NATO at Twilight?

[FelixA9]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bacevich11feb11,0,4434687.story


Thoughts?

[muck]

European publics have an exceedingly limited appetite for sending their fellow citizens to chase insurgents in other parts of the world. European governments, with Germany again providing a good illustration, reflect the will of their people.

So is this good or bad now? Governments are elected to realize the will of their people and not to be deselected after four years of failing to do so.
At least that is how some might argue.

The article comes up with some valid points though.

Finally is an end in sight of all of these crazy and disgraceful death toll comparison games, hooray.

[ed316]

Alliances are like the tide. They come and go. Nothing last forever and nations will split and move on. Some will stay but it's never the same.

[Sergei]

Don't worry. NATO will accept another member like Ukraine against the will of its people, but it is not the subject of discussion.
You will have at least 12 000 fresh ukros as a cannon fodder to pull the duty in Afghan. Sounds like a good bargain to me.

[Laworkerbee]

The alliance's faltering military campaign in Afghanistan shows how far its capabilities have declined.

Please! NATO is capable, the question should be does NATO have the will?

[lightfire]

Don't worry. NATO will accept another member like Ukraine against the will of its people, but it is not the subject of discussion.
You will have at least 12 000 fresh ukros as a cannon fodder to pull the duty in Afghan. Sounds like a good bargain to me.

yea, I remember another wise person like you saying this:

-"yes, join NATO, you will be slaves, several hundred thousnad lithuanians will pay for their lives in Afghanistan, you will send thousands of troops, and therefore you will be accepted for NATo, go for it!duraki.." V. Zhirinovskij.

very trustworthy opponion, thx

[Flamming_Python]

yea, I remember another wise person like you saying this:

-"yes, join NATO, you will be slaves, several hundred thousnad lithuanians will pay for their lives in Afghanistan, you will send thousands of troops, and therefore you will be accepted for NATo, go for it!duraki.." V. Zhirinovskij.

very trustworthy opponion, thx

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now, and for the foreseeable future. Same as in Soviet times I guess, just allegiances have switched around

[I can't think of a name]

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now, and for the foreseeable future. Same as in Soviet times I guess, just allegiances have switched around

NATO's shock troops?

The US/UK, Canada and The Netherlands are taking the brunt of the load right now.

[LaoSexMachine]

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now,

what please enlighten me

[Lambert58]

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now, and for the foreseeable future. Same as in Soviet times I guess, just allegiances have switched around

Yeah, because the US isn't pulling it's weight in NATO, right? Are you ****ing serious? :bash: DAotW nominee here.....

[Flamming_Python]

Yeah, because the US isn't pulling it's weight in NATO, right?

Take Afghanistan.

It is an American war, responding to an attack on America, and defending America's interests in the Middle East. Not Poland's, not Lithuania's, Not Ukraine's, not even most of the EU's.

I am not saying that the war is not justified, but so far, Eastern Europe has been taking a big share of the burden.

But really, NATO is not such a good example. It is an alliance, so an attack on America is an attack on all, and that is fair enough.

What I am more alluding to is situations such as Iraq. How many troops does Georgia, a tiny country in the S.Causcauses that is part of neither NATO nor the EU, have there? 2000? 3000? Why does it have troops there at all?


Are you ****ing serious? :bash: DAotW nominee here.....Yes I am serious. All the new NATO members are expected to do more than just pull their weight. EU membership is dangled before their eyes, but first they must pass the 'boot camp' (NATO).

[LaoSexMachine]

Take Afghanistan.

It is an American war, responding to an attack on America, and defending America's interests in the Middle East. Not Poland's, not Lithuania's, Not Ukraine's, not even most of the EU's.

I am not saying that the war is not justified. What I am saying is that America should fight it's own wars.

But really, NATO is not such a good example. It is an alliance, so an attack on America is an attack on all, and that is fair enough.

What I am more alluding to is situations such as Iraq. How many troops does Georgia, a tiny country in the S.Causcauses that is part of neither NATO nor the EU, have there? Why does it have troops there at all?

Yes I am serious. All the new NATO members are expected to do more than just pull their weight. EU membership is dangled before their eyes, but first they must pass the 'boot camp' (NATO).

they are not force into NATO. you still havent explain how e.europeans are shock troops.

[Lt. James Anderson]

NATO as "a defensive organization" has outlived its usefulness. It is just as worthless as the UN ...

[Flamming_Python]

they are not force into NATO. you still havent explain how e.europeans are shock troops.

OK, I will spell it out for you...

Coalition in Iraq (non-US troops):


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Flag_of_South_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_South_Korea.svg) South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea): 3,600 peak—933 current (12/07; deployed 5/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Flag_of_Romania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Romania.svg) Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania): 730 peak—397 current (11/07; deployed 7/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg/22px-Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg) El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador): 380 peak—280 current (12/07; deployed 8/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg) Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic): 300 peak—99 current (11/07)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg) Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan): 250 peak—88 current (9/07)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Flag_of_Georgia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Georgia.svg) Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29): 2,000 troops (12/07; deployed 8/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/22px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg) Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark): 545 peak—50 current (12/07, deployed 4/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Flag_of_Mongolia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Mongolia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Mongolia.svg) Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia): 180 peak—100 current (2/07; deployed 8/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Flag_of_Albania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Albania.svg) Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania): 120 peak—70 current(10/07; deployed 4/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg) Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina): 37 troops (9/07; deployed 6/05)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg) Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia): 35 troops (2/07; deployed 6/05)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Flag_of_Macedonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Macedonia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Macedonia.svg) Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia): 33 troops (2/07; deployed 7/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Kazakhstan.svg) Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan): 29 troops (12/07; deployed 9/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/22px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Moldova.svg) Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova): 24 peak—11 current (9/07; deployed 9/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg) Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria): 485 peak—155 current (2/07; deployed 5/03)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flag_of_Armenia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Armenia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Armenia.svg) Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia): 46 troops(02/07; deployed 1/05)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Latvia.svg) Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia): 136 peak—3 current(10/07; deployed 4/04)

Pick out the Eastern European and former Soviet block countries.

[Lambert58]

Take Afghanistan.

It is an American war, responding to an attack on America, and defending America's interests in the Middle East. Not Poland's, not Lithuania's, Not Ukraine's, not even most of the EU's.

I am not saying that the war is not justified, but so far, Eastern Europe has been taking a big share of the burden.

But really, NATO is not such a good example. It is an alliance, so an attack on America is an attack on all, and that is fair enough.

What I am more alluding to is situations such as Iraq. How many troops does Georgia, a tiny country in the S.Causcauses that is part of neither NATO nor the EU, have there? 2000? 3000? Why does it have troops there at all?

Yes I am serious. All the new NATO members are expected to do more than just pull their weight. EU membership is dangled before their eyes, but first they must pass the 'boot camp' (NATO).

Because there haven't been any attacks anywhere except the US on 9/11, right? Puff Puff Pass not Puff Puff Puff Puff PASSOUT.

Geezus. Is thinking really that gd hard?

[Flamming_Python]

Because there haven't been any attacks anywhere except the US on 9/11, right? Puff Puff Pass not Puff Puff Puff Puff PASSOUT.

Geezus. Is thinking really that gd hard?

Right... But certainly not in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Mongolia, etc... I doubt the Islamists could even find these countries on a map, much less declare a jihad on them.

[LaoSexMachine]

[QUOTE=Flamming_Python;3041585]OK, I will spell it out for you...

basically you dont have a clue what 'shock troops' are or what country is doing what i astan

[Flamming_Python]

OK, I will spell it out for you...

basically you dont have a clue what 'shock troops' are or what country is doing what i astan

OK forget A-stan, it is probably a bad example as I have already admitted. Focus on Iraq.

[LaoSexMachine]

OK forget A-stan, it is probably a bad example as I have already admitted. Focus on Iraq.

what e.european country is use as shock troops in iraq? iraq is not a NATO op.

[Flamming_Python]

what e.european country is use as shock troops in iraq?

All the one's I named in my last few posts. Georgia & Poland in particular.


iraq is not a NATO op.I am aware of that. But let's not argue about Semantics; NATO & the Coalition are linked, and it is no coincidence that most of the new & aspiring NATO members are involved in Iraq, in disproportionate numbers.

[Kilgor]

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now, and for the foreseeable future. Same as in Soviet times I guess, just allegiances have switched around

Eastern Europeans have a choice now, in soviet times it was the stick.

[Flamming_Python]

Eastern Europeans have a choice now, in soviet times it was the stick.

And now it's the stick & the carrot.

No participation in oversea's adventures - no EU, American subsidies, etc...

[LaoSexMachine]

All the one's I named in my last few posts. Georgia & Poland in particular.

I am aware of that. But let's not argue about Semantics; NATO & the Coalition are linked, and it is no coincidence that most of the new & aspiring NATO members are involved in Iraq, in disproportionate numbers.

didnt realise they were doing most of the door kicking in iraq. did the US forced them to go to iraq?

[Flamming_Python]

didnt realise they were doing most of the door kicking in iraq. did the US forced them to go to iraq?

No they weren't forced, neither are they doing most of the door-kicking.

I was originally complimenting Sergei's post, about Ukrainians being signed-up as cannon-fodder if they join NATO, or even before they join NATO. If Georgia is any example to follow by, they will be.

[I can't think of a name]

FP They are there under their own free will, that is hard for you to understand. These countries are very familiar with how Russia will use them.

[LaoSexMachine]

No they weren't forced, neither are they doing most of the door-kicking.

I was originally complimenting Sergei's post, about Ukrainians being signed-up as cannon-fodder if they join NATO, or even before they join NATO. If Georgia is any example to follow by, they will be.

then why call them shock troops?

wouldn't the said government decide if thier soldiers are put in a restless area and not NATO?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

European publics have an exceedingly limited appetite for sending their fellow citizens to chase insurgents in other parts of the world

I wonder if being involved in 2 wars the like the world has never seen before, a history that is nothing but violence. That perhaps Europe is finally tired of all the war, misery and hardship?

[Flamming_Python]

FP They are there under their own free will, that is hard for you to understand. These countries are very familiar with how Russia will use them.

Don't be so naive.

Which Eastern European country is threatened by Islamic Extremists? Which Eastern European country has interests or potential interests (economic, strategic, political, or any combination) in Iraq?

What do you think that Georgia for example agreed to send 2000 of it's men to Iraq just for the fun of it? To support democracy? To crush Islamic extremism which personally doesn't threaten it in any possible way? There is a reason, and it is precisely the same reason why Ukrainians will also be sent to such places en masse.

In terms of 'free-will', it will be a decision of the government, and will likely have little popular support. That is nothing new, since popular support is never in favour of such endevours. But the government obviously views it as a strategic decision that will benefit (insert Eastern European nation here) in the long-term, and will thus overrule the will of the masses (as has happened with America, Great Britain, etc...).

Now if there are no political systems to install (as in the case of the USA), or economic interests to secure (as presumably in the case of Great Britain), the question is, just what is the benefit that the EE country's see in entering Iraq?

[BloodyTalon]

then why call them shock troops?
Cuz he doesn't want to look like an idiot and claim that we're using Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder, so he half-asses it by calling them "shock troops" when he obviously has no clue what the term means.

Basically, he's just butthurt that Russia is losing its traditional sphere of influence in Europe.

[Kilgor]

Don't be so naive.

Which Eastern European country is threatened by Islamic Extremists? Which Eastern European country has interests or potential interests (economic, strategic, political, or any combination) in Iraq?

What do you think that Georgia for example agreed to send 2000 of it's men to Iraq just for the fun of it? To support democracy? To crush Islamic extremism which personally doesn't threaten it in any possible way? There is a reason, and it is precisely the same reason why Ukrainians will also be sent to such places en masse.

In terms of 'free-will', it will be a decision of the government, and will likely have little popular support. That is nothing new, since popular support is never in favour of such endevours. But the government obviously views it as a strategic decision that will benefit (insert Eastern European nation here) in the long-term, and will thus overrule the will of the masses (as has happened with America, Great Britain, etc...).

Now if there are no political systems to install (as in the case of the USA), or economic interests to secure (as presumably in the case of Great Britain), the question is, just what is the benefit that the EE country's see in entering Iraq?

Its simple.

They invest a small amount of manpower and money in some American adventures and this provides them with many benefits, most of all protection from Russia which they still they are still quite bitter over the 45+ years of occupation and atrocities.




.

[LaoSexMachine]

Cuz he doesn't want to look like an idiot and claim that we're using Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder, so he half-asses it by calling them "shock troops" when he obviously has no clue what the term means.

Basically, he's just butthurt that Russia is losing its traditional sphere of influence in Europe.

warsaw pact=unity and equality

NATO=western fodder

[ting]

IMHO Iraq should be viewed as a separate issue. It is not a NATO operation. It`s that simple. The number of eastern European nations in Iraq is a consequence of bilateral US - (ee nation) agreements.

On Afghanistan the article is rather consistent with the gripes we have heard since the summer of 06. In essence: Nato is dead because some NATO members are not sending troops to fight insurgents in the south. Usually these articles are backed up by numbers relating to the pure number of troops each individual nation sends. These numbers never take into account soldiers pr. capita, soldiers pr gdp, or other commitments etc.

As for the lack of military capability, these articles usually neglect to mention what kind of armies the nations have. As an example: The US, UK and Canada all have armies geared towards fighting on foreign soil. Their hole structure and defense culture are based on this. Defending the country far away from home is what was planned throughout the Cold War, and hence sending troops to Afghanistan instead of Europe is far easier for their populations to accept. Countries like Germany etc. are focused on defending against an attack on their territory. I can guarantee that any attempt at invading Germany would leave the capability argument looking like the ramblings of a retard.

[Afro-European]

Nato, as a cold war relic,has outlived its usefulness.DISBAND it asap.

[Nansouty]

Well, as a French, i will not say that the Afghan war started as an American war... After 9/11, everyone here was incensed, and ridding the world of Osama and the Talibans was immensely popular. That war is less popular now, as people fail to see how it can be won. Letting Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora certainly destroyed any hope in a quick victory, and the drain of manpower and resources for the Iraq war condemned it altogether.

[Laworkerbee]

Well, as a French, i will not say that the Afghan war started as an American war... After 9/11, everyone here was incensed, and ridding the world of Osama and the Talibans was immensely popular. That war is less popular now, as people fail to see how it can be won. Letting Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora certainly destroyed any hope in a quick victory, and the drain of manpower and resources for the Iraq war condemned it altogether.

I wish the French more than any other people had stepped up and offered us advice on fighting terror.

Instead our countries are slogging it out with conventional armies not suited for the conflict.

[Sergei]

yea, I remember another wise person like you saying this:

-"yes, join NATO, you will be slaves, several hundred thousnad lithuanians will pay for their lives in Afghanistan, you will send thousands of troops, and therefore you will be accepted for NATo, go for it!duraki.." V. Zhirinovskij.

very trustworthy opponion, thx

I remember a very long time ago, in 1987, a slogan in Riga saying "we don't want to be storm troopers for the Empire" against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. This was a common sentiment around the Baltics.
I guess you are now happy to stick your nose in both Iraq and Afghan, huh?

[Sergei]

NATO as "a defensive organization" has outlived its usefulness. It is just as worthless as the UN ...

Quoted for truth. What does "North Atlantic......Organisation" is doing in Afganistan? Isn't it a bit too far?

[Sergei]

Eastern Europeans have a choice now, in soviet times it was the stick.

The poor don't have much choice - it is either to die in poverty, or go kill other people to earn some living. Tough moral choices to make, especially taking into account you can get killed too.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well like it or not, Eastern Europeans are NATO's shock troops for now, and for the foreseeable future.

They may certainly be in harm's way, but I don't see how that statement is supported by the numbers.

[daily666]

They may certainly be in harm's way, but I don't see how that statement is supported by the numbers.

Well, the Polish contingent in Afghanistan will reach 1800 soldiers this year. We're sending there more troops and more choppers (Mi-17 and Mi-24 Hind). Poland had 2500 soldiers in Iraq (now 900). Georgia has 2000 troops in Iraq. Romania has 500+ soldiers in A-stan, Lithiania has 230, Hungary 200+, Bulgaria 420. For poor contries this is a big effort I wouldn't underestimate.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well, the Polish contingent in Afghanistan will reach 1800 soldiers this year. We're sending there more troops and more choppers (Mi-17 and Mi-24 Hind). Poland had 2500 soldiers in Iraq (now 900). Georgia has 2000 troops in Iraq. Romania has 500+ soldiers in A-stan, Lithiania has 230, Hungary 200+, Bulgaria 420. For poor contries this is a big effort I wouldn't underestimate.

I gotcha - I was really referring to the number of casualties (i.e. the "cannon fodder"). The numbers I found are:

from the ISAF:
414 US
87 British
78 Canadian
29 German
23 Spanish
14 Dutch
12 French
11 Italian
9 Danish
5 Romanian
4 Australian
3 Norwegian
2 Estonian
2 Portuguese
2 Swedish
1 Czech
1 Finnish
1 Polish
1 South Korean

from Iraq:
US 3,957
United Kingdom 174
Italy 33
Poland 23
Ukraine 18
Bulgaria 13
Spain 11
Denmark 7
El Salvador 5
Slovakia 4
Latvia 3
Romania 3
Netherlands 2
Thailand 2
Australia 2
Estonia 2
Georgia 1
Hungary 1
Kazakhstan 1
South Korea 1
Czech Republic 1

[Laworkerbee]

Damn thats depressing.

[guest]

If NATO is dead, let it die then.

If it no longer supports the common views of it's members it's time to disband.

As the battle ground for past and possible future wars, Europe has seen plenty of fighting. After WW2, Europe was terrified, afraid of WW3.

It was far easier to sell "co-operation" the the people. After all, it was really only America's nuclear inventory that kept the peace through MAD.

In terms of conventional forces, Soviet Russia had Western Europe out-gunned, and out-manned.

Had the Soviet's been able to conduct a conventional war without fear of American nuclear response, Tanks would have been rolling across West Germany in a heartbeat. Europe would be a very different place today.

Power is a double edged sword, and America for the most part has held pretty much all of it. Not always for the good mind you, plenty of mistakes have been made, and in some respects the world is NOT a better place.

However it was America's economic and military power that tipped the balance in favour of the west. From my POV as a Canadian, I have to say *my* world has benefited from America's foriegn and economic policies.

Now, there is no longer a fear of global conflict, Germany, France, Italy, ect.. they are not afraid an army is going to come marching in (Again), so they no longer feel the need to "cozy up" to Uncle Sam, as they once did.

NATO is a collection of states, but let's be real.. it follows America's policy, and rightly so.. the stongest always lead.. the stongest always should. Should Germany or France want to be "Boss of the World".. I suggest they open up those wallets.. otherwise they should.. STFU...

I've said it many times. If Germany, France, Italy or any other NATO members who feel they are not served by the current orginazation, they should leave. Now would be good.

Mutual Defence agreements are just that. Either live up to them. Or go home.

Just don't come knocking for help, afterward.

[lightfire]

Nato, as a cold war relic,has outlived its usefulness.DISBAND it asap.

someone could offer to you the same thing - disband yourself into pieces, asap. If you have nothing else to offer, you might just stfu and open your eyes for once.



I remember a very long time ago, in 1987, a slogan in Riga saying "we don't want to be storm troopers for the Empire" against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. This was a common sentiment around the Baltics.
I guess you are now happy to stick your nose in both Iraq and Afghan, huh?

I would draw two lines. First, soviet occupation is quite different from what NATO is doing under UN jurisdiction. Second, noone is forcing to do this. In soviet times they just took you and sent to A-stan to fulfill "international dutty". I wouldn't speak for all countries, essp Eastern, Central or Southern European ones, that have troops in Afghanistan, but at least from my country only volunteers go, and there are more than enough candidates. Noone forces you to go there, plus, you've got to meet the requirements, have proper training. As for this:


The poor don't have much choice - it is either to die in poverty, or go kill other people to earn some living. Tough moral choices to make, especially taking into account you can get killed too.

reported. That is both insulting and dumbarse comment, one you could make. Drawing the situation as "death from poverty"..(perhaps hunger,huh?) would fit to a country of a third world anyway.

The financial aspect is important, but not the most, since money you get from the mission aren't such, you could instantly become one of the rich ones. If you claim, that soldiers go to A-stan "to kill other people to earn some living" you are more than wrong, and besides you are insulting in this way some of the members on this borad, who have served for their countries. All in all, the risks soldiers take aren't realy adeqatelly represented by wages, that is not the main reason why they do it.

as for this:


Quoted for truth. What does "North Atlantic......Organisation" is doing in Afganistan? Isn't it a bit too far?

welcome to 2001.

[BW2]

Its rather evident that NATO will collapse in its current role. Simply put, its members are not ready for the shock of actually having to fight for a military organization they agreed to join and fight in some far far away land as opposed to its original role as "guardian" of Democracy in Western Europe. It just cant cope, its too new an idea with a faulty and corrupt organization.

Sorry Lightfire ...but NATO is a goner, whats its purpose anymore? End its misery all already.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Its rather evident that NATO will collapse in its current role. Simply put, its members are not ready for the shock of actually having to fight for a military organization they agreed to join and fight in some far far away land as opposed to its original role as "guardian" of Democracy in Western Europe. It just cant cope, its too new an idea with a faulty and corrupt organization.

Sorry Lightfire ...but NATO is a goner, whats its purpose anymore? End its misery all already.

NATO is merely the military embodiment of the nations who comprise it. If NATO fails for the reasons you're listing (and who knows, it may) -then the nations responsible for that failure won't be far behind.

[Drunkensquid]

warsaw pact=unity and equality

NATO=western fodder


LOLOLOL :D:D:D:D

what happened to Eastern European countries that wanted to leave the WP?

[daily666]

LOLOLOL :D:D:D:D

what happened to Eastern European countries that wanted to leave the WP?

They didn't want to enter in the first place.

[BritSig]

Well, the Polish contingent in Afghanistan will reach 1800 soldiers this year. We're sending there more troops and more choppers (Mi-17 and Mi-24 Hind). Poland had 2500 soldiers in Iraq (now 900). Georgia has 2000 troops in Iraq. Romania has 500+ soldiers in A-stan, Lithiania has 230, Hungary 200+, Bulgaria 420. For poor contries this is a big effort I wouldn't underestimate.

This articale is not directed at these countries (we all know which it is aimed at), i for one appreciate the commitment from the countries you quote but lets put the numbers into context. You have easily 100 times the number blagging jobs in the UK!!
If your country can function with that many young workers in the UK it can afford to have this many in Afghan. Lets not forget that NATO foots most the bill not the country. This is my biggest gripe, why should Germany, Italy and France get the same allowance per soldier in Afghan when the UK, US, Canadian, dutch and Estonians (no offence if i missed others) troops are doing a far more dangerous job. Before people scream about wells and schools etc, that they would not be safe building such things if we didnt hold back the Taliban. Lets start rotating the troops through the south thus giving countires downtime in the North and west.

BritSig

[lightfire]

BritSig,, I hope you understand, that " a country can afford" (which, IMHO is debatable as well) and "political reasons" are two different things. That's for troop numbers/commitment and their tasks in the south or north. Governments would simply not allow the risks of the troops, since that would reflect on the politicians themselves. The public oppinion in general is negative more or less in every country over the troop deployment and that wouldn't be better after casualties taken. As for numbers, I would gues financial issue here is not the least important. I would hardly believe Poland for instance, could send 10 000 troops to A-stan. Equip, supply, reinforce them properly. That's alot of money and the commitment would not become greater if those 10 000 strong were ill suplied or supported. People working in the UK does not mean they could be used in A-stan, if that was your point. And spending a lot of money for such missions would not only strip other activities within the armed forces, but most likelly the budget itself. The US budget defficite is not smth some other countries could or would allow themselves. Now I'm not speaking for every country, but as for my country or Poland, I believe we have our share and that's not "little"

[daily666]

This articale is not directed at these countries (we all know which it is aimed at), i for one appreciate the commitment from the countries you quote but lets put the numbers into context. You have easily 100 times the number blagging jobs in the UK!!

I understand you're suggesting Polish govt. should redirect Poles stealing jobs in UK to fight in A-stan. Now, that's an idea!


If your country can function with that many young workers in the UK it can afford to have this many in Afghan.

If my country would have afforded to train and equip as many of my countrymen to send them to Afghanistan, they wouldn't need to go to UK looking for cheap work that they do.

[Sergei]

reported. That is both insulting and dumbarse comment, one you could make. Drawing the situation as "death from poverty"..(perhaps hunger,huh?) would fit to a country of a third world anyway.



I guess you resorted to insults because you ran out of arguments, huh?
Insulting you say? Have you ever been to a war zone where bullets are actually flying?
I have, and I have quite a lot of buddies who served in Afgan, and they would gladly kick your arse just for saying bad stuff about them. Do you get that, moron?

[sp2c]

On Afghanistan the article is rather consistent with the gripes we have heard since the summer of 06. In essence: Nato is dead because some NATO members are not sending troops to fight insurgents in the south. Usually these articles are backed up by numbers relating to the pure number of troops each individual nation sends. These numbers never take into account soldiers pr. capita, soldiers pr gdp, or other commitments etc.


because these numbers generally don't mean that much.
I believe that if you look at troop numbers, population and military strenght that the US is closer to the bottom then it is to the top of the list but US forces are allowed to go where they are needed and do what they must (to an extend) unlike some of the others.

if all members took the same approach then we'd all be complaining about the Americans not deploying enough troops, not the other way around.

[James]

Nato, as a cold war relic,has outlived its usefulness.DISBAND it asap.

GOD, you again... :cantbeli:

How has NATO outlived its usefulness?

[lightfire]

I guess you resorted to insults because you ran out of arguments, huh?
Insulting you say? Have you ever been to a war zone where bullets are actually flying?
I have, and I have quite a lot of buddies who served in Afgan, and they would gladly kick your arse just for saying bad stuff about them. Do you get that, moron?

another flame from you, actually derrailing and not argumented. First, the insults came from you, not from me, to those, who serve in Afghanistan NOW. I was not speaking of soviet times and I wasn't there during soviet times, but a lot of people were there. More than 5000 of my countrymen have served there. They had no choise and were forced to do it. About 100 lost their lives. Where the heck did I say bad word about them?Pack your stuff and gather your words carefully.