US wants to leave peacekeeping and rebuilding Afganistan to Europe!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
our_man: I'm with KittyHorse

Damnit, that's GP's "special name" for me, and he's very jealous.

[Saint Marcus]

they did it in the revv war when the big us of a blew the hell out of britain

Read your history books It was France who turned the war around, not Washinton's pathetic militias I believe the Americans lost nearly every mayor engagement with the British before the French showed up.

no more american money for europe

How I'd wish they try Byebye US economy

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

You can say what you want, but Europe's NATO members contribute a lot more peacekeeping forces than the USA.

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

Dropping bombs on a country is not peacekeeping

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.

Not quite fair leaving the toughest task up to Europe. Or perhaps the US military isn't as skilled in peacekeeping as the European armies. Maybe that's it

I'm all for European forces helping to preserve peace in Afghanistan, but that task will take years. It's a lot harder than dropping bombs. Therefor, the US should at the very least contribute 40% of the peacekeeping forces, and leave the remaining 60% to Europe. A bit like Yugoslavia. Only fair right?

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

Of course. But the west always finds ways to make it worse.

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

Can't. I'm an indoctrinated eurocom. Brainwashed from all the Stalinesque propaganda we are forced to watch here.

In the end the Reds did win the Cold War if we have to believe BD and Wiglaf Go Stalin!

[TCO]

You go, girl!!

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Damnit, that's GP's "special name" for me, and he's very jealous.

Keep, 'em straight, Kitty!

[Wiglaf]

Read your history books It was France who turned the war around, not Washinton's pathetic militias I believe the Americans lost nearly every mayor engagement with the British before the French showed up.

the french!?! they only hastened our victory and REMEMBER why the cheapos came, it was because of our victories in the PAST, they ensured the outcome of the war NOT some stupid fleets that came in at the last minute! washington was a genius not antoine de milford or whoever it was the greedy commies sent over.

american generals
uptight french 'gentlemen'

How I'd wish they try Byebye US economy

small price to pay

[Faeelin]

Read your history books It was France who turned the war around, not Washinton's pathetic militias I believe the Americans lost nearly every mayor engagement with the British before the French showed up.

Actually, the British wre getting an experience with guerilla warfare. France helped win major battles, but support for the war in Britain was nearly nonexistant by 1778.



How I'd wish they try Byebye US economy

We could always cash in on those debts form the Marshall plan and take you down with us.

You can say what you want, but Europe's NATO members contribute a lot more peacekeeping forces than the USA.

It's wonderful that you'll have troops there fror peacekeeping but not any actual fighting.

Dropping bombs on a country is not peacekeeping

The Kosovians would disagree, I'm sure.

Not quite fair leaving the toughest task up to Europe. Or perhaps the US military isn't as skilled in peacekeeping as the European armies. Maybe that's it

Perhaps not, but then again, we're great at keeping a superpower with a history of agressive expansion from invading their pathetically weak neighbors.

I'm all for European forces helping to preserve peace in Afghanistan, but that task will take years. It's a lot harder than dropping bombs. Therefor, the US should at the very least contribute 40% of the peacekeeping forces, and leave the remaining 60% to Europe. A bit like Yugoslavia. Only fair right?

This has been bugging me. If Europe is now one country, how come they can complain about the US ignoring the needs of the world's other nations when they just help other European ones?

Of course. But the west always finds ways to make it worse.

Well, Europe did let the Nazis get to where they did, so that's probably true.



In the end the Reds did win the Cold War if we have to believe BD and Wiglaf Go Stalin! [/QUOTE]

[DarkCloud]

I'm all for European forces helping to preserve peace in Afghanistan, but that task will take years. It's a lot harder than dropping bombs. Therefor, the US should at the very least contribute 40% of the peacekeeping forces, and leave the remaining 60% to Europe. A bit like Yugoslavia. Only fair right?

That is roughly what I wanted as well- I am glad we are on the same page, Mark.

-
Each country will act in its own best interests- thus I would not label it as the west always being the troublemaker here- the was is just more powerful right now, and hopefully will say so- I do not see why you want to limit your own country's power. That is sheer idiocy.

Wigalf,Faeelin
You are both right.
The Americans did win some major battles; in fact they won a fair amount of "european" battles, Saratoga, etc. However, the French helped them win the war, when they bottled up Cornwallis in South Carolina with their ships.
In fact, the army that defeated Britain was 1/2 American and 1/2 French.

The war would have likely dragged on for a few more years, or would have been put down, then happened later if the French did not get involved- the French were essential to the war effort at the time.

You can say what you want, but Europe's NATO members contribute a lot more peacekeeping forces than the USA.

Yeah right- the US is the UN- if the US left it, it would likely collapse- remember the League of Nations- how it wasnt' formed, despite every nations willingness to join it after the US did?

Remember most measures in the UN, how when the US stays out of them- they are nto passed- the US IS the UN... sadly enough

oh well

[Felch]

Wiglaf,

You're the reason why individual Americans aren't allowed to carry out diplomacy on their own. I'm astonished the Europeans here have put up with your bull**** like this.

Frankly, I'm angry about how little America has done. We've been fighting this war like a bunch of pussies, waiting around for the NA to do the fighting for us, while we bomb the Taliban on their behalf.

Criticizing Europe for not doing anything is absurd. Europe isn't powerful enough, or organized well enough to do much of anything. Keep in mind that most of our NATO allies have built their army doctrine and procurement priorities around a grand clash between western and eastern Europe. Thus, they can fight very well in Central Europe, but not so well in Central Asia.

Basically, shut the hell up. You're wrong and that's all there is to it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Faeelin
Read your history books It was France who turned the war around, not Washinton's pathetic militias I believe the Americans lost nearly every mayor engagement with the British before the French showed up.

Actually, the British wre getting an experience with guerilla warfare. France helped win major battles, but support for the war in Britain was nearly nonexistant by 1778.



How I'd wish they try Byebye US economy

We could always cash in on those debts form the Marshall plan and take you down with us.

You can say what you want, but Europe's NATO members contribute a lot more peacekeeping forces than the USA.

It's wonderful that you'll have troops there fror peacekeeping but not any actual fighting.

Dropping bombs on a country is not peacekeeping

The Kosovians would disagree, I'm sure.

Not quite fair leaving the toughest task up to Europe. Or perhaps the US military isn't as skilled in peacekeeping as the European armies. Maybe that's it

Perhaps not, but then again, we're great at keeping a superpower with a history of agressive expansion from invading their pathetically weak neighbors.

I'm all for European forces helping to preserve peace in Afghanistan, but that task will take years. It's a lot harder than dropping bombs. Therefor, the US should at the very least contribute 40% of the peacekeeping forces, and leave the remaining 60% to Europe. A bit like Yugoslavia. Only fair right?

This has been bugging me. If Europe is now one country, how come they can complain about the US ignoring the needs of the world's other nations when they just help other European ones?

Of course. But the west always finds ways to make it worse.

Well, Europe did let the Nazis get to where they did, so that's probably true.



In the end the Reds did win the Cold War if we have to believe BD and Wiglaf Go Stalin!

[/QUOTE]


Faeelin

If *ifs* and *buts* were fruits and Nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Especially Harry Turtledove.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Felch X
Frankly, I'm angry about how little America has done. We've been fighting this war like a bunch of pussies, waiting around for the NA to do the fighting for us, while we bomb the Taliban on their behalf.

say what? we've been up in the air we're the reason why the weakling NA is moving in and winning. the taliban's got no anti air capabilities and have lost troops by the hundreds thanks to Daisy Clutter fuel air bombs that take out areas the size of forests instanty - biggest non nuke wreckin ball we've got. maybe I shouldn't have said that, you'll probably report it back to the afghan government or something.

if you want to attack american troops, tell it to their face. tell the pilots and spec ops troops that risk their lives FOR YOU that they're pussies. didn't think so.

Criticizing Europe for not doing anything is absurd. Europe isn't powerful enough, or organized well enough to do much of anything. Keep in mind that most of our NATO allies have built their army doctrine and procurement priorities around a grand clash between western and eastern Europe. Thus, they can fight very well in Central Europe, but not so well in Central Asia.

the europeans have the capability to launch missiles and send in troops, everyone does. blair promised help, there hasn't been ANYTHING but ten bombs on day one. thanks a bunch, better luck next time I guess.

if anyone's acting like wimps here it's ain't us, buddy.

Basically, shut the hell up. You're wrong and that's all there is to it.

spy

[Ted Striker]

Well the Afhganistan Alliance is asking the US *NOT* to be the peacekeepers as this will lead to tension in the country. (Since we just bombed them). It could appear as an occupation force.

It's not about who has the balls or who is doing the dirty work or whatever.

It's about WHAT'S PRACTICAL.

Duh.

[our_man]

Dinodoc, Krayhorse, I'm not very well versed when it comes to constitutional rights as such, but I really don't think the Irish government has a problem with pushing the subject. For example, up until fairly recently divorce was illegal in Ireland. I think that there were at least 3 referendums in order to get this changed.

[Saint Marcus]

I'm very glad that there are Americans with common sense around (Felch X, among others). But I, and many with me, including Americans, are disgusted by the crap many other Americans post here on these forums. I hope this isn't the general consensus in the US.

Can someone here please tell me what the general feeling in the US is? If it is as bad as some Americans here make it seem to be, I predict a short life to the "Coalition", and probably NATO as well.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by our_man
Dinodoc, Krayhorse, I'm not very well versed when it comes to constitutional rights as such, but I really don't think the Irish government has a problem with pushing the subject. For example, up until fairly recently divorce was illegal in Ireland. I think that there were at least 3 referendums in order to get this changed.

Were general elections held between referenda?

[our_man]

Yes, there were general elections between the referenda. So you can't put a referendum forward again until another general election has been called? Like I said, I'm not very well versed in constitutional amendments .

Anyway, there's going to be a general election in Ireland pretty soon, and in all probability Fianna Fail will be returned to power once again. So I'm afraid that technicality isn't probably going to have that much effect. And I can't imagine them losing the referendum again, since it was a fairly close call last time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by our_man
Yes, there were general elections between the referenda. So you can't put a referendum forward again until another general election has been called? Like I said, I'm not very well versed in constitutional amendments

That's what I meant when I said "in the same mandate".

I'm only knowledgable on the subject because I live in Quebec...