Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

 

2008-02-05 12:43:14
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6644

B.Schuss wrote:

Gunslinger OIF II wrote:

you presented your point of view, I think its deplorable.
if you think it's deplorable to follow due process when the life of your countrymen is on the line, fine.
lol. there you go again with "You hate democracy"  bullshit


schuss, get off of it.  Its got nothing to do with that.  Grow up and see this argument for more than what you want it to be.   First you say you dont think germany should send troops, then you say they should but you arent a member of parliament.  Cmon.  Get real.  Regardless of how you want to paint my position, the german government doesnt want to commit any more military resources.   The "constitutional" hurdles that you keep bringing up are there because the german government (people) dont want to commit. 



stop with this "I hate democracy" shit.  How many god damn times have I told you thats not what Im arguing.
2008-02-05 12:44:45
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6644

B.Schuss wrote:

Well, I guess I have learned something during this discussion. It's not easy to be the object of criticism, especially if you believe it is unfounded or unfair. No hard feelings, I hope.
but you are so quick to criticize me for the actions of my government even when I have stated dozens of times within the past 2 years that I dont agree with most of them.  get lost.
2008-02-05 12:46:25
venom6
Since day One.
+247|6559|Hungary

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

venom6 wrote:

Well done. I would call back all Hungarian soldiers too. Its not our war...we dont lost anything there. The people there should sit to a table and discuss or kill each other. Depends how they feel themselvs.
Why is America still in Iraq ? Saddam is gone for a while now if im correct as the US marines murdered him.
are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan?
My bad the first lines are for Afghanistan and the last ones for Iraq. In fact i just see that US and EU soldiers are in the Middle East and cant solve any problems. Every troop should go home in my opinion.
2008-02-06 01:00:07
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6841|Cologne, Germany

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Well, I guess I have learned something during this discussion. It's not easy to be the object of criticism, especially if you believe it is unfounded or unfair. No hard feelings, I hope.
but you are so quick to criticize me for the actions of my government even when I have stated dozens of times within the past 2 years that I dont agree with most of them.  get lost.
jeez, you're hard to apologize to.
2008-02-06 03:39:15
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Gunslinger OIF II wrote:

you presented your point of view, I think its deplorable.
I just don't get your point, every country ratifies treaties as it suits them, if this were an issue it should have been sorted out at the foundation of NATO.

Tell us if what would happen if the situation had been reversed.

If say Latvia were attacked by Belarus, would the US just send its armed services in unlimited numbers on an indefinite commitment or would it be subject to a vote in Congress?
If it were say a Democrat controlled Congress elected on a mandate of no more involvement in pointless foreign wars would the President bother putting it to a vote?
Treaty or not we know what would happen.

I really don't see the point of the Afghan operation, and my apologies to those who have served there.
Pursuing Al Qaeda was one thing, although that was botched and half arsed if it was ever serious.
Trying to police a lawless land surrounded by other lawless and belligerent lands is a waste of time. Anyone remember Vietnam?
Afghanistan has not ever been able to govern itself. No other nation has come close. NATO nations will bankrupt themselves in trying.

The US doesn't concern itself too much about treaties its signed, why should any other nation?
I don't believe long term policing of former war zones is what NATO is about.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-02-06 04:54:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

If say Latvia were attacked by Belarus, would the US just send its armed services in unlimited numbers on an indefinite commitment or would it be subject to a vote in Congress?
If NATO were to respond (which they should), then there wouldn't be a requirement for a Congressional vote. The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander In Chief, to deploy and employ forces without Congressional approval for a short period of time. Since it would also be part of a treaty, Congressional approval would be automatic (they approved the treaty), if required at all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If it were say a Democrat controlled Congress elected on a mandate of no more involvement in pointless foreign wars would the President bother putting it to a vote?
So responding to an ally--per provisions of a treaty your government ratified--is "pointless"?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Treaty or not we know what would happen.
Since there is a treaty, we do know what would happen. If there weren't one...my guess would be no involvement.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I really don't see the point of the Afghan operation, and my apologies to those who have served there.
Thankfully, none of us nor the Afghan people have to rely on you for justification.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pursuing Al Qaeda was one thing, although that was botched and half arsed if it was ever serious.
Botched at Tora Bora? Sure. Relying on the Afghans so early on was certainly a mistake. Botched when top AQ have been killed/captured or when Taliban get their asses kicked repeatedly? Not so much.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Trying to police a lawless land surrounded by other lawless and belligerent lands is a waste of time. Anyone remember Vietnam?
Vietnam was about stopping the spread of communism. Unfortunately, the S. Vietnamese people cared a lot less about that than their government.  This is a different situation, so the comparison is only valid on the surface, if at all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Afghanistan has not ever been able to govern itself. No other nation has come close. NATO nations will bankrupt themselves in trying.
Actually, they have been able to govern themselves in the past. They just happen to sit on historic trade routes that lend themselves to invasion from their neighbors.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US doesn't concern itself too much about treaties its signed, why should any other nation?
I don't believe long term policing of former war zones is what NATO is about.
Certainly the US concerns itself with treaties it has signed, per the ratification caveats. Just like other nations do (as you so eloquently stated in the beginning of this). I agree that NATO wasn't originally about long term policing, but that's what it has become since the fall of the USSR.
“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
2008-02-06 05:12:12
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander In Chief, to deploy and employ forces without Congressional approval for a short period of time.
How is the 'short period of time' defined. 5+ years? I bet its not, so the German situation is exactly the same.

Congressional approval would be automatic
So there would be no need for a vote? If they wanted to oppose it they would.

So responding to an ally--per provisions of a treaty your government ratified--is "pointless"?
No a pointless war is pointless. If you realise your friend is drunk better let him drive off by himself.

Vietnam was about stopping the spread of communism. Unfortunately, the S. Vietnamese people cared a lot less about that than their government.  This is a different situation, so the comparison is only valid on the surface, if at all.
The point of the comparison was tthe geopolitical (whatever that means) situation of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran vs Vietnam/Cambodia//Laos/China. Not sure what chance there is of winning a guerrilla war in either situation.
I don't imagine the average penniless peasant in either place cares about more than the next bowl of food, certainly not irrelevant political theories.
Bomb their kids to bits and they do get annoyed though.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-02-06 05:13:15)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-02-06 05:22:05
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6653|pimelteror.de
The Defense Minister of Germany declared, that we will send in a Quick Reaction Force to the north.
2008-02-06 05:47:19
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6841|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

..The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander In Chief, to deploy and employ forces without Congressional approval for a short period of time...
as I said, different nations, different legal "hurdles". if the proposed operation falls outside of the current mandate, a new mandate is needed, and has to be put to vote. Due process doesn't mean the same in every nation.

KEIOS wrote:

The Defense Minister of Germany declared, that we will send in a Quick Reaction Force to the north.
yeah, I believe we will be replacing the norwegian troops. If it comes to that, it could help pave the way for further combat missions, even in the south. Some politicians here are critical about that, but it seems to fall inside the scope of the current mandate ( with regard to te total number of troops and main AOR ).

Personally, I wouldn't mind. I have long since wondered how german troops would perform in real combat situations today. Maybe we'll soon find out.
2008-02-06 11:28:13
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6623|Hanging in the Balance

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

The Defense Minister of Germany declared, that we will send in a Quick Reaction Force
w00t Finally

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

to the north.
Nevermind...
2008-02-07 08:16:25
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6841|Cologne, Germany

it's a quick reaction force, and - if called upon - can operate pretty much everywhere in afghanistan, including the south. But it's main purpose is to cover rebuilding efforts in the north.

btw, gandhi, are you going to make a new thread about the norwegians now, since they're pulling out ?
2008-02-07 09:46:11
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6623|Hanging in the Balance
linkage?
2008-02-07 10:09:03
Ghandi767
Member
+17|6623|Hanging in the Balance
Disappointing, but good for Belgium. Those Planes will be very useful in places such as Helmand and are a strong and very practical contingent for a technologically advanced but small military such as Belgium's.
2008-06-09 16:34:52
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6685|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

Dr.PhiL wrote:

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.
there sent into the field with berets a white flag and a hard samich bun

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard