sure changing your tone from the begining of this thread. what happened to "what good did 100,000 soviets do....."B.Schuss wrote:
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...
that's because these are two different issues.
One is the general idea of nation building and the overall criticism of the strategy in the war on terror. you know, more troops or not, the RAND study, etc.
the other is the constitutional hurdles that german law places in front of an extended mandate in Afghanistan.
all I was trying to do was outlining that we cannot get around due process here. parliamentary oversight is as it is. We have a right and an obligation to follow due process, that's all I am saying. And this dos not mean that we don't want to fulfill our commitment to NATO.
One is the general idea of nation building and the overall criticism of the strategy in the war on terror. you know, more troops or not, the RAND study, etc.
the other is the constitutional hurdles that german law places in front of an extended mandate in Afghanistan.
all I was trying to do was outlining that we cannot get around due process here. parliamentary oversight is as it is. We have a right and an obligation to follow due process, that's all I am saying. And this dos not mean that we don't want to fulfill our commitment to NATO.
so, one is the reason the german government doesnt believe they should send more of an effort and the other is the excuse you're giving me as to why. Still doesnt change the topic of the thread "Germany Refuses to send more...." still doesnt change my opinion. in fact, it enforces it.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 11:57:32)
i agree with germany increasing their activities in afghanistan, and i also agree that there are many countries that do a lot more than germany, but lets not forget that the german armed forces do not have the combat experience as other nations nor the financial resources (as provided by the government).
having said that, i agree that both the combat experience as well as the financial resources need some fixing. but that is not that easy, especially since germans (average population as well as many politicians) are sceptical of german soldiers killing (history tells why...).
what b.schuss said is perhaps the most important issue, our constitution. with all due respect for the demands of other nations concerning germany military efforts, but you cannot expect us to change part(s) of our constitution over night to fit your wishes. at least they are discussing possible german activity in the south of afghanistan, that's at least a start....
having said that, i agree that both the combat experience as well as the financial resources need some fixing. but that is not that easy, especially since germans (average population as well as many politicians) are sceptical of german soldiers killing (history tells why...).
what b.schuss said is perhaps the most important issue, our constitution. with all due respect for the demands of other nations concerning germany military efforts, but you cannot expect us to change part(s) of our constitution over night to fit your wishes. at least they are discussing possible german activity in the south of afghanistan, that's at least a start....
youre right, I cant expect you to change anything about your government, constitution or public support. Same way you cant expect me to not consider Germany less than favorable allies.eEyOrE wrote:
what b.schuss said is perhaps the most important issue, our constitution. with all due respect for the demands of other nations concerning germany military efforts, but you cannot expect us to change part(s) of our constitution over night to fit your wishes. at least they are discussing possible german activity in the south of afghanistan, that's at least a start....
true. i don't expect anything of you. but again, germany is not saying we wont send more troops no matter what you say, our government is just "checking" if we are allowed to and if not what has to be changed to deploy more troops.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre right, I cant expect you to change anything about your government, constitution or public support. Same way you cant expect me to not consider Germany less than favorable allies.eEyOrE wrote:
what b.schuss said is perhaps the most important issue, our constitution. with all due respect for the demands of other nations concerning germany military efforts, but you cannot expect us to change part(s) of our constitution over night to fit your wishes. at least they are discussing possible german activity in the south of afghanistan, that's at least a start....
oh, correct me if im wrong, but is everything germany has done so far in afghanistan not worth anything?
That's one of the key issues in Canadian politics currently. Canadian people believe that other NATO members are not doing their part to support the mission, and that Canadian soldiers are shouldering the burden for others, providing an effort proportionally greater than other countries and suffering the highest proportion of casualties to anyone in Afghanistan. It is a mentality that many Canadians have, almost as a self-congratulatory idea that in some way Canada is doing the most and best. Not exactly accurate, but the anger towards inactive NATO members seems to be the primary message in their attitudes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Canada does have every right to be pissed.
The current Conservative government prefers that withdrawal from Afghanistan occur in 2011, or even later. To achieve this, they must acquire the support of the Liberal opposition, who began the mission and set the withdrawal date in February 2009. That would be the most likely date. Public opinion is split, with a great debate over Canada's role. While there is support for staying in Afghanistan beyond the mandate of 2009, a majority supports either immediate or planned withdrawal of February 2009. Naturally, it will not be sudden, and plans are for a number of advisers and humanitarian workers to remain beyond for the reconstruction purposes that the Canadian government hopes to move into instead of combat.
However, the Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan is one of the most volatile, and the 2,500 soldier battle group of Canada is doing more than their share. Other NATO member states, even if in the country, have not moved into dangerous regions and instead done garrison duty in pacified areas. This would be the source of the Canadian public wish for more support.
The divisiveness of the issue has raised the Conservative government to mandate a report on the issue, because it will the one that will be the decisive in the next election- And likely cause the next election. The Manley Report was released last week, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper "broadly accepting" the findings, and opposition parties supporting parts of it, but finding fault with the potential for an unending mission. The report rejected the current options that the political parties advocate, it advised long-term involvement, with a gradual minimizing of the mission in favour of the Afghan National Army to take their place. It does not set a withdrawal date definitively, but does seem to coincide with 2011 as a date which by that time should have most of Canadian soldiers out. But it is a process that will see a lessened role every year until only a non-military presence is left. Thus, the report recommends that the expiry date of February 2009 be extended. Additionally, aid and humanitarian work will be increased as the primary role for Canada in Afghanistan.
Some see the Manley Report as an ultimatum to NATO allies for another part of the report. The report recommended that a minimum of 1,000 NATO soldiers reinforce the Kandahar region, and some pundits see it as a method of encouraging NATO support or else Canada will leave. It does not necessarily merit that end, but with the current political climate, it is likely to be a definite move if NATO forces do not act accordingly. Considerable pressure will now be brought upon NATO at their next meeting. Without their support, Canada will leave in February 2009, in one year. With opposition parties supporting the 2009 expiry date, along with the public, Canada would not accept NATO indifference.
honestly, if member nations start dwindling their support for the mission than it wasnt. If the situation that put the taliban in power reappears, whats the point?eEyOrE wrote:
true. i don't expect anything of you. but again, germany is not saying we wont send more troops no matter what you say, our government is just "checking" if we are allowed to and if not what has to be changed to deploy more troops.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre right, I cant expect you to change anything about your government, constitution or public support. Same way you cant expect me to not consider Germany less than favorable allies.eEyOrE wrote:
what b.schuss said is perhaps the most important issue, our constitution. with all due respect for the demands of other nations concerning germany military efforts, but you cannot expect us to change part(s) of our constitution over night to fit your wishes. at least they are discussing possible german activity in the south of afghanistan, that's at least a start....
oh, correct me if im wrong, but is everything germany has done so far in afghanistan not worth anything?
your explanation suits my palette better than "We were nazis before, its not our fault we dont send more" which was the excuse Im getting from B.Schuss.
well, obviously you and the german government have come to different conclusions about how to handle this, at least for the time being.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
so, one is the reason the german government doesnt believe they should send more of an effort and the other is the excuse you're giving me as to why. Still doesnt change the topic of the thread "Germany Refuses to send more...." still doesnt change my opinion. in fact, it enforces it.
That's not a problem, it's simply two people or groups of people having different opinions about a specific issue. Happens all the time.
To you, it's an excuse, to me, an explanation.
Your opinion - or mine - doesn't play a role in this anyway. And I had little hopes to sway anyone's opinion on this anyway. Fixed beliefs, remember ? We pretty much know where everybody stands here anyway.
I tried to present our point of view, you presented yours.
In the end, that's all there is to it.
if there is any question as to why Germany needs to send more troops, read this post.Drakef wrote:
That's one of the key issues in Canadian politics currently. Canadian people believe that other NATO members are not doing their part to support the mission, and that Canadian soldiers are shouldering the burden for others, providing an effort proportionally greater than other countries and suffering the highest proportion of casualties to anyone in Afghanistan. It is a mentality that many Canadians have, almost as a self-congratulatory idea that in some way Canada is doing the most and best. Not exactly accurate, but the anger towards inactive NATO members seems to be the primary message in their attitudes.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Canada does have every right to be pissed.
The current Conservative government prefers that withdrawal from Afghanistan occur in 2011, or even later. To achieve this, they must acquire the support of the Liberal opposition, who began the mission and set the withdrawal date in February 2009. That would be the most likely date. Public opinion is split, with a great debate over Canada's role. While there is support for staying in Afghanistan beyond the mandate of 2009, a majority supports either immediate or planned withdrawal of February 2009. Naturally, it will not be sudden, and plans are for a number of advisers and humanitarian workers to remain beyond for the reconstruction purposes that the Canadian government hopes to move into instead of combat.
However, the Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan is one of the most volatile, and the 2,500 soldier battle group of Canada is doing more than their share. Other NATO member states, even if in the country, have not moved into dangerous regions and instead done garrison duty in pacified areas. This would be the source of the Canadian public wish for more support.
The divisiveness of the issue has raised the Conservative government to mandate a report on the issue, because it will the one that will be the decisive in the next election- And likely cause the next election. The Manley Report was released last week, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper "broadly accepting" the findings, and opposition parties supporting parts of it, but finding fault with the potential for an unending mission. The report rejected the current options that the political parties advocate, it advised long-term involvement, with a gradual minimizing of the mission in favour of the Afghan National Army to take their place. It does not set a withdrawal date definitively, but does seem to coincide with 2011 as a date which by that time should have most of Canadian soldiers out. But it is a process that will see a lessened role every year until only a non-military presence is left. Thus, the report recommends that the expiry date of February 2009 be extended. Additionally, aid and humanitarian work will be increased as the primary role for Canada in Afghanistan.
Some see the Manley Report as an ultimatum to NATO allies for another part of the report. The report recommended that a minimum of 1,000 NATO soldiers reinforce the Kandahar region, and some pundits see it as a method of encouraging NATO support or else Canada will leave. It does not necessarily merit that end, but with the current political climate, it is likely to be a definite move if NATO forces do not act accordingly. Considerable pressure will now be brought upon NATO at their next meeting. Without their support, Canada will leave in February 2009, in one year. With opposition parties supporting the 2009 expiry date, along with the public, Canada would not accept NATO indifference.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 12:11:59)
we are not dwindling, after all we are in afghanistan. but hey, no hard feelings, its not my decision nor yours, there are people who get paid a lot more than you and i do to decide that
well, if other member nations dont start footing a little bit more of the bill. Key member nations will recall their mission. Look at Drakef's post.eEyOrE wrote:
we are not dwindling, after all we are in afghanistan. but hey, no hard feelings, its not my decision nor yours, there are people who get paid a lot more than you and i do to decide that
i read his post, sorry about what canada has to put with, but it doesnt change my opinion. i dont think there is anything more to say, as we have all stated what we think more than once in this thread. nevertheless, thx for sharing your opnions!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well, if other member nations dont start footing a little bit more of the bill. Key member nations will recall their mission. Look at Drakef's post.eEyOrE wrote:
we are not dwindling, after all we are in afghanistan. but hey, no hard feelings, its not my decision nor yours, there are people who get paid a lot more than you and i do to decide that
Update: Poland has offered Canada two helicopters (the other necessity to stay in Afghanistan) but no additional troops.
I'd thank the Polish members here for their contribution to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, but I realize that Poland doesn't have electricity.
I'd thank the Polish members here for their contribution to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, but I realize that Poland doesn't have electricity.
He has no authority to make such demands hence the increasingly pointless role of NATO in the world (should have ended with the red menace in 1989, it is only going to become more difficult in the future to agree on things as the US and Europe seem to be quite obviously diverging on many things). I take your point about why he is calling for it however.Ghandi767 wrote:
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.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-04 13:12:59)
if the canadians want to pull out, more power to them. if I am informed correctly, contributions are made voluntarily. This ain't an Article 5 operation anyway, or is it ?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well, if other member nations dont start footing a little bit more of the bill. Key member nations will recall their mission. Look at Drakef's post.eEyOrE wrote:
we are not dwindling, after all we are in afghanistan. but hey, no hard feelings, its not my decision nor yours, there are people who get paid a lot more than you and i do to decide that
Why not ask russia or china to contribute ? After all, even though ISAF is NATO-led, we are acting upon a SC resolution.
And we already have non-NATO contributions ( Australia, New Zealand, Jordan ).
All this story is telling me is this: When you get into a fight, dont bring Germany. Theyll make excuses to not have your back and yet still try to claim themselves allies.B.Schuss wrote:
if the canadians want to pull out, more power to them. if I am informed correctly, contributions are made voluntarily. This ain't an Article 5 operation anyway, or is it ?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well, if other member nations dont start footing a little bit more of the bill. Key member nations will recall their mission. Look at Drakef's post.eEyOrE wrote:
we are not dwindling, after all we are in afghanistan. but hey, no hard feelings, its not my decision nor yours, there are people who get paid a lot more than you and i do to decide that
Why not ask russia or china to contribute ? After all, even though ISAF is NATO-led, we are acting upon a SC resolution.
And we already have non-NATO contributions ( Australia, New Zealand, Jordan ).
I find it funny that it is ok for you to criticize my nations foreign policy but when I make a comment about your nation not picking up more of the disproportionate burden, I hate democracy.
I find it funny how Ive stated numerous times that I dont agree with American foreign policy, I dont think we should have invaded Iraq, but you lump me in with the rest of my government trying to paint an image of me that doesnt exist to help your argument
I find it funny that we are talking about NATO allies and you bring up China and Russia. If you wanna make a thread about the Chinese or Russian contribution to the war on terror, feel free.
I also find it funny that you said you were done with me but you just threw in your last two cents.
you presented your point of view, I think its deplorable.
funny.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-04 15:07:16)
Dudes, this isn't just about NATO anymore. It's also about our economy. If we leave america to do all the stuff on their own they won't be able to keep up long, and bring the european economy in lots of danger. Also, we actually have to maintain the lines in Afghanistan and Iraq, we entered the war and we damn well don't decide when we're going to stop. You stop when one of the two sides is either exterminated or admits defeat, which isn't the case.
Take a good guess on what's going to happen if we all just leave. taliban will regain control, probably gain the control over Iraq aswell and most likely the first thing they're going to try and do is get back at all the people that invaded Iraq / Afghanistan in the first place. Now that's not something you wish to happen. The thing I'd most gladly like to see is that every country sends atleast about 5000 combat orientated troops into the lines to exterminate these taliban assholes in a matter of months.
The case now is; US, UK, Canada, Aussies & the dutch are pretty much holding out on their own without too much help from other countries. We're trying to fight some kind of guerilla enemy here and the most easy way to dig them out is just by overwhelming them and swarming the place with troops. What's being asked of germany is trying to balance the efforts made in Afghanistan / Iraq so that noone will have to overdo it. But no, as stubborn as most countries are nowadays, we ignore anything we might've learned from previous conflicts and just leave everyone clean up their own mess; which always ends badly.
But sadly none of the above will ever happen and if this goes on all the soldiers that have died over there have actually been dying in vain.
Take a good guess on what's going to happen if we all just leave. taliban will regain control, probably gain the control over Iraq aswell and most likely the first thing they're going to try and do is get back at all the people that invaded Iraq / Afghanistan in the first place. Now that's not something you wish to happen. The thing I'd most gladly like to see is that every country sends atleast about 5000 combat orientated troops into the lines to exterminate these taliban assholes in a matter of months.
The case now is; US, UK, Canada, Aussies & the dutch are pretty much holding out on their own without too much help from other countries. We're trying to fight some kind of guerilla enemy here and the most easy way to dig them out is just by overwhelming them and swarming the place with troops. What's being asked of germany is trying to balance the efforts made in Afghanistan / Iraq so that noone will have to overdo it. But no, as stubborn as most countries are nowadays, we ignore anything we might've learned from previous conflicts and just leave everyone clean up their own mess; which always ends badly.
But sadly none of the above will ever happen and if this goes on all the soldiers that have died over there have actually been dying in vain.
inane little opines
Or there is a politcal solution - All three are unlikely in the case of the Taleban.You stop when one of the two sides is either exterminated or admits defeat, which isn't the case.
Afghanistan is a pointless and hopeless fight.
There is just no reason to be there any more, if there ever was any.
Better start planning your Pakistan invasion.We're trying to fight some kind of guerilla enemy here and the most easy way to dig them out is just by overwhelming them and swarming the place with troops.
Fuck Israel
You go try and have a sensible conversation with the Taliban. That won't work at all.Dilbert_X wrote:
Or there is a politcal solution - All three are unlikely in the case of the Taleban.You stop when one of the two sides is either exterminated or admits defeat, which isn't the case.
Afghanistan is a pointless and hopeless fight.
There is just no reason to be there any more, if there ever was any.Better start planning your Pakistan invasion.We're trying to fight some kind of guerilla enemy here and the most easy way to dig them out is just by overwhelming them and swarming the place with troops.
The main idea of exterminating the taliban in afghanistan is essential in order to get the population of that country to support you. Right now they're still saying we don't stand a chance blablabla. When we do show the population we're stronger than the taliban they might actually get on and support us, then stop hiding weapons and booby trap houses.
Only then can you really establish a bit of a stable government and possibly train the afghans themselves to set up border watches.
inane little opines
Hold on. I just realised.
The northern parts of Afghanistan were always under the control of the Northern Alliance (teh good guise) - WTF are troops even doing there. Northern Alliance held Afghanistan was never even a part of the Taliban regime.
Seriously, that's weak.
I didn't even notice that until now. I totally forgot about the Northern Alliance.
Why the hell are soldiers even in the North, they don't need to be!
and other thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civ … 96-2001%29
Man, politics is fucked up.
The northern parts of Afghanistan were always under the control of the Northern Alliance (teh good guise) - WTF are troops even doing there. Northern Alliance held Afghanistan was never even a part of the Taliban regime.
Seriously, that's weak.
I didn't even notice that until now. I totally forgot about the Northern Alliance.
Why the hell are soldiers even in the North, they don't need to be!
and other thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civ … 96-2001%29
Iran should be on our side tbh.Also among those killed in Mazari Sharif were several Iranian diplomats. Others were kidnapped by the Taliban, touching off a hostage crisis that nearly escalated to a full scale war, with 250,000 Iranian soldiers massed on the Afghan border at one time.[10] It was later admitted that they were killed by the Taliban, and their bodies were returned to Iran.[11] In September the Taliban claimed that Iran violated its airspace, and later Iran claimed minor clashes occurred between the Taliban and Iran after it led a raid into eastern Iran, though the Taliban denied it led the raid.[12][13] Eventually with UN mediation, the tensions cooled.
Man, politics is fucked up.
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-02-05 12:16:13)
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.
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?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.
if you think it's deplorable to follow due process when the life of your countrymen is on the line, fine.Gunslinger OIF II wrote:
you presented your point of view, I think its deplorable.
This doesn't change the fact that we cannot legally send troops abroad on combat missions without proper parliamentary authorization. If you think that's cowardly, I'll have to live with that.
I apologize if you feel that I lumped you in with the rest of americans. With all of these iraq/us foreign policy threads, it's sometimes hard to remember who said what in which context. No offense intended.
I have said numerous times that, if it were up to me, we'd long be involved in combat operations in the south, and pick up our share of the burden. But I am not a german MP.
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.
Source?Ghandi767 wrote:
1. "Throwing Bombs and When Its Boring They Leave"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
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 Ruckel (2008-02-05 12:41:12)