"Member nations must accept difficult assignments"

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Asher

Huh?

NATO is not in Iraq. This thread is about Afghanistan.

Huh? What are you, stupid?

Does the United States of America mean anything to you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
Huh? What are you, stupid?

Does the United States of America mean anything to you?

Yes, but the USA doesn't dictate where NATO goes or who sends what. If it did, NATO would be in Iraq.

You don't understand what is going on, do you?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


NATO is not in Iraq. This thread is about Afghanistan.

Sadly these are two things people are refusing to discuss in this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
There is a strong link between Afghanistan and Iraq.

And only because George W. has made it so, first by words and then by action.

NATO is doomed in Afghanistan, we're not going to fare better then the Soviets. Whatever credibility we had has been squandered in Iraq.

We're already doing better than the Soviets, if we werent thered be no point to this thread. Note well, there ARE German and French and Spanish troops in Afghanistan. So why are the US and Canada and UK and NL and Denmark so pissed at Germany and France and Spain? Cause those allies are keeping THEIR troops in the north of Afghanistan, the half of the country thats basically safe. When the USSR was there, there WAS no part of the country that was basically safe.

Now I dont discount the work the Germans et al are doing in places like Mazar e Sharif. While relatively quiet, theres tremendous work that needs to be done in such places to build the economy and civil society, and the Germans, French etc are doing good work to advance that. But it does seem that in a mission that all NATO states agree is a NATO mission, it would be better if the tasks were distributed so that all would take a role in the more violent areas.

This is more an issue for the Canadians, brits, etc I think. The US would be there anyway. We were attacked on 9/11 by AQ, supported by the Taliban, and we are going to continue to fight both AQ and the Taliban and support the Afghan govt. Pretty much everyone HERE agrees on that, including those long opposed to the Iraq war. For those like Canada who went on to aid an ally that was attacked (ie the US) and out of general concern about the AQ threat, they have, I think, legitimate concerns about burden sharing.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, but the USA doesn't dictate where NATO goes or who sends what. If it did, NATO would be in Iraq.

You don't understand what is going on, do you?

I think it does dictate that to a certain degree. The opposition to the Iraq war among the NATO itself was the only thing keeping NATO away from there. It is an unlawful war.

The mission in Afghanistan is much more legal and legitimate. Even we are there. My point once again was that if the US wasent stuck in Iraq its role and commitment in Afghanistan would be more profound.

[Asher]

Originally posted by laurentius
I think it does dictate that to a certain degree. The opposition to the Iraq war among the NATO itself was the only thing keeping NATO away from there. It is an unlawful war.

The mission in Afghanistan is much more legal and legitimate. Even we are there. My point once again was that if the US wasent stuck in Iraq its role and commitment in Afghanistan would be more profound.

Which doesn't matter -- why should they be the only people pulling their weight?

The problem is many European countries are in NATO enjoying the free ride. Why should you gain the protection of the US, Canada, and UK if you refuse to help when it's needed?

[laurentius]

Yes yes I realise the NAto invoked article 5 in 2001 but many of these new nano-allies are participating in Iraqi War out of sheer solidarity.
So saying these countries enjoy a free ride in Nato only shows the extent of your own ignorance. These former Warsaw pact members are the most motivated Nato members.

And now Bush demands even more!

[Wezil]

It is a serious issue in this country.

Our PM cannot support indefinitely a NATO mission that allows other members of the alliance a free pass. His gov't (or the next Liberal one) will have trouble 'selling' it to the public.

Is NATO finished?

[laurentius]

Wezil: Exactly what are these countries that are supposedly getting a free pass?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by laurentius
Yes yes I realise the NAto invoked article 5 in 2001 but many of these new nano-allies are participating in Iraqi War out of sheer solidarity.
So saying these countries enjoy a free ride in Nato only shows the extent of your own ignorance. These former Warsaw pact members are the most motivated Nato members.

And now Bush demands even more!

Do you require a map? We are trying to talk about ****** Afghanistan!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by laurentius
Wezil: Exactly what are these countries that are supposedly getting a free pass?

Did you read the posted article?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Wezil


Do you require a map? We are trying to talk about ****** Afghanistan!

I'm talking with Asher, you are clearly out of range.

You can try to talk about what ever the **** you want.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Wezil


Did you read the posted article?

Of course.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by laurentius
Yes yes I realise the NAto invoked article 5 in 2001 but many of these new nano-allies are participating in Iraqi War out of sheer solidarity.
So saying these countries enjoy a free ride in Nato only shows the extent of your own ignorance. These former Warsaw pact members are the most motivated Nato members.

And now Bush demands even more!

I dont think anyones complaining about the eastern europeans (in fact Poland has offered 1000 troops for southern Afghanistan) - its France, Germany, Spain, that are at issue.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by laurentius



I'm talking with Asher, you are clearly out of range.

You can try to talk about what ever the **** you want.

He and I both tried (unsuccessfully) to get you to understand Afghanistan IS NOT Iraq. It is a different conversation.

I'm glad you read the article. I supposed you have an answer now? Again, it was pointed out earlier (as well as in the article) what countries we were referring to. Thanks for coming out.