New round of NATO expansion.

[chequita guevara]

The purpose of NATO is to subordinate Europe's military to the United States in order to prevent Europe from becoming a military rival of the U.S. It has worked very well for that purpose. It's also worked out very well at preventing any more European wars.

In answer to DD's snarkiness, he ought to remember that NATO allies offered to do more and the Bush administration turned them down. Our allies were actually begging to help us, but we said no. That they don't want to help us now is our own damn fault.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Dino --
Clarification: Are you saying all of NATO should be in Iraq or are you limiting the participation to Afghanistan?

Which country does this refer to?

As a result of the information he provided to the Council, it has been clearly determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In answer to DD's snarkiness,...

I wasn't being snarky. I actually was starting to think he was suffering from a stroke or some other cognitive malady until he started to explain himself.

[Dinner]

I should be remembered that the Bush Administration put Afghanistan on the back burner and practically ignored it so it is rich for them to whine the mission there isn't receiving enough attention.

[DinoDoc]

What post do I hold in the Bush Admin?

[DaShi]

What do I look like, a chair?

No, I looks like this: I.

[Patroklos]

The purpose of NATO is to subordinate Europe's military to the United States in order to prevent Europe from becoming a military rival of the U.S. It has worked very well for that purpose. It's also worked out very well at preventing any more European wars.

It is odd then that so many NATO commanders have not been American, placing sometimes hundreds of thousands of US troops under a non-US commander.

And when has the US not actively encouraged larger more rubust European militaries? I think the last time was 1938-39ish...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is odd then that so many NATO commanders have not been American, placing sometimes hundreds of thousands of US troops under a non-US commander.

Irrelevant. Roman Armies weren't always commanded by Romans.

And when has the US not actively encouraged larger more rubust European militaries? I think the last time was 1938-39ish...

Again, not relevant. The American military was always bigger.

[Patroklos]

Irrelevant. Roman Armies weren't always commanded by Romans.

True, but they were never beholden to masters in Persia/Egypt/Germany/wherever.

Again, not relevant. The American military was always bigger.

And America itself has always been bigger, your point? The simple fact is that America is the senior partner for the same reason it was in WWII, it provides the bulk of the forces due to its size and resources, and that is it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What post do I hold in the Bush Admin?

Stop being dense. They spent the last two months berating Germany, France, and Italy for not being committed enough to the Afghan mission.

[DinoDoc]

Why do you whine even when Bush is right?

[Dinner]

You're one in a million DD. Don't ever change.

[The Vagabond]

Agressive Militaristic Expansionists

[Lancer]

USA! USA! USA! & teh Philippines! Philippines! Philippines!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Stop being dense. They spent the last two months berating Germany, France, and Italy for not being committed enough to the Afghan mission.

They also pissed on the allies that are there. Might not have made the news in the US but it had us saying "WTF!?"