soviet annexation of Western Europe.
Actually, you'll find that there were plenty of people who opposed to some of that.  Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Just pointing that out.  Nobody is an awful strong word.
2008-02-01 16:42:30
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6346|'straya
Australia sent 1550 troops to afganistan. considering its not our war. australia is not even part of NATO.


but i must say im glad we have ANZUS cuz otherwise we could be in trouble in the future lol.

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-02-01 16:42:47)

2008-02-01 16:52:35
woodrot
I Need A Dump
+25|6927|sunderland england
if i had my way id pull all troops out and drop a nuke on them
or let them kill each other
damn why should other contries send lads there to die for them tossers
2008-02-01 17:09:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6608|'Murka

We don't need to worry about France. They're going to have their hands full with Africa in short order.
“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
2008-02-01 17:18:25
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6584
Seems like the idiots from the rest of the forum have discovered D&ST.....

Can we get a mod to clean this thread up/delete moronic posts?


On topic, Germany is supposed to, as part of NATO, as part of a signed treaty, has to help us as we were attacked. It seems we should of left military bases out of Germany 1945-Present. Dont seem to be very thankful people.
2008-02-01 17:19:36
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6584

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

but i must say im glad we have ANZUS cuz otherwise we could be in trouble in the future lol.
Why do you say that?
2008-02-01 17:21:55
yuckfou09
hide your terrorists ^,^
+94|6874|Ft. Drum, NY

[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
2008-02-01 17:33:36
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6688|Menlo Park, CA
I think its up to Germany to decide where Germany sends their troops. . . .

Of course it would be nice for them to want to contribute more of their manpower to the cause.  Lets face it, its not their war, and if they want to contribute more its really up to them.  I personally think they should cause they have a modern military, good logistics and could help Afghanistan continue to move in the right direction (by providing training and overall support).

The one country that truely disappoints is Spain. . . . what a bunch of "cut and run" pussies!!! They ran away from al-Qaeda and still got fucking bombed!! Bottom line its time for Europe to realize and act on a DECISIVE basis their plans on combating terrorism.  Just condemning it and appeasing DOESNT stop the terrorists from carrying out their sick plans.  The time for talk has ended and I dont know why Britain, Canada, Australia, Holland, and the USA are the only countries that have significant troops fighting these Islamic terrorists. . . .  It blows me away!!
2008-02-01 17:43:49
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6584

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
Thats why the retarded IRC or w/e it is kids need to stay the fuck outta this section.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-02-01 17:47:07)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard