Nato allies 'need to pull weight' - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By soron
#1059485
Germany has 3000 but they do nothing.


A word of praise from you ? Why, THANKS. And doing just this we keep the peace for 40% of the Afghan population.
By Shade2
#1059531
A word of praise from you ? Why, THANKS.

I don't think sitting in a barrack and playing your I-Pod deserves a praise. A teenager can do the same.
"The Americans are at war and the Europeans want to solve conflicts," says a German NATO official in Brussels.

Europeans ? There is such a nation ? There is a common european view ? Foreign policy ? Ah the German delusions, the Franco-Germania project isn't realised yet already they speak as it is.
User avatar
By dannymu
#1059537
"The Americans are at war and the Europeans want to solve conflicts," says a German NATO official in Brussels.

Who is the ignorant NATO official who said this? Have certain NATO countries forgotten the rules of NATO ie the rule about a country being attacked and the NATO response to it?

BTW I doubt Europe would be able to fight Islamic terrorists on their own.
User avatar
By stannis
#1059587
We certainly would be able to fight Islamic extremists all on our lonesome if we had a united European army and counter-terrorist task force which was well-funded and well-trained.
User avatar
By soron
#1059594
Europeans ? There is such a nation ? There is a common european view ? Foreign policy ? Ah the German delusions, the Franco-Germania project isn't realised yet already they speak as it is.



I stand corrected. So let me rephrase the quote:
"The Americans and Polish are at war and the Europeans want to solve conflicts" - better ? :)

the Franco-Germania project


You have a better idea than peaceful coexistance ?
User avatar
By dannymu
#1059614
We certainly would be able to fight Islamic extremists all on our lonesome if we had a united European army and counter-terrorist task force which was well-funded and well-trained.

We have NATO that is even better since the US (the most powerful nation) is also a member. The laziness of some Europeans make it harder for the realisation of such Euro Army hence Dr Fox's comments on a common defence policy which I agree with.
By Shade2
#1059615
"The Americans and Polish are at war and the Europeans want to solve conflicts"
Poles aren't European ?
Europeans ? Meaning Serbs, Moldavians, Swiss, Ukrainians, French, Germans all have the same view ?



You have a better idea than peaceful coexistance ?

Attempt to bully rest of Europe and create Franco-Germany hegemony in Europe certainly isn't going to lead into "peacefull coexistance".
User avatar
By soron
#1059633
Europeans ?


The people the Americans call "Europeans" :)

Attempt to bully rest of Europe and create Franco-Germany hegemony in Europe certainly isn't going to lead into "peacefull coexistance".


I take that as a "no" to my question :evil:
By Shade2
#1059640
The people the Americans call "Europeans" Smile

In the interview it was a German minister.



I take that as a "no" to my question Evil grin

So you believe only German enslavement of Europe can bring peace to Europe ? Do you share any other views with the German nationalist movement that believed in that also in 1933-1945 ?
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1059662
LOL. "See the light"-how totalitarian. But I wouldn't expect anything less from opponent of USA. What "light"-abandoning USA-the most trusted ally and siding with a bunch of German megalomaniacs, Russian imperialists and French nostalgics ? Some choice !

Actually, I have no problem with the USA, just their current rulers. What happened to the America which believed in realism, moderation, indeed, international law? The America which was sensible? The America of Clinton, Bush 1 and Nixon?

Whatever happened to a rational foreign policy?

Given the current turn of events in America (Baker/Gates/Bush 1 comeback), Americans may well turn to realism and "see the light" before their handful of remaining slavish "allies".
By Cyricus
#1059667
Who cares about Poland anyway ... poorly equipped and trained soldiers, not even used to working as a team (joined NATO around 1999 if i am not mistaken), so probably doing more harm than good.

Besides, Poland has a population of around 38.5 million people and provides exactly 100 troops atm (engineers mainly), Germany around 2500 troops with a population of 86.5 million. So please do the math who's contributing "more troops".

Now let's focus on the problem please and not feed Shade2's inferiority complex - oops, guess i am guilty of it myself ^^

The problem with Afghanistan isn't just the Euros or Americans, no, it is all about applying different strategies. Some Euros (Germany, France, Italy and few more) focus on gaining trust, strengthening the government and building up the police force. Other Euros (UK & Co) and the US are trying to destroy all "resistance", stopping crime and drug trade.

Now, both strategies are useless: There are still warlords, drug levels broke several records this year, the police force is poorly trained, the government is still weak and resistance is still strong (+ ever growing it seems).

What to do other than nuke the whole country into Oblivion? No idea - probably ignore the whole Middle East until a cultural and religious revolution happens like we experienced in Europe a few centuries ago. Too bad we're so dependent on (global) trade, uh?
By Shade2
#1059676
Who cares about Poland anyway ... poorly equipped and trained soldiers, not even used to working as a team (joined NATO around 1999 if i am not mistaken), so probably doing more harm than good.

You forgot to add the historic German "revelation" that Poles are Untermenschen and can't stand up to Aryan Germans.
Besides, Poland has a population of around 38.5 million people and provides exactly 100 troops atm (engineers mainly), Germany around 2500 troops with a population of 86.5 million. So please do the math who's contributing "more troops".

The usuall German propaganda and distortions. Poland provides 1000 combat troops while having circa 4 bilion $ military budget, Germany while having circa 40 bilion $ sends only 2.000 more, who unlike Poles(that go into combat zones) sit on their butts, drinking beer and eating sauerkraut.Occasionally posing with skulls of dead people, in the best historic tradition of German military.
(Germany, France, Italy and few more) focus on gaining trust,

Yes. There are no other countries that are known as much for gaining trust in the world then France and Germany.
User avatar
By Simsydav
#1059677
Thats not quite true actually cyricus.

The UK was trying to win hearts and minds, and still is. However, it is in control of one of the most (if not THE) unstable provinces in Afghanistan, Helmand. As a result, this summer it has not had the chance to do any rebuilding, and very little relationship building with the Afghan people because it has come under the most intense fighting Britain has been involved in since the Korean war.

British troops just havent had the time to work on winning over the Afghan people.

NATO members must all work to the same rules of engagement, however. French and German troops have a very limited role at the moment. They need to contribute to NATO as much as the other members such as Canada, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands are doing, in order for the mission in Afghanistan to be successful.

Military missions are dangerous, they are scary and dirty - all members of NATO should be aware of this if they are to remain in NATO - the lazy nations should be putting themselves forward along wiht everyone else - else it is putting unessecary weight on the states that are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
By Cyricus
#1059697
Shade2 wrote:You forgot to add the historic German "revelation" that Poles are Untermenschen and can't stand up to Aryan Germans.

Know what - you're quite right, though your statement only applies only to yourself ;)

Shade2 wrote: Poland provides 1000 combat troops

Sigh ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-prese ... fghanistan
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/ ... nistan.php

You only have (and had) 100 troops in Afghanistan (since the NATO mission started) at the moment (you *promised* 900 more sometime next year), but if you insist on believing you have 1000 right now, well, be my guest and look stupid to the rest of the world ^^

Shade2 wrote:who unlike Poles(that go into combat zones)

Cannon fodder? ;)

No, seriously: Engineers aren't really considered "combat troops".

Shade2 wrote:There are no other countries that are known as much for gaining trust in the world then France and Germany.

Actually France and Germany are trusted far more than Poland, a country known for corruption and a synonym for conservatism.


**********

Simsydav wrote:British troops just havent had the time to work on winning over the Afghan people.

Well, it should be obvious that by killing people you won't win the hearts of the population.

Simsydav wrote:NATO members must all work to the same rules of engagement, however. French and German troops have a very limited role at the moment. They need to contribute to NATO as much as the other members such as Canada, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands are doing, in order for the mission in Afghanistan to be successful.

Errm, define "limited" please: Personally i consider trust far more important than fighting an enemy you can't win against. Besides, what you just mentioned clarifies the problem once again: There isn't a simple solution in Afghanistan. NATOs role isn't to only fight the Taliban. The mission in Northern A. is just as important as the mission in S. Afghanistan. Who's to say what is the one and only way to stabilize the region?

Simsydav wrote:Military missions are dangerous, they are scary and dirty - all members of NATO should be aware of this if they are to remain in NATO

You would have a point if this WAS a true NATO mission. However, it is not. It all started as (and still IS) a ISAF mission, a mission with the sole purpose of stabilizing the region which - if we're talking about Germany - basically translates as a rebuilding mission (read up the history of ISAF).

Even now, NATO is only controlling the original ISAF troops, this is not a pure NATO mission -> e.g. the defence alliance argument won't work here.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1059705
People are seem to be accusing of half the Allies of merely doing the rambo role in southern Afghanistan and letting the Afghani's sort out the mess while the Europeans in the north are all smiles with their reconstruction and peacekeeping.

The southern forces conduct a combination of reconstruction and counter-insurgent combat. Unlike the Germans and other Europeans, we do not have the luxury of a relatively calm region. Often it is the case that once our boys help build a school for girls, it is fire bombed within weeks. Thus, the need to fight. Such a need is not abundantly necessary for the Germans.

Cyricus wrote:
The problem with Afghanistan isn't just the Euros or Americans, no, it is all about applying different strategies. Some Euros (Germany, France, Italy and few more) focus on gaining trust, strengthening the government and building up the police force. Other Euros (UK & Co) and the US are trying to destroy all "resistance", stopping crime and drug trade.


You CANNOT have reconstruction without the counter-insurgency campagin. Likewise, you CANNOT have the counter insurgency campagin without reconstruction. Both roles need to be standard accross all Alliance nations.

Soron wrote:
Why, THANKS. And doing just this we keep the peace for 40% of the Afghan population.


A region already pacified. Mainly by the Northern Alliance faction and other friendly warlords.

Spidermonkey wrote:
How is refusing to clear up Americas mess cowardice?


Its not refusing the Americans - Its refusing your Allies, your friends. Its not just the Americans in this. The invocation of article 5 put the onus on all NATO allies to come to the aid of eachother - where they have to fight at all times of day and perhaps fire their weapons.

NATO should be disbanded, given the Russians are unlikely to mount an armour offensive in Europe these days.


A poor reason. Simply because Russia is no longer ideologically opposed to the west does not mean it is not capable of agression - particularly to its former satalite states. Moreover, to abandon an alliance between the most powerful western nations in the world is simply a waste of military co-operation which quite enhances world stability. Indeed, the disbanding of NATO would open the door for increased transaltlantic rivalry.

Dumbteen wrote:
This is not our war, this is your war, you made it up.


False. Article 5 made OUR war. All NATO members pledged their support. To renege on such a duty is at best convienant forgetfullness.

with America's latest foreign policy fad.


Since when is Afghanistan the 'latest' fad? Afghanistan has been going on for sometime. NATO has been their for sometime quite willingly. The UN has been their for sometime as well. Afghanistan may have started effectually unilaterally but it is certainly not the case for the last 3 years.

German Defence offical wrote:
The enemy can only be beaten if the hearts and minds of the people are won first, says Jung.


True. But occasionally you may have to fire your weapon in anger to win this war. :roll: [/quote]
By Cyricus
#1059714
Thoss wrote:You CANNOT have reconstruction without the counter-insurgency campagin. Likewise, you CANNOT have the counter insurgency campagin without reconstruction. Both roles need to be standard accross all Alliance nations.

Which is exactly what i said in the first place i think - well: Asking who is right and who's not.

Thoss wrote:False. Article 5 made OUR war. All NATO members pledged their support. To renege on such a duty is at best convienant forgetfullness.

Again, this is a common mistake with the whole NATO situation in Afghanistan, because It IS NOT a true/pure NATO mission. We're talking about an ISAF mission which is now under NATO command, hence NATO rules don't apply here. This isn't a NATO-alliance led war, despite of what you might think.

Thoss wrote:True. But occasionally you may have to fire your weapon in anger to win this war.

Maybe, but then ... i'd consider Iraq a perfect counter-argument in this case. Apparently "firing weapons" doesn't exactly help down there.
By Shade2
#1059719
Know what - you're quite right, though your statement only applies only to yourself

I knew you would share Hitler's views.
You only have (and had) 100 troops in Afghanistan (since the NATO mission started) at the moment (you *promised* 900 more sometime next year), but if you insist on believing you have 1000 right now

I always said that Poland will contribute 1000 troops. Lowly Poland with 4 bilion worth of military budget. While the beer drinking skull posing Germans will contribute only 2,000 more while having 40 billion worth of military budget.
Cannon fodder? Wink


Your views towards people that were classified as untermenschen by Germany aren't surprising. It was one of your German leaders that wrote similiar opinions:
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/DocHimml.htm
From the speech of ReichsfŸhrer-SS Himmler, speaking to SS Major-Generals, Poznan, October 4 1943.
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 559:

One basic principal must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the slightest. What the nations can offer in good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interest me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When someone comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it will kill them", then I would have to say, "you are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. They are our own blood".


As can be seen his political views live on.

Actually France and Germany are trusted far more than Poland, a country known for corruption and a synonym for conservatism.

Since when conservatism is wrong ? Did North Korea took over the world ?
And of course a country that started two world wars and engaged in the most massive genocide known to mankind is much trusted in the world. Together with country that broke any of its treaties at slightest chance.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1059731
Which is exactly what i said in the first place i think - well: Asking who is right and who's not.


But what I'm saying its not black and white. Southern forces simply do both reconstruction and counter-insurgency...while being shot at. Northern only do the former while being shot at much less.

We're talking about an ISAF mission which is now under NATO command, hence NATO rules don't apply here. This isn't a NATO-alliance led war, despite of what you might think.


Granted. I do not know the particulars of the NATO-ISAF dynamics and formal obligations. What I was mainly referring to was the moral obligation on the part of the alliance members.

i'd consider Iraq a perfect counter-argument in this case. Apparently "firing weapons" doesn't exactly help down there.


Iraq is also the perfect argument to show how both regions need vast increases in troop levels. Then both counter-insurgent (offensive and defensive) and reconstruction can be properly conducted.

Engaging in strict rules of engagement, ie Not 'firing your weapon' is a luxury the south of afghanistan does not have. It has to be a balance - a perilous balance - between ending the taliban as best as possible and rebuilding the country.
By Cyricus
#1059738
Shade2 wrote:I always said that Poland will contribute 1000 troops.

Shade2 wrote:Poland provides 1000 combat troops

/chuckle ^^ :)

Shade2 wrote:I knew you would share Hitler's views.

You need to read more carefully, my dear misguided Polish rhetorician.

Shade wrote:Your views towards people that were classified as untermenschen by Germany aren't surprising.

Again you demonstrate a total (interestingly this is something i never noticed in any other human being before) ignorance towards the core idea of an(y) argument offered.

By ignoring the explanation and second part of the reply ("Polish engineers aren't exactly combat troops), you are desperately trying to change the meaning or intention of the whole reply.

Shade2 wrote:Since when conservatism is wrong ? Did North Korea took over the world ?

Heh, did you really just compare Poland to North Korea? ^^
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1059753
The UK should not be involved in the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq

Time to bring the toops home

Your taxes pay for the UN more than any other c[…]

As you say, it costs us a ton of money, because w[…]

My favorite type of MRA is the one who just waits […]

EU-BREXIT

The NI backstop originates with the EU. This (ins[…]