In Soviet Russia, friends leave you

[PLATO]

Originally posted by onodera
They should've invited us into the alliance instead of the Ukraine and Georgia.

Why not all 3?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by onodera
They should've invited us into the alliance instead of the Ukraine and Georgia.

You know NATO stands for "Nations Allied To Oppress russia", right? We drop the "r" in casual talk because NATOR sounds weird...

[Heresson]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You know NATO stands for "Nations Allied To Oppress russia", right? We drop the "r" in casual talk because NATOR sounds weird...

Anyway, I'm happy they were invited after all. It's really sad that teh "Old Europe", and especially France and Germany, tried to delay that. It's disgusting, that they would like to sacrifice another nation for the sake of good relationship with Russia.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


# of countries that joined NATO willingly: 26
# of countries that joined the Warsaw Pact willingly: 1

good one as well

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi


But he answered your challenge. Where are the accolades?

Actually if Wezil is correct, he failed and deserves no cookie.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Actually if Wezil is correct, he failed and deserves no cookie.

Canada's continued participation in the Afghan mission has been a serious political topic here for the past while. The following article is lengthy but I think informative. The french/US troop deployments are also mentioned.

BUCHAREST, Romania - It is a question world leaders couldn't bring themselves to ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper, much to his amusement.

After much soul searching, Canada agreed Thursday to continue the fight in Kandahar until 2011, its demands for reinforcement and equipment having been met by allies at the NATO summit in Bucharest.

But amid the whirl of high-stakes meetings and dinners, where other prime ministers and presidents go to shake his hand, Harper said there's one obvious thing they wanted to ask but never quite manage to get it out.

The question?

Will Canada really walk away in three years?

"I will assume from their failure to actually ask me that question directly, what they understand is that Canada is saying: 'We will be out of Afghanistan militarily in 2011'," the prime minister said with a grin.


"That doesn't mean I don't expect at a later date they won't come and ask for some kind of extension or some kind of other re-engagement. But I think they understand we're serious. We are serious about not just staying, but leaving."

But Harper defined leaving as "accomplishing our objective, which is training the Afghan army" to handle security on its own.

Harper wouldn't close the door entirely on a further extension down the road. But he noted that a lot of time and energy has gone into getting the current consensus through Parliament and he refused to speculate on something that would "unwind that consensus."

In its report, the Manley commission firmly rejected setting an end-date, and other countries such as the United States and Britain have not set as time limits.

The key conditions laid down by Parliament for keeping Canada's troops in Kandahar have been fulfilled, Harper said half way through a meeting with NATO leaders in this former Cold War capital.

The certainty of American reinforcements for Kandahar, NATO's approval of a comprehensive political-military plan for Afghanistan as well as progress toward buying battlefield equipment gave Harper the confidence to state that Canada is ready to stay.

"We have invested too much in this ourselves and our allies for this to fail and I believe we have every reason to believe we can achieve success," Harper told reporters.

Ottawa had threatened to withdraw its 2,500 soldiers from the Afghan mission unless NATO came up with 1,000 reinforcements and the Canadian defence department was able to acquire helicopters and unmanned spy planes.

Flushed with the success of his gambit, Harper served notice that Canada would strike a more assertive course in Kandahar, setting down its own terms of success independent of NATO if necessary.

"It is absolutely critical we get on and do those things in Kandahar ourselves whether or not others are meeting their timelines," he said.

Harper said Canada's engagement in Afghanistan "has been widely appreciated and respected by all our NATO allies."

Harper said he had no doubt his requests for reinforcements would be met because Canada's voice on Afghanistan is taken seriously by leaders of NATO countries.

Despite widespread speculation, Harper denied he had received iron-clad assurances from other world leaders.

Canada has made significant progress in getting the helicopters and unmanned aerial drones to support Canadian troops operating in southern Afghanistan, he said.

And now France has committed a battalion of soldiers to eastern Afghanistan, enabling the movement of U.S. forces to the south to reinforce the Canadians - another condition for the extension.

Harper said he never doubted the allies would come through, and conceded he had more reservations about getting the extension past Parliament than delivering more troops, equipment and a coherent vision for the Afghan mission.

And then there was the Dudley Doright factor.

"In my observation about our country, we do a lot of good things in the world and we're widely regarded and respect for that and probably what we're admired for is, often, we don't ask for a lot in return," the prime minister said.

"But this was a case in which Canada was saying: 'We're doing this because it's important and we expect to see results from our partners.' It's a rare occasion where we did that."

In the end, Harper said, "NATO couldn't afford to lose Canada's commitment in Afghanistan."

Earlier Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the summit France will send hundreds of combat soldiers to Afghanistan. He challenged the alliance to agree on conditions for success in the war-ravaged country.

"France will play its full part in this collective action," Sarkozy said in his speech.

"I decided to ramp up France's military presence with a battalion to be deployed to the eastern region."

The speech did not spell out the number of troops, but speaking to reporters afterward he said the number is 700.

Sarkozy told the leaders that NATO must agree to remain committed to the mission over the long term, implement a comprehensive military and political strategy and gradually hand over responsibility to the Afghans.

U.S. President George W. Bush thanked Sarkozy for the contribution during the closed session and said he'll now be able to move American forces to help the Canadians in Kandahar, said a senior NATO official.

"If we want to leave Afghanistan one day, we must win today," Sarkozy said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"It's not when it's difficult that you abandon your friends."

The Americans have said, as a result of the French decision, they will commit additional resources to the southern region, including Kandahar, where the Canadians have been demanding help.

The Pentagon has sent 3,500 U.S. marines to Kandahar for a seven-month deployment. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, says they are currently not scheduled to be replaced when their tour expires.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/04/02/5174066-cp.html

Sarkozy talks a tough game....from the east.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Please squirm and try to tell me why this is related to the substance of the missions.

The Germans never could fight.

You can badmouth the germans in all sorts of ways, but they took on the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD twice, and nearly won both times (or at least far closer than anybody's gotten since Genghis Khan).

Canada, on the other hand...

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You can badmouth the germans in all sorts of ways, but they took on the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD twice, and nearly won both times (or at least far closer than anybody's gotten since Genghis Khan).

Canada, on the other hand...

Canada defeated the USA and had the best kills:death ratio of all soldiers in the world wars.

There are also several famous battles of the Canadians kicking German ass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vimy_Ridge

[snoopy369]

That's because we kept the Canadians in nice, safe places during the world wars ...

Also, Canada never defeated the US (as an independent country). 1812 was the British, not the Canadians (and not a victory for them anyhow, simply a draw). Hardly an even match

[Riesstiu IV]

I always find it amusing that so many Canadians think the War of 1812 was entirely won by them and that they burned down the white house by themselves.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That's because we kept the Canadians in nice, safe places during the world wars ...

This is not true.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


This is not true.

Shhh!!

[onodera]

Originally posted by PLATO


Why not all 3?

Because the Ukraine and Georgia are loser countries?

Originally posted by snoopy369
You know NATO stands for "Nations Allied To Oppress russia", right? We drop the "r" in casual talk because NATOR sounds weird...

"Nator" sounds like a name of an archvillain from a low-budget Hanna-Barbera cartoon from the 1970s.
But don't you think that allying with Russia would be the best way to avoid a conflict with it?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by onodera

Because the Ukraine and Georgia are loser countries?

If this is the way most Russians feel, then maybe Ukraine and Georgia do need to be in NATO!

Originally posted by onodera
But don't you think that allying with Russia would be the best way to avoid a conflict with it?

No, the best way would be vassalizing it.

Seriously, I would not be against an affiliation of NATO and Russia. It would probably be a different NATO than it is now, but still an alliance would be a good thing.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by onodera
But don't you think that allying with Russia would be the best way to avoid a conflict with it?

Somehow I think you fail to understand the word "oppress"...