US wants to leave peacekeeping and rebuilding Afganistan to Europe!

[our_man]

The Irish Government were considering volunteering Irish troops for peacekeeping service in Afghanistan. It's a fairly oppurtune time, since we're just after withdrawing our 1,600 peacekeeping troops from the Lebanon after a presence of 23 years. We now have no really large involvement in peacekeeping left now, so putting Irish troops forward for Afghanistan seems the best way to save the Army from stagnation (unless the European Rapid Reaction Force ever gets off the ground).

Still, I think the U.S. have an obligation to get involved in peacekeeping in Afghanistan as well, but they shouldn't be solely responsible for it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by our_man
so putting Irish troops forward for Afghanistan seems the best way to save the Army from stagnation (unless the European Rapid Reaction Force ever gets off the ground).

I was under the impression that Ireland wasn't going to ba a part of any unified European Army after it had rejected the Treaty of Nice.

[our_man]

Ah yes, the Treaty of Nice. The rejection of that really put a spanner in the works for poor old Bertie and his diabolical schemes. He won't be foiled so easily though, we're meant to be having another referendum soon on the same question, and will continue to have referendum's on this until the government gets the answer it wants (yes). It's probably only a matter of time before we're all being conscripted into a general European army...

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
great way to argue, man. but I can do it much better, seeing as you just exploded without a trace of a coherent response before your second post in this thread.

1) I wasn't arguing. I'm not going to bother trying to hammer anything into your stick skull.
2) I did not explode. Notice the lack of anger smilies. That was a cold-blooded get-the-****-out message
3) Coherent responces had no effect on you before, why should I cast my pearls before the swine that is you?
4) There will be no third post here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by our_man
and will continue to have referendum's on this until the government gets the answer it wants (yes)

Isn't it illegal to hold more than one referendum on the same issue in the same mandate?

[DarkCloud]

Hmph. Europe offered to help; they offered to send troops- the US didn' need them- Europe should help in the rebuilding- making them do the bulk of it- about 60% sounds about right, any more and it isn't reallyl fair, but then again, they offered to help- why should they be pissed off...

ANYWAYS IN PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS; USUALLY THE SIDE THAT STARTED THE WAR IS NOT A PEACEKEEPER!!

THUS THE US SHOULDNT REALLY HAVE ANY PEACEKEEPERS IN AFGHANISTAN!

[Ted Striker]

pssst! We didn't start the war. The dumbass al Queda and Talban did

Although we are sure as hell finishing it.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
By the way, after observing and reviewing the definition provded by the Webster's Dictionary, you're a communist in every sense of the word.

Could you please type out this definition for me? I dont have the Webster's Dictionary. Thanks.

[Wiglaf]

a) you're a liberal
b) you're not american
c) you disagree with me
d) you are a spy

That right there immediatly makes you a forever communist in the eyes of any loyal conservative. If you want the definition for the narrow minded, here it is:

Main Entry: comámuánist
Pronunciation: 'kÅ m-y&-nist
Function: noun
Date: 1840
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
3 a : capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b : often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4 : often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities

Either way, you lose. Somehow I think you could've looked in the EuroDictionary, but I guess the regime over in Slovakia prevented that course of action. That's not to say Webster's is perfect: actually, they themselves are a communist network in my eyes. Stick with definition A.

[Saint Marcus]

US' foreign policies

A. US gets attacked
B. US strikes back
C. US brings a country to the brink of anarchy
D. US leaves it to Europe to clean the mess up

Of course European forces didn't do much fighting. That's cause it wasn't Brussels that was attacked. Eventhough some politicians want in, it really isn't our war. We'd love to help out in various things, but it's certainly not fair leaving it up to the European allies to clean up the mess the US (part-)created without them (the US) doing any peacekeeping themselves.

Not fair, but highly predictable. No wonder Bush' popularity in Europe is so low.

[Saint Marcus]

it's YOUR little commie island country that isn't standing together with America. Canada, Italy, the UK, and Austraila should all be attacked and hit or otherwise seriously warned (economically screwed) for their essential defiance of the United States despite promising the world and President Bush otherwise.

How I wish they'd try Though not even Bush is that stupid, but you certainly are.

I can see the headlines already. "US bans trade with all countries who didn't help enough in Afghanistan"

Two days later: "US economy collapsed, world rejoices"

unless the European Rapid Reaction Force ever gets off the ground

Next month the ERRF will be formally declared operational. I'm really looking forward to that. The ERRF won't be put in action before Jan 2003 though.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Mark L
US' foreign policies

A. US gets attacked
B. US strikes back
C. US brings a country to the brink of anarchy
D. US leaves it to Europe to clean the mess up

Of course European forces didn't do much fighting. That's cause it wasn't Brussels that was attacked. Eventhough some politicians want in, it really isn't our war. We'd love to help out in various things, but it's certainly not fair leaving it up to the European allies to clean up the mess the US (part-)created without them (the US) doing any peacekeeping themselves.

Not fair, but highly predictable. No wonder Bush' popularity in Europe is so low.

But according to the alliance- they shoud have offered their help, and they did The US didn't want their war help or need it- however the US needs their humanitarian help and since it would be bad for the US to help afghanistan as peacekeepers, considering they threw the country into turmoil- Europe should do it for them.

About "C." Afghanistan was pretty messed up before the war, anyway..

[Wiglaf]

mark commie liberal :

How I wish they'd try Though not even Bush is that stupid, but you certainly are.

I can see the headlines already. "US bans trade with all countries who didn't help enough in Afghanistan"

Two days later: "US economy collapsed, world rejoices"

the economy goes thru rough times, gotta take the ups with the downs and americans are prepared to do that if the cost is freedom. they did it in the revv war when the big us of a blew the hell out of britain and back then people didn't care about mohnay. in this case we could always revert to stone age politics or in the chaos conservatives could destroy the liberal party, anything's possible. this whole 'starve europe of money' thing is looking pretty hot all of a sudden, tons of benefits and the only consequence is we'd lose the round the clock speeches from tony blair but i can do without his commie rambles of peace when at the same time he condones letting us do all the hard work of dropping bombs and all that. when was the last time I ate an imported croissant, anyway? didn't think so, this trade stuff is overrated.

no more american money for europe

[DinoDoc]

our_man: I'm with KittyHorse. How can the Irish government hold another referendum on the same exact question?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Mark L
US' foreign policies

A. US gets attacked
B. US strikes back
C. US brings a country to the brink of anarchy
D. US leaves it to Europe to clean the mess up

Of course European forces didn't do much fighting. That's cause it wasn't Brussels that was attacked. Eventhough some politicians want in, it really isn't our war. We'd love to help out in various things, but it's certainly not fair leaving it up to the European allies to clean up the mess the US (part-)created without them (the US) doing any peacekeeping themselves.

Not fair, but highly predictable. No wonder Bush' popularity in Europe is so low.

I guess our Peacekeeping duties in the dead-bottem western Hemisphere counry doesn't count, eh Mark?


Also, last I checked, the only people who still wants to "Clean up" Iraq qas American and The UK.

So think before you post, you ****er! ( I mean that in Jest. )

[hijack} That loser Orange ripping off our Grudge-match idea![/hijack]