Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

 

2008-02-01 17:44:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

Spain is still participating in Afghanistan. In fact, Spain is responsible for one of the ISAF regional commands.

But I agree it was a pussy move to elect the "cut and run" administration because of the train bombings.
“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 17:46:27
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6809

fadedsteve wrote:

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).
Again, according to NATO, any country attacked in the Western Hemisphere that has signed the treaty is guaranteed support from all other countries to hunt down the aggressor. That means, if randomly, France decides to attack the UK, then the rest of NATO is bound to the treaty in their support for the UK.
2008-02-01 18:16:43
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6571|'straya

Commie Killer wrote:

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?
Australia's military is not exactly the best in the world. and with an unstable muslim country that has  over 10x the population of us just to our north... its nice to know we are under americas nuclear umbrella.


(im not trying to be racist or anything, but its true)

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-02-01 18:19:30)

2008-02-01 19:31:21
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7066

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)
30,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan.  Combat Troops.  This is including NATO and a independent American contingent.  30,000.  How many troops are there all together. Mek, youve been saying a lot of stuff about how you dont even know if we have troops there.  We have 30,000.


And bitching?  dude, you realize most of the US Military has seen more war than anything Afghanistan has put out, in Iraq.  Bithcing? Man, my company just got back from Afghanistan, and guess what, we're going for a year plus in Iraq, less than a year to the date from them getting back from a 12 month deployment.   And these people are reservists.   As it looks,  Im going to end up spending 2 1/2 years of the last 5 in combat by the time I get back from second trip to my second home.

Im getting stop lossed.  Again.  Im not bitching.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-01 19:42:25)

2008-02-01 19:38:11
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7066

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

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?
Australia's military is not exactly the best in the world. and with an unstable muslim country that has  over 10x the population of us just to our north... its nice to know we are under americas nuclear umbrella.


(im not trying to be racist or anything, but its true)
Ive got mad respect for Aussie troops
2008-02-01 19:39:54
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6571|'straya

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:


Why do you say that?
Australia's military is not exactly the best in the world. and with an unstable muslim country that has  over 10x the population of us just to our north... its nice to know we are under americas nuclear umbrella.


(im not trying to be racist or anything, but its true)
Ive got mad respect for Aussie troops
I think our troops are great. in fact im joing the ADF in a year. but we just dont have enough of them/most modern technology.

i mean compared to most countries our military is very modern. but still... its way to small.
2008-02-01 19:40:35
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7066

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Australia's military is not exactly the best in the world. and with an unstable muslim country that has  over 10x the population of us just to our north... its nice to know we are under americas nuclear umbrella.


(im not trying to be racist or anything, but its true)
Ive got mad respect for Aussie troops
I think our troops are great. in fact im joing the ADF in a year. but we just dont have enough of them/most modern technology.

i mean compared to most countries our military is very modern. but still... its way to small.
numbers really mean spit in the 21st century.  Well, they are important.  more so for sustaining forces than actually fielding them.  combat multipliers...

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-01 19:41:20)

2008-02-01 19:42:22
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6571|'straya

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


Ive got mad respect for Aussie troops
I think our troops are great. in fact im joing the ADF in a year. but we just dont have enough of them/most modern technology.

i mean compared to most countries our military is very modern. but still... its way to small.
numbers really mean spit in the 21st century.
that is is true. but we dont have nukes

but in our region there would really only be conventional warfare not nuclear etc.
2008-02-01 19:42:47
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7066

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:


I think our troops are great. in fact im joing the ADF in a year. but we just dont have enough of them/most modern technology.

i mean compared to most countries our military is very modern. but still... its way to small.
numbers really mean spit in the 21st century.
that is is true. but we dont have nukes

but in our region there would really only be conventional warfare not nuclear etc.
you have our nukes
2008-02-01 19:43:53
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6571|'straya

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


numbers really mean spit in the 21st century.
that is is true. but we dont have nukes

but in our region there would really only be conventional warfare not nuclear etc.
you have our nukes
and thats why ANZUS makes me feel all sound and secure
2008-02-01 22:55:42
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7097|Canberra, AUS

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:


that is is true. but we dont have nukes

but in our region there would really only be conventional warfare not nuclear etc.
you have our nukes
and thats why ANZUS makes me feel all sound and secure
What are those two letters doing in the middle there? They should remove those unsightly things and make it the AUS treaty.

J/k, Ty.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-02-01 23:34:48
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7251

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)
.rolls eyes. The US is adding another 3000+ troops. Bringing it up to @30,000. US soldiers carry most of the load. That is a fact.
2008-02-01 23:49:03
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6571|'straya

Spark wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


you have our nukes
and thats why ANZUS makes me feel all sound and secure
What are those two letters doing in the middle there? They should remove those unsightly things and make it the AUS treaty.

J/k, Ty.
lol Australia is Alllied with US and NZ in the treaty. but US and NZ are only allied with australia seperately. lol so ANZUS doesnt really exist anymore
2008-02-02 03:41:48
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7043|London, England
I know there's alot of U.S troops there, but what I meant was. You hear very little of US operations in Afghanistan (these days). That might be cos of the media here, I don't know. Also, even on Liveleak, most of the Afghanistan videos are about Canadian/Dutch/UK forces. I'm just saying, the U.S has a huge military. It could commit way more than it is, even if it's at 30,000 right now.

So, unless the situation is absolutely desperate, I don't think they should send "strongly worded letters" urging other countries to get more involved.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-02-02 03:42:04)

2008-02-02 04:00:19
jord
Member
+2,382|7100|The North, beyond the wall.

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I know there's alot of U.S troops there, but what I meant was. You hear very little of US operations in Afghanistan (these days). That might be cos of the media here, I don't know. Also, even on Liveleak, most of the Afghanistan videos are about Canadian/Dutch/UK forces. I'm just saying, the U.S has a huge military. It could commit way more than it is, even if it's at 30,000 right now.

So, unless the situation is absolutely desperate, I don't think they should send "strongly worded letters" urging other countries to get more involved.
Iraq's mostly in the spotlight. Shame really...


Anyway, I don't see how Germany has an obligation to commit a specified number of soldiers. It would be nice though, put some in the South as well.   Germany can send in 10 000 soldiers but if they're sat in the quieter North it won't make too much of a difference.

And Mek, no Army will commit all their soldiers to one operation. They need soldiers back in America, Gitmo, training exercises, Iraq and wherever else they're deployed.

Last edited by jord (2008-02-02 04:03:16)

2008-02-02 04:02:11
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I know there's alot of U.S troops there, but what I meant was. You hear very little of US operations in Afghanistan (these days). That might be cos of the media here, I don't know. Also, even on Liveleak, most of the Afghanistan videos are about Canadian/Dutch/UK forces. I'm just saying, the U.S has a huge military. It could commit way more than it is, even if it's at 30,000 right now.

So, unless the situation is absolutely desperate, I don't think they should send "strongly worded letters" urging other countries to get more involved.
Most of the air support you see in Liveleak videos? US.

Just because you don't see ground troops in Liveleak, it doesn't mean they're not there. The US is plussing up it's commitment of ground troops by more than 10%...while NATO countries are talking about dropping theirs. So yeah...strongly worded letters basically saying WTFO to countries that have promised to help out in Afghanistan are completely appropriate.
“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 04:16:34
Ghandi767
Member
+17|7044|Hanging in the Balance

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I know there's alot of U.S troops there, but what I meant was. You hear very little of US operations in Afghanistan (these days). That might be cos of the media here, I don't know. Also, even on Liveleak, most of the Afghanistan videos are about Canadian/Dutch/UK forces. I'm just saying, the U.S has a huge military. It could commit way more than it is, even if it's at 30,000 right now.

So, unless the situation is absolutely desperate, I don't think they should send "strongly worded letters" urging other countries to get more involved.
I know there's alot of U.S troops there, but what I meant was. You hear very little of US operations in Afghanistan (these days). That might be cos of the media here, I don't know.
Its your media. US ground troops on average see much more combat in Afghanistan than UK, Dutch or Canadian forcces. There is almost never
an operation without considerable numbers of US troops (Either Conventional or SF)

Percentage-Wise. the US is committing the same amount as the UK and much more than anyone else.

US also supplies roughly 95% of the Air Support... In Helmand. Seeing as though its not even supposed to have US troops in it (It does because they need them). Its something like 98% of the Air Support in country.

US also is the one who flies the Canadian Forces.

So, unless the situation is absolutely desperate, I don't think they should send "strongly worded letters" urging other countries to get more involved.
The entire purpose of NATO is that when one nation is attacked, the others join it in its defense.
2008-02-02 04:23:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7004|SE London

fadedsteve wrote:

I think its up to Germany to decide where Germany sends their troops. . . .
Well said.



I think it's hilarious that a silly thread like this was created by someone calling themselves Ghandi....
2008-02-02 04:26:04
MrCookie
good times
+31|6419|In a wheelchair.
there are lots of danish soldiers down there.... i understand y the germans dont want to... i think they are tired of war!
2008-02-02 04:26:23
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7043|London, England

Ghandi767 wrote:

The entire purpose of NATO is that when one nation is attacked, the others join it in its defense.
Technically speaking they are obliging their NATO contract by serving in Afghanistan, it's just in a relatively quiet area. I haven't read this NATO doctrine or whatever it's called, but I doubt it would mention how much a country would have to be involved in operations. So I don't think Germany are breaking anything by not committing more troops, as they already have some.

We can then go back to the Falklands and say that many, infact all of NATO broke the agreement by not joining the UK in the defence of its own territory from invaders. And then like you said about Panama/Grenada and many other conflicts. It seems it's pick and choose. It's not a strong Alliance imo, it's quite loose.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-02-02 04:27:05)

2008-02-02 04:29:58
Ghandi767
Member
+17|7044|Hanging in the Balance
WRT Germany, yes technically, but it is very very small of them to not really contribute to the real fight. Really is exploiting the system.

But you have to consider the Falklands War...to many it was stupid. Losing the Islands meantvery little.

Anyway, here's the official text:


Article 5, North Atlantic Treaty

Article 5, North Atlantic Treaty wrote:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Last edited by Ghandi767 (2008-02-02 04:30:33)

2008-02-02 04:34:49
jord
Member
+2,382|7100|The North, beyond the wall.

Ghandi767 wrote:

But you have to consider the Falklands War...to many it was stupid. Losing the Islands meantvery little.
It's the principle.
2008-02-02 04:41:29
Ghandi767
Member
+17|7044|Hanging in the Balance

jord wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

But you have to consider the Falklands War...to many it was stupid. Losing the Islands meantvery little.
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?
2008-02-02 04:43:47
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7004|SE London

Ghandi767 wrote:

jord wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

But you have to consider the Falklands War...to many it was stupid. Losing the Islands meantvery little.
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?
*Cough Cough*

Vietnam, Iraq......

At least in the Falklands we achieved the objective successfully and quickly.
2008-02-02 04:45:07
jord
Member
+2,382|7100|The North, beyond the wall.

Ghandi767 wrote:

jord wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

But you have to consider the Falklands War...to many it was stupid. Losing the Islands meantvery little.
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.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard