NATO members show how much they value the Alliance

[Asher]

Not everyone is as tolerant of Texans as I am.

[Patroklos]

NATO commands 47,000 troops and civilians in Afghanistan from 40 countries

Truely pathetic. Roughly 35,000 of that comes from North America. Europeans talk the talk...

Over here, everybody thinks it's completely moronic to follow the American policy only one year before Bush leaves power, heralding changes (unknown so far) to the American strategy.

Exactly, "unknown," because there is nothing wrong with the strategy other than the near complete lack of support from 85odd% of the alliance, you just don't like the figure head. A pathetic and laughable excuse for not honoring your long standing treaty obligations.

[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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
They're pretty lucky to get 700 extra soldiers from France.

Over here, everybody thinks it's completely moronic to follow the American policy only one year before Bush leaves power, heralding changes (unknown so far) to the American strategy.

Isn't it embarrassing that Canada, a country half your size, is providing 75% more troops than you, and is actualy sending them into dangerous combat situations while most of yours sit safe in northern Afghanistan?

[Asher]

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

NATO was right to go into Afghanistan -- that was a breeding ground for terrorists and a terrible government that didn't care for any kind of human rights.

Human rights and humanity isn't something France is known for, but maybe in the 21st century, France could collectively grow a pair?

Please?

France is, honestly, one of the most pathetic countries in the world.

[Alexander I]

Honestly, Afghanistan is where the US needs the most help.

We would have done better over there had we not been... (cough)... distracted by the Iraq debacle.

Now we're bogged down in both places, and the politicians are only giving us two equally awful choices: get out immediately and let it all go to hell and the radical fundamentalist Islamists, or stay bogged down interminably. Absolutely horrendous. I guess nobody's giving thought any more to actually trying to win.

Maybe if the other NATO countries did send a lot more troops to Afghanistan, we'd be able to clean it out a bit better. They don't need to send more to Iraq -- I know the other countries don't want to get involved because it was a war of US aggression. We'll just stay bogged down there for now, as is usual for us lately.

But Afghanistan was a retaliatory war against the nation that harbored the terrorists who attacked the US -- we sure could use some help from our friends there at least.

Ugh.

[Kuciwalker]

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...

Your obligations under Article 5 are:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

The USA invoked Article 5 following 9/11. France and the rest of NATO agreed - if your country didn't think it applied, you should have objected - and the UNSC approved the ISAF. The operation in Afghanistan is fully legal and mandated by treaties your country has signed. France is not living up to those obligations.

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

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America...

You didn't invoke Article 5 in that case because it didn't apply.

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Asher
France is, honestly, one of the most pathetic countries in the world.

QFT. Terrible excuse for a western nation.

[Verto]

Originally posted by dannubis
Say, by which NATION where you attacked again ?

A a terrorist network given shelter and sanctuary by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

The argument can be made that by removing the Taliban and scattering AQ, measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security have been completed.

[Patroklos]

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...

Exactly. I appreciate your admission of Europes guilt.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

The argument can be made that by removing the Taliban and scattering AQ, measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security have been completed.

1. Is France making that argument? (No.)

2. Until the government of Afghanistan is stable and has control over the entire country, and the terrorist camps in southern Afghanistan are destroyed, Afghanistan will be as much of a danger as it was seven years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

1. Is France making that argument? (No.)

Spiffor may be (it was defensive to take out the Taliban and AQ, but now its just offensive to be the occupier, etc).

2. Until the government of Afghanistan is stable and has control over the entire country, and the terrorist camps in southern Afghanistan are destroyed, Afghanistan will be as much of a danger as it was seven years ago.

That may be true, but the question becomes at what level does an action change from a defensive strike to simply an occupation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

1. Is France making that argument? (No.)

Spiffor may be (it was defensive to take out the Taliban and AQ, but now its just offensive to be the occupier, etc).

Then his argument should be that France ought to pull out entirely - which would prove that the alliance is broken.

That may be true, but the question becomes at what level does an action change from a defensive strike to simply an occupation.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[BeBMan]

My, back then when we had troops around the world everyone was complaining. Now they're staying at home and it still isn't ok. Some people are never satisfied