NATO members show how much they value the Alliance

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
That's imo true for "classic" terrorist action going on as covert ops done by hidden cells etc., but what we had here was a terrorist org being at least paramilitarily organized and being closely related to a state and its military (if you can speak of a distinct "military" in case of the Taliban, which seems to be militant at the core), so I think that was indeed a whole new dimension.

That may be true, but the American strategy in Afghanistan (just as in Iraq) is still a failure, as it tried to create a "regime change" with its military might.

Since then, the US has understood it has to support change from within, as it did in the Ukraine.

It wouldn't be too difficult to prop up a group to take control of Afghanistan (or at least pressure the Talibans enough that they can't set up a peaceful terrorist-friendly area). Afghanistan has no strong central power that could seriously thwart a faction supported from abroad unlike, say, Belarus.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
To clarify, is this "yes-I-think-it-was-justified" or "yes-I-don't-think-it-was-justified"?

"yes-I-don't-think-it-was-justified"

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I thought our NATO obligations was to defend our allies, with NATO being a defensive alliance. Not to follow the offensive adventures of any alliance member...

Obviously, NATO are traitors as they didn't support us in Ivory Coast

At least the Ivory Coast has nice beaches. Can't say the same about Afghanistan.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


At least the Ivory Coast has nice beaches. Can't say the same about Afghanistan.

Maybe not, but Afghanistan can offer you vast fields of beautiful poppies.

At record production levels these days.

[Patroklos]

The US has itself to blame for the meagre contribution as well you know. The dubious cause and the catastrophic execution of the Iraq war has reflected very badly on Afghanistan in the mind of the European public.

Oh look, a European pretending Iraq and Afghanistan are the same as an excuse for blowing off their treaty obligations. I haven't seen that before.

You know, even if we hadn't gone to Iraq America's share of the collective burden wouldn't be more than we are doing now. Nor would the strategy be any different. No matter how you slice it, the majority of European NATO are whiny little *****es.

And the EU was supposed to be a force in the 21st century?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That may be true, but the American strategy in Afghanistan (just as in Iraq) is still a failure, as it tried to create a "regime change" with its military might.

Since then, the US has understood it has to support change from within, as it did in the Ukraine.

It wouldn't be too difficult to prop up a group to take control of Afghanistan (or at least pressure the Talibans enough that they can't set up a peaceful terrorist-friendly area).

Didn't they try exactly this with the Northern Alliance?

As for "regime change" I think there wasn't really anything else on the table in Afg. You don't attack a superpower and have your safe haven being unaffected, and the gov behind you still standing. In such a case the attacked power will reassure itself and anyone in doubt about its position, making it crystal clear that such an attack doesn't lead you anywhere.

I think with Iraq it's quite different.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Oh look, a European pretending Iraq and Afghanistan are the same as an excuse for blowing off their treaty obligations. I haven't seen that before.

I'm pro sending more troops and assigning them with combat duties, so keep the cheap shots to yourself.

What I said is exactly how it is. Iraq and Afghanistan are inextricably linked in the mind of the European public and Bush squandered the goodwill with the Iraq debacle. Prior to that the US were actually refusing offers of assistance, remember? Back then the cheap shots were all about of the futility of any assistance.

[Patroklos]

I'm pro sending more troops and assigning them with combat duties, so keep the cheap shots to yourself.

Belgium has been doing its part

What I said is exactly how it is. Iraq and Afghanistan are inextricably linked in the mind of the European public

We can accept that if we assume the European populous is retarded. My money is its a convinient excuse to avoid getting their hands dirty.

Prior to that the US were actually refusing offers of assistance, remember? Back then the cheap shots were all about of the futility of any assistance.

I don't remember refusing. What I remember is us (everyone invovled) making an educated decision in utilizing the capabilities of the member nations. America is good at force projection stuff like transporting invasion forces and inserting them via air into a land locked country. Invasion = America. European armies are as good as any at fighting on the ground once we get there. Occupation = Europe in proportion to their abilities + America.

Afghanistan was supposed to go in phases since day one. Unfortunetly some nations don't want to take their turn.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Oh look, a European pretending Iraq and Afghanistan are the same as an excuse for blowing off their treaty obligations. I haven't seen that before.

You know, even if we hadn't gone to Iraq America's share of the collective burden wouldn't be more than we are doing now. Nor would the strategy be any different. No matter how you slice it, the majority of European NATO are whiny little *****es.

And the EU was supposed to be a force in the 21st century?

Just to piss of Americans like you I'm all for getting our soldiers home from Afghanistan. And Iraq...

[Patroklos]

Which Americans would those be? The ones would be there for you and have been there for you in a second no questions asked?

Feel free to justify the gross failures of your European neighbors all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are not there in the lurch, which is about the same as not being there at all.

You, a Dutchmen, should be far more outraged seeing as your country is bending over backwards to to your part.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Which Americans would those be? The ones would be there for you and have been there for you in a second no questions asked?

Feel free to justify the gross failures of your European neighbors all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are not there in the lurch, which is about the same as not being there at all.

You, a Dutchmen, should be far more outraged seeing as your country is bending over backwards to to your part.

Americans like what?

The American administration who do as they please, who require participation when they need and ignore the others when it pleases them to do so... let's see some major points over last 8 years....

Withdrew from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Withdrew and undermined Kyoto treaty
Withdrew and undermined ICC
Unilateral decided for a pre-emptive war
Broke UN charter with Iraq war, and severely damaged UN
Spied on allies to bully them to vote for them at the time of Iraq war (which failed in the end so US just happily ignored UN and pushed on)
Use of detention camps
Use of government sanctioned torture... ignoring Geneva conventions (or better to say inventing words to go around them like "non-combatant")...
Extraordinary Rendition.... should we go on?

US treatment of it's biggest ally UK about sums it up:

During Iraq war total ignorance on the de-bathification advice, and resulting power vacuum... which we see now how it finished...
Like during Israel Lebanon conflict in 2006 where Bush admin happy ignored everything "agreed" with UK on the middle east roadmap, and did as they please again...
Total ignorance for British protests agains extraordinary rendition, and the damage that this did (still does) to the joint intelligence operations...

Or in the word of US diplomat:

It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes... There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity."

and now form some whiny USA-ians... ooohhh you don't want to help us out in Afghanistan... it is not Iraq after all...

Well tough luck, after 8 years of ignorance Europe and the rest of the world is waiting on who will the American people elect next, to see wheter there is any sense in cooperation or will it again be a totally one sided affair...

if it ends up one sided again, than what do you expect us to participate when you like and ignore us when you like as well?

Fortunately even in US Bush is sort of an anomaly, but by the looks of it here there are many takers of this one-sided relationship... it's good when you are on top, but somehow does not jive when the one below does not want to dance to the tune...

[PLATO]

Europe is indeed ignorant...as evidenced by your post.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

sure we are I guess it is mutual ignorance these days very convincing argument

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


Americans like what?

The American administration who do as they please, who require participation when they need and ignore the others when it pleases them to do so... let's see some major points over last 8 years....

Withdrew from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Withdrew and undermined Kyoto treaty
Withdrew and undermined ICC

Ah-ah-ah!

We never ratified Kyoto or the ICC. And the ABM Treaty was stupid to begin with(especially when other countries had ABM systems under development anyway).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
sure we are I guess it is mutual ignorance these days very convincing argument

Why make the same ole arguments that have been made here for years. Clearly you are willing to believe what you wish no matter how many facts have been thrown at you.

So we disagree.

I will say that there are some things I do agree with. De-Baathification for example was a horrible idea.