European leaders were shocked this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a NATO audience that the alliance faces a "crisis" because the continent has largely demilitarized. Why the surprise -- have they been in a coma?
Europe's free defense ride -- thanks to the rock-solid US security guarantee within the NATO alliance -- has been a problem for decades. Taking the US protective umbrella for granted, the continent has raided defense budgets to cover its ever-growing welfare bills.
Just four of NATO's European members (Bulgaria, France, Greece and Britain) spend the alliance's recommended benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Just 2.7 percent of Europe's 2 million military personnel were deployed overseas in 2007, reflecting badly on NATO's 1999 pledge to engage in important "out of area" operations.
And it's no recent trend. Back in 1999, for the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the US provided 100 percent of NATO's jamming capability, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air-refueling tankers. US fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions.
The divide's grown even worse since 9/11, as America has moved into a new political and security space. Now Gates seems to be saying, "Enough's enough." America finally appears unwilling to continue shouldering such a disproportionate amount of the regional and global security burden.
Why now? It's Afghanistan, stupid.
The inequitable sharing of risks and responsibilities playing out there has raised the stakes considerably: America and Britain account for nearly 60,000 of the 86,000 NATO troops. And many more US forces serve outside NATO: By July, we'll have almost 100,000 in-country; France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined have just 12,000.
But the true disparity is worse. Take one of the crudest indicators of a nation's commitment to the mission: troop losses. Nowhere do we see a starker picture of who's actually doing the fighting -- and who's not.
America has lost 1,006 servicemen and -women in Afghanistan. Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)
Through 2008, many assumed that continental Europe wasn't stepping up to the plate because its leaders didn't like George W. Bush. But nothing's changed with Obama in the White House: When he asks for more support for Afghanistan, the countries that step up are the same ones that responded to Bush.
When Obama threw his weight behind Gen. Stanley McChrystal's new strategy, he plainly expected Europe to commit at least 10,000 more troops plus equipment, trainers and money. Yet Europe is sending just over 7,000 more troops -- and at least 1,500 of them will come from non-NATO members, including 900 from war-torn Georgia.
And even those numbers overstate Europe's contribution -- because what most of these troops can do is strictly limited by their home governments. As Gates said in 2008, "Some allies are willing to fight and die to protect people's security, and others are not."
Although NATO closely guards the comprehensive list of "national caveats," NATO Supreme Commander Adm. James Stavridis said last June that there were 69. Here's some of the caveats we know about:
* German troops are restricted to conducting operations in northern Afghanistan before nighttime and never more than two hours away from a well-equipped hospital.
* Turkish troops are restricted to Kabul.
* Troops from most southern European nations are barred from fighting in snow.
* One country prohibits troops from other nations from flying in its aircraft.
Worse, caveats are sometimes unofficial, unwritten and not declared until an operation's underway, presenting military leaders with the risk that troops they're counting on can become unavailable after combat's begun.
Nor is Europe pulling its weight in training and development in Afghanistan. A key part of McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy is a rapid expansion of the Afghan Security Forces, requiring nearly 2,500 added NATO or EU trainers. The European Union has dispatched just 281 personnel, only some of them actually trainers. Most are restricted to Kabul, teaching Afghan policemen such pointless tasks as how to issue speeding tickets.
With a few honorable exceptions (such as Britain, Poland, Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands), NATO's European members (especially France, Germany, Italy and Spain) have stinted on resources for the UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan. That is, they've not only provided too few troops (with too many national caveats) but also too few helicopters.
Save for such warrior nations as Britain, Europe today fundamentally lacks both the military resources and (more important) the political will to fight long wars abroad.
But America doesn't have the luxury of choosing its wars. And if Europe still believes that the trans-Atlantic security alliance is in its best interests, then it's going to have to recalibrate its attitude toward war-fighting -- and it's going to have to start with Afghanistan.
Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)
Off the top of my head I'm reasonably certain several American political leaders have publicly come out and said positive things about the work of British troops.
I'm not a soldier, and haven't ever served so I'm a little hesitant to start insisting other nations should send more of their troops off to get killed for complex political reasons that don't directly effect the nations involved. But if that's the case then . What they shouldn't do is recognise Afghanistan as an imporant operation then send a trivial number of soldiers while expecting one country to do all the work, and I think that's largely what's happening.
The answer isn't greater budgets though* - everyone has more than enough capacity. The article acknowledges that of all servicemen in Europe only 2.7% are actually committed overseas so the issue certainly isn't needing more men. It's a political issue - being willing to risk your soldier's lives for the sake of Afghanistan.
Shame about the tone of that article, though. Warrior nation? Really?
*The US should be looking to spend something much closer to European levels, their military spending as a portion of GDP is ludicrous.
Hang around outside a pub after closing time sebster, be it in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales and you'll see plenty of 'fighting spirit' as they say.
Traditionally and historically it must be said, we do seem to get into more than our fair share of scraps when you compare us to other countries. Regardless of whether you'd call us a 'warrior nation' or not.
Anyone up for getting the Germans to increase military spending?
And it's no recent trend. Back in 1999, for the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the US provided 100 percent of NATO's jamming capability, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air-refueling tankers. US fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions.
I will stick to this point for now. It shows a complete disregard for correct thinking for assymetric warfare. For a start it all highlights statistics of munitions as if they were what mattered.
We didn't want an air war, some muppet in the Pentagon wanted that. Serbia was sorted on the ground, its just that Yanks don't think that way. Bomb em to bits doesn't work, winning an assymetrical war and bodycount are not compatible. Have they forgetten Vietnam so readily? In fact the more the US spammed bombs the worse it got, thankfully we got the idiots in Washington to stop.
Yes bombing has its advantages, youn diont need to risk your own skins. But you dont need firepower to keep peace, you need balls.
You need troops from non trigger happy nations to establish and keep the peace. This is what they got from Europe, and this is what established the peace. The so called cheese eating surrender monkeys were damn good. The serb black guard did not piss about when French troops held the peaceline.
When the European armies first moved into Yugoslavia under the UN mandate only the officers carried ammo in their guns. This was too little and the later NATO mandate corrected that, but the UN only agree because they were expected to fail. So you get French and British soldiers who are unarmed facing hostile militants with loaded AK's. They still kept the peace, they walked up to them in many cases and took the guns from them. Can you imagine a US unit trying that, it would be all shock and awe then pick up the guns. Yes some officers bottled it facing armed opponents unarmed, others didn't. Those that didn't got respect. 'You wont like me when I am angry' is pretty much the watchphrase.
We didnt need percentage spending, or superior fire volume or air supremacy to keep the peace you need big hairy swingers and you got to put them on the line. This is the unlearned lesson which prevents Afghanistans or Iraq from ever getting sorted. The US has riddled so many innocents with holes in paniced fire the locals hate everyone. every insurgent you kill turns his family against you, every innocent you kill turns his family and friends and friends family against you. Basra was working when soldiers got out met the people and got friendly. But with so much full auto going on elsewhere we couldnt keep the hatteds at bay. Frankly the Yanks havent the first idea how to fight these types of conflicts, so when they say Europe isnt pulling its weight its an insult.
Just to give one example of the moronic attitude. Don't stop at a checkpoint and you will be shot, not warning, just a heavy machine gun. So the Yanks put up bill boards saying checkpoint ahead. Thery avoid keeping soldiers in LOS to avoid snipers so the drivers cannot see them. But there are billboasrds up right. er no. literacy in Iraq is 50% and most taxi drivers are illiterate. So you run a near invisible checkpoint because you cant read the signs and a machine gun opens up on the 'terrorists. The US army has killed about 2000 civilians in errors like that, not all this way. But the sheer unthinking moronity of some of the policies beggers belief.
Soldeirs cannot police from within APC's, or manning weapons in HMMV's they can only be invaders. You have to risk having soldiers with no face visors on the streets with the people not pointing your guns at the people. You have to be harder than the locals so that you can remain the boss without putting in their faces. This doesnt require muscles, it just requires discipline, training awareness and balls. You will have to accept you might lose some to snipers, but when you have a friendly local populace that don't see you as bullies you don't get many snipers. But if your allies elsewhere are considered to be slaughtering the populace in one feth up after another eventually you do get snipers and bombs.
The US army should be kept for invasions and counter-invasions, they are very good at that. But they should even try to help in other circumstances. Yes keep sending the supplies but stay out of the policing. Hypocritically I would have liked to have seen US troops in Belfast, or better yet Israelis, a month of that and the locals would have quickly realised our boys know their jobs and are not the rampaging slaughterers some like to imply.
Some US units are getting better, and new ones with different thinking have emerged like Grey Fox. But the vast majority cant get around the doctrine that every conflict is open battle and almost every weapon is in the active arsenal. Some wars can only be lost that way.
Absolutely.
It is simply a matter of logistics to send troops in.
The problem is with extracating, as now any withdrawal will be seen as a victory by the Taliban and extremists.
Which is why they should not have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.
The coalition forces are now tied into a protracted occupation that merely serves to off the locals.
Any road, if we wished to read ill informed, anti-European, xenophobic claptrap we would buy the Daily Mail
The price of free speech is apparently huge piles of bovine do-do's
Karzai needs to be told to get with the western programme, or else he must be got rid of.
His latest jape of appointing all the election commissioners himself is the last straw.
Iraq seems to be in a better situation. I know there is still a lot of crap going on, however the government seems to be moderately popular and stable. It is not terribly corrupt, and the security situation is much improved over a couple of years ago.
I think the issue with Afghanistan is that there isn't a military solution. We have the technology and capability to largely control Taliban activity if we want to. But that isn't a solution, and no amount of Taliban bodies will actually resolve that.
What's needed to end the fighting is an Afghani government that the people actually want, but instead they've got Karzai. Exactly how you go about improving that is a tough question, and how you do it within the likely duration of Western forces is pretty difficult.
Er.....We won in Iraq, remember? And to be honest, it seems to be doing vaguely alright now.
I would dispute Afghanistan being a war in the first place. To have a war, you need a nation to declare 'war' on. The taliban aren't this monolithic machine the media tries to push. Afghanistan is made of warring tribes. No Afghan government has ever successfully controlled all of Afghanistan. There's this mentality that because the lines are drawn on the map, all the people inside are Afghans, but they're not. Half of them don't even think of themselves as the collective known as Afghans. You can't force a government on people that have never known it, and don't want it.
Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)
Off the top of my head I'm reasonably certain several American political leaders have publicly come out and said positive things about the work of British troops.
sebster wrote:I think the issue with Afghanistan is that there isn't a military solution. We have the technology and capability to largely control Taliban activity if we want to. But that isn't a solution, and no amount of Taliban bodies will actually resolve that.
What's needed to end the fighting is an Afghani government that the people actually want, but instead they've got Karzai. Exactly how you go about improving that is a tough question, and how you do it within the likely duration of Western forces is pretty difficult.
You do it by sacking Karzai.
It should have been done after the pig's ear they made of the election last year. Instead he was allowed to take office on a blizzard of promises that he really would be good now. Instead, he is blatantly flouting the election process. No-one that corrupt is going to pull together any kind of government we want to be involved with.
The western allies should take Karzai prisoner and put him in exile on some remote island. Get together some corruption charges and have him banged up legally. it woouldn;t be ahrd because there is heaps of evidence.
Let the guy who "lost" the election take office, and see if he can do a better job. There would be some moaning from the left-wing press, but let's face it, he cheated his way to power and the Afghanis themselves don't support him.
Yup, the USA and the other "warrior nations" have more than shouldered its load in various wars and natural disasters. NATO might be another cold war relic that needs to be rethought just like our previous strategies; several of those nations may simply be lacking politically and militarily when it comes to combating terrorists on a global level.
Allied forces are building infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan and have trained the locals to help defend, politicize, and police themselves. Progress is being made and with the help of other allies, top terrorist leaders are being captured and their strength seem to be decreasing for every allied troop thats reinforced. However we are likely years away from proper withdrawal efforts.
I'm not a fan of either war (mainly Iraq, thanks a lot Bush Jr, Cheney, and Co. ) but it'd be worse to leave now since those areas still need more infrastructure and time to truly warrant troop reductions and eventual withdrawal. Basically a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation - if we leave then the world will take a dump on us for leaving those nations in their current condition and giving terrorists motivation that they're "winning" and if we don't then we get bad press from all the unfortunate consequences of engaging in war.
Its horribly and disgustingly baffling that the past administration chose to basically ignore Gen. Colin Powell's requests; why would you not listen to your expert on an area of his expertise? This guy was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a National Security Adviser, and Bush's Secretary of State (that resigned btw):
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.
Gotta give a lot of respect to those serving today and all those recruits who are signing up as this message is posted. Says a lot that citizens across the globe are joining the service at the time they're needed most; to help reinforce Iraq and Afghanistan and put up a fight against global terror.
Ketara wrote:Hang around outside a pub after closing time sebster, be it in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales and you'll see plenty of 'fighting spirit' as they say.
Traditionally and historically it must be said, we do seem to get into more than our fair share of scraps when you compare us to other countries. Regardless of whether you'd call us a 'warrior nation' or not.
Anyone up for getting the Germans to increase military spending?
I can second this. When I lived in the North East (Durham) the streets on Sunday morning looked like a war zone where the only weapons were bottles, vomit and chips.
Yeah, what the hell have we got in common with Europe anyway? I get on better with Americans than Frenchies.
I vote we get out of the EU and start looking after number 1!
And yes, we love a good ruck. I dont feel guilty about our past and our warry ways, unlike our handwringing liberal chums in the Labour party, im more than proud of our imperial past.
Id rather be famous for being too aggressive than for being a girly poofter!
When James Carville went over and helped Abdullah Abdullah with his campaign it was pretty clear the US wanted a change at the top. Unfortnately Karzai clever figured out you didn't actually need people voting for you to win an election. Exactly where to go from there is a tough one, removing Karzai from power is a decent option, but would that just militarise his followers and benefactors? I don't know.
EDIT - Cargill?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah, what the hell have we got in common with Europe anyway? I get on better with Americans than Frenchies.
I vote we get out of the EU and start looking after number 1!
And yes, we love a good ruck. I dont feel guilty about our past and our warry ways, unlike our handwringing liberal chums in the Labour party, im more than proud of our imperial past.
Id rather be famous for being too aggressive than for being a girly poofter!
Then you get very openly what you get in the Iraqi 'democracy' slightly more subtly:
You can choose any government you like
So long as we like who you choose.
Remove Karzai and you remove any right to be consuidered helping. as it is not our business to say who is in charge and Karzai knows this and is milking this.
Besides our government is known to be corrupt, the Bush government was known to be corrupt, we dont know enough about Obama, but I can say quite faithfully that most western leaders cannot accuse Karzai on corruption without a lot of hypocrasy.
Could you imagine New Labour or Berlusconi condemning corruption when they make South American juntas look honest.
No you can only do Karzai if he crosses the line regarding the UN declaration of rights, and then only if you adhere to those rules yourself.
Really we are stuck with him, until we pull out and let the Afghans get someone else in. Just hoping it wont be Taliban is as good an action plan as any.
Kilkrazy wrote:Karzai's followers are already militarised but not militant against us.
Afghani followers usually tend to follow the winners. A lot of Karzai's support would melt away once he was in prison of Diego Garcia.
The problem after that would be to stop the other guy becoming as corrupt as Karzai.
Karzai appears to be typical of the leaders the west and in particular the US like to prop up. Vote rigging, going back on his word.
he can do whatever he wants because we are so emeshed with him and the situation in Afghanistan.
I can understand hy Europe is reluctant to send soldiers of to Afghanistan. Why risk lives for something you are not totally behind?
Besides if you want to start, fight, and win a war you need to supply overwhelming force, crush you enemy, his infrastructure and subdue their people so their can be no possibility of retaliation and stay until that message gets through.
A major offensive would be a couple of hundred thousand troops, more really. what America, the UK an its allies are doing is half a job and since 9/11 we have actually created the enemies we were supposed to fear.
Orlanth wrote:Karzai needs to go but we cannot do it.
Then you get very openly what you get in the Iraqi 'democracy' slightly more subtly:
You can choose any government you like
So long as we like who you choose.
Remove Karzai and you remove any right to be consuidered helping. as it is not our business to say who is in charge and Karzai knows this and is milking this.
Besides our government is known to be corrupt, the Bush government was known to be corrupt, we dont know enough about Obama, but I can say quite faithfully that most western leaders cannot accuse Karzai on corruption without a lot of hypocrasy.
Could you imagine New Labour or Berlusconi condemning corruption when they make South American juntas look honest.
No you can only do Karzai if he crosses the line regarding the UN declaration of rights, and then only if you adhere to those rules yourself.
Really we are stuck with him, until we pull out and let the Afghans get someone else in. Just hoping it wont be Taliban is as good an action plan as any.
It doesn't matter about hypocrisy. What matters is an effective job of nailing corruption in Afghanistan. The ordinary people don't care if British MPs take tax money to build duck houses. They care if they can walk the streets safely, and vote safely and effectively in an election.
Karzai must go. He has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The BBC had the best map of troop involvement in Afghanistan. As far as I know, CNN reported that the UK and US forces were in the regions facing the hardest fighting with the other nations playing as the police forces.
Afghanistan and Iraq are not lost wars, Iraq needs a new government as Democracy is not usually the first one a country tries(Articles of Confederation vs. Later U.S government).
Vietnam and Korea were winnable as I remember my history, the NK were pushed back to China and the U.S didn't want to engage in war with China ATM. The Tet Offensive was the worst military attack by the NV and Vietcong, unfortunately it was broadcasted and a lot of people back home saw soldiers dying and wanted to leave even though the U.S was pulling ahead.
The issue with "Lost Wars" is that they don't account for the lack of support from home. The American Revolutionary War was won because the English population didn't support it, not because the English army was lacking in training or lacking in a navy. Same with Russia and Afghanistan.
The BBC had the best map of troop involvement in Afghanistan. As far as I know, CNN reported that the UK and US forces were in the regions facing the hardest fighting with the other nations playing as the police forces.
Afghanistan and Iraq are not lost wars, Iraq needs a new government as Democracy is not usually the first one a country tries(Articles of Confederation vs. Later U.S government).
Vietnam and Korea were winnable as I remember my history, the NK were pushed back to China and the U.S didn't want to engage in war with China ATM. The Tet Offensive was the worst military attack by the NV and Vietcong, unfortunately it was broadcasted and a lot of people back home saw soldiers dying and wanted to leave even though the U.S was pulling ahead.
The issue with "Lost Wars" is that they don't account for the lack of support from home. The American Revolutionary War was won because the English population didn't support it, not because the English army was lacking in training or lacking in a navy. Same with Russia and Afghanistan.
I agree with the Korean and Vietnam situation, In Vietnam bombing intensified so as to keep the communists at the negotiating table (thank god for B-52's) political pressure forced the US's hand. However Korea and Vietnam war both wars fought under a different political and social era even the south Vietnamese leadership were dispicable little runts and responsible for most of their own internal issues.
It is arguable if Iraq and Afgahnistan should ever have become warzones and as I posted earlier you need to bring overwhelming force to bear and crush your opponent and keep your foot on his neck if you are to win.
If I was a citizen of Afghanistan I would pay lip service to the current leadership and the western powers then make sure I kept my copy of the Koran on me and kept habibs handy for my wife and daughters.
Kanluwen wrote:
All it is, currently, is talk. If it escalates--we might see US troops and ships deployed down that way to aid the UK/Falklands.
That is unlikely. The US has far more to gain by currying (a nice tikka should do) favor with the various South American governments who would look directly to such an operation.
But America doesn't have the luxury of choosing its wars
What a joke. This woman should never be allowed to publish an article pertaining to national security again. The notion that we have no choice in our military conduct is not just absurd, its dangerous.
Kanluwen wrote:What're we supposed to do? Bomb Argentina?
All it is, currently, is talk. If it escalates--we might see US troops and ships deployed down that way to aid the UK/Falklands.
We're perfectly capable of bombing Argentina ourselves thank you However, something a little more than stating that the United States has no position over the current disagreement over the Falklands would have been nice given the hell holes we've followed you into over the last eight years.
I probably sound crosser than I actually am. Not trying to start a , just observing
Kanluwen wrote:What're we supposed to do? Bomb Argentina?
All it is, currently, is talk. If it escalates--we might see US troops and ships deployed down that way to aid the UK/Falklands.
We're perfectly capable of bombing Argentina ourselves thank you However, something a little more than stating that the United States has no position over the current disagreement over the Falklands would have been nice given the hell holes we've followed you into over the last eight years.
I probably sound crosser than I actually am. Not trying to start a , just observing
To be fair:
We really DO have no position in an argument over the Falklands. It's territory that has accepted itself as part of Britain--with Argentina and the 'new' coalition they've got going down there being rabblerousers after they've just started up.
I don't think we need to slag off the US because one or two members of Dakka said they won't do very much.
In the Falklands war the US provided valuable assistance in terms of satellite surveillance and supplies of Sidewinder missiles. It was all done quietly to avoid annoying the South Americans.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think we need to slag off the US because one or two members of Dakka said they won't do very much.
In the Falklands war the US provided valuable assistance in terms of satellite surveillance and supplies of Sidewinder missiles. It was all done quietly to avoid annoying the South Americans.
And the french sold the argies the Exocet missiles ,
Can you cite your source/ref for the sat surveillence and sale of sidewinder , I have a historic intrest in this period ,
and I am aware of deployment of US"advisors" on the landing zones
The UK had its own sat surveillence at the time.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think we need to slag off the US because one or two members of Dakka said they won't do very much.
In the Falklands war the US provided valuable assistance in terms of satellite surveillance and supplies of Sidewinder missiles. It was all done quietly to avoid annoying the South Americans.
And the french sold the argies the Exocet missiles ,
Can you cite your source/ref for the sat surveillence and sale of sidewinder , I have a historic intrest in this period ,
and I am aware of deployment of US"advisors" on the landing zones
The UK had its own sat surveillence at the time.
I have read a lot of history books which include the Falklands War in some aspect or another. TBH I don't remember a specific source for the surveillance and Sidewinders. It was probably in something naval because the war was essentially naval and I read a lot of naval stuff.
I'm reading a book now called Admirals which may cover some Falklands stuff. I haven't got to the end yet.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think we need to slag off the US because one or two members of Dakka said they won't do very much.
In the Falklands war the US provided valuable assistance in terms of satellite surveillance and supplies of Sidewinder missiles. It was all done quietly to avoid annoying the South Americans.
And the french sold the argies the Exocet missiles ,
Can you cite your source/ref for the sat surveillence and sale of sidewinder , I have a historic intrest in this period ,
and I am aware of deployment of US"advisors" on the landing zones
The UK had its own sat surveillence at the time.
Simply if the US had wanted you to stop, you would have stopped. Don't forget where the Falklands are. That goes for now as well.
Frazzled wrote:
Simply if the US had wanted you to stop, you would have stopped. Don't forget where the Falklands are. That goes for now as well.
There would need to be a significant political shift for the Monroe Doctrine to apply to England again.
In fact, given Russia's entreaties to Chavez, it would be fair to say that the entire notion has finally died on the vine; after a long twist during the Cold War, under the auspices of containment, of course.
Some countries really have no place in Global alliances. I mean they're all for cooperation, but hte war in Afghanistan was SANCTIONED by the UN. It's a -legal- war, after all NATO clearly states an attack on one member is an attack on ALL members, so ALL members of NATO should have troops in Afghanistan.
Now Iraq is an entirely different story, and other NATO countries are wholly excused for not being there, because it was an unsanctioned, unilateral offensive move by the USA, and it is there responsibility to bear.
bsohi wrote:Some countries really have no place in Global alliances. I mean they're all for cooperation, but hte war in Afghanistan was SANCTIONED by the UN. It's a -legal- war, after all NATO clearly states an attack on one member is an attack on ALL members, so ALL members of NATO should have troops in Afghanistan.
Now Iraq is an entirely different story, and other NATO countries are wholly excused for not being there, because it was an unsanctioned, unilateral offensive move by the USA, and it is there responsibility to bear.
Technically Afghanistan did not "attack" the US. The perpetrators were terrorists following ideals (Al-aqaeda is a set of ideals, not an organisation) that were fostered in Afghanistan.
bsohi wrote:Some countries really have no place in Global alliances. I mean they're all for cooperation, but hte war in Afghanistan was SANCTIONED by the UN. It's a -legal- war, after all NATO clearly states an attack on one member is an attack on ALL members, so ALL members of NATO should have troops in Afghanistan.
NATO was never designed to cope with non-state actors, so Afghanistan confused it. Also, it isn't as simple as an attack on one is an attack on all.
In fact, the vast majority of international agreements are indifferent to non-state actors. Its the wreckage of Cold War politics that are only now slipping from the establishment (the US and Russia are on the end of that process).
bsohi wrote:
Now Iraq is an entirely different story, and other NATO countries are wholly excused for not being there, because it was an unsanctioned, unilateral offensive move by the USA, and it is there responsibility to bear.
This is true of Afghanistan as well. UN sanction is not tacit to NATO sanction.
Whatever, it was a still a pretty good idea to go into Afghanistan, except we should not have blown it by (1) letting the Taliban escape to Pakistan and (2) attacking Iraq gratuitously on spurious grounds and diluting our effort.
The situation is probably still retrievable but not if we support the corrupt, unreliable, would-be despot Karzai in power.
A colleague and I were discussing the whole reaction to 9/11, Madrid and London 7/7 today. My view was that if you exchange human life for money and apply economics, the resulting business case falls apart.
4000 lives lost in Al-qaeda inspired terrorist attacks so far, but the casualty cost of the wars that followed, excluding enemy combatants but including innocent lives is into the millions.
dogma wrote:
NATO was never designed to cope with non-state actors, so Afghanistan confused it. Also, it isn't as simple as an attack on one is an attack on all.
I know it wasn't designed that way. But nowhere in the NATO charter does it state that the attack must be from a nation-state. The charter doesn't mention state or non-state anywhere, it simply says 'an attack', no question of 'by whom?'
I agree that the issue in Afghanistan confused it, but I don't see how that confusion should last for so long. America was attacked not by the Taliban, but by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda received the tacit approval of the Taliban Government to operate on Afghanistan soil. NATO is now obligated to wage war on Al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Taliban. You can argue the extension all you want, but ALL of NATO is now obligated to do all in it's power to destroy Al-Qaeda.
I mean, I like to engage in the occasional bit of America-bashing myself, especially as a Canadian (it's a national sport here). But it just smells like if the Sept 11th attacks occured in Paris, and the Eiffel Tower was brought down, France would be raising one hell of a s**t-fit if America didn't send combat troops to help. Reeks of hypocrisy and all that....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Whatever, it was a still a pretty good idea to go into Afghanistan, except we should not have blown it by (1) letting the Taliban escape to Pakistan and (2) attacking Iraq gratuitously on spurious grounds and diluting our effort.
Kill, I have never agreed more with any sentiment in regards to the wars than this.
Pull our weight huh? lol wonder if we're getting trolled
When i hear about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan i always think about those "insurgents".
How many of em are actually just freedom fighters.. i guess we will never know.
When i hear about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan i always think about those "insurgents".
How many of em are actually just freedom fighters.. i guess we will never know.
Freedom fighters that like to crash airplanes into buildings right? While there's no American troops on Afghani soil, right? Yeah, that makes boat loads of sense to me. Screw the NATO charter right? Because your government shouldn't be expected to uphold the deals it makes, right?
Hey, bsohi, no need to get flamey here.
He makes a very valid point. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter gets very shady, very quickly, especially when you invade them and overthrow the government. On one hand, you have those who crash airplanes into buildings, on the other, you have a farmer fighting to kick out the invaders from his country.
When i hear about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan i always think about those "insurgents".
How many of em are actually just freedom fighters.. i guess we will never know.
Freedom fighters that like to crash airplanes into buildings right? While there's no American troops on Afghani soil, right? Yeah, that makes boat loads of sense to me. Screw the NATO charter right? Because your government shouldn't be expected to uphold the deals it makes, right?
Seems i hit a nerve, it's not smart to respond to these kind of threads if you're to emotionally involved. Anyway according to the propaganda you've been spoonfed any man to take up arms against a invading agressor are terrorists? What a joke.
Heh. Nice inflamatory thread. I'm not like most irishmen- I don't think we should be neutral. Our neutrality is a cowardly farce anyway.
But, I suppose, I do have a problem with being told to "pull my weight". I don't believe war is the answer in a lot of cases, especially actually when dealing with terrorists. So I'm happy that we didn't commit, because it matches what I think should be done, though I acknowledge that my governments reasons are much more slimey than my own.
But yeah, maybe we should leave NATO. It's pretty complicated really. I think that article is pretty simplistic and dumb.
Respect to the British and Americans who have been fighting though.
The US army should be kept for invasions and counter-invasions, they are very good at that. But they should even try to help in other circumstances. Yes keep sending the supplies but stay out of the policing. Hypocritically I would have liked to have seen US troops in Belfast, or better yet Israelis, a month of that and the locals would have quickly realised our boys know their jobs and are not the rampaging slaughterers some like to imply.
The tone of this post implies that british troops are somehow better in the role. Given the number of incidents involving them and their disproportionate numbers in the theatre this is simply not the case.
I don't think troops were the answer in Northern Ireland, and I think that's a lesson the british government learned to their credit. Political solution is working much better.
When i hear about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan i always think about those "insurgents".
How many of em are actually just freedom fighters.. i guess we will never know.
Freedom fighters that like to crash airplanes into buildings right? While there's no American troops on Afghani soil, right? Yeah, that makes boat loads of sense to me. Screw the NATO charter right? Because your government shouldn't be expected to uphold the deals it makes, right?
Seems i hit a nerve, it's not smart to respond to these kind of threads if you're to emotionally involved. Anyway according to the propaganda you've been spoonfed any man to take up arms against a invading agressor are terrorists? What a joke.
And the consideration that members of shiite or suni militias (responsible for significant sectarian violence against eachother, and not america) or the taliban (Afghanistan had no true governing body before we intervened, and the taliban were one of the closest thing they had) are freedom fighters implies that you are just as ill educated as the koolaid drinking jingoists you seem to consider jokes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:I don't think troops were the answer in Northern Ireland, and I think that's a lesson the british government learned to their credit. Political solution is working much better.
(Feel free to disagree of course)
It it a disagreement when one notes that two situations are entirely dissimilar and don't really bare out comparison?
bsohi wrote:Some countries really have no place in Global alliances. I mean they're all for cooperation, but hte war in Afghanistan was SANCTIONED by the UN. It's a -legal- war, after all NATO clearly states an attack on one member is an attack on ALL members, so ALL members of NATO should have troops in Afghanistan.
Now Iraq is an entirely different story, and other NATO countries are wholly excused for not being there, because it was an unsanctioned, unilateral offensive move by the USA, and it is there responsibility to bear.
Technically Afghanistan did not "attack" the US. The perpetrators were terrorists following ideals (Al-aqaeda is a set of ideals, not an organisation) that were fostered in Afghanistan.
I actually forgot to respond to this.
While Afghanistan did not attack the US *directly*, following 9/11 the US demanded they turn over Al-Qaeda and clean up their mess or we'd do it for them.
Shuma: No, that's perfectly fine. The situations are of course vastly different.
I was just underlining my point that troops are not always the solution to problems.
I think it's interesting how threads like this can often put us on the defensive if we're not careful. I freaking hate my government, but if anyone criticises Ireland, suddenly I want to defend them? Pretty stupid and irrational. I see it a fair bit on OT, and am guilty of it myself. If we analyse the actions of our governments, we will all see that almost always they're cynically motivated. It's not an attack on us, as citizens.
Just thought that was worth noting.
bsohi wrote:Some countries really have no place in Global alliances. I mean they're all for cooperation, but hte war in Afghanistan was SANCTIONED by the UN. It's a -legal- war, after all NATO clearly states an attack on one member is an attack on ALL members, so ALL members of NATO should have troops in Afghanistan.
Now Iraq is an entirely different story, and other NATO countries are wholly excused for not being there, because it was an unsanctioned, unilateral offensive move by the USA, and it is there responsibility to bear.
Technically Afghanistan did not "attack" the US. The perpetrators were terrorists following ideals (Al-aqaeda is a set of ideals, not an organisation) that were fostered in Afghanistan.
I actually forgot to respond to this.
While Afghanistan did not attack the US *directly*, following 9/11 the US demanded they turn over Al-Qaeda and clean up their mess or we'd do it for them.
They opted the latter.
This still doesn't explain how NATO countries should be obliged to help out. After all, the US wasn't attacked by the Taliban, they were attacked by Al-Qaeda. And the fighting in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be hitting Al-Qaeda as much as it is the Taliban.
Seems i hit a nerve, it's not smart to respond to these kind of threads if you're to emotionally involved. Anyway according to the propaganda you've been spoonfed any man to take up arms against a invading agressor are terrorists? What a joke.
I'm not involved in this at all. I know my flag says America, but I'm actually Canadian. I'm afraid the only person who's been spoonfed information here is you. What was Al-Qaeda defending itself from pre-sept-11? Nothing at all. They launched a hostile aggressive action against the United States of America. Your country signed a treaty, that SPECIFICALLY states, that an attack on any member state, is to be considered like an attack on EVERY member state.
So either those other NATO countries are liars and don't support treaties that they signed, need to send combat troops to Afghanistan (not Iraq, they are two VERY seperate wars), or leave NATO.
The choice is for them to make!
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Support the treaty or leave the alliance.
Couldn't have put it better myself Frazzled.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, bsohi, no need to get flamey here.
He makes a very valid point. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter gets very shady, very quickly, especially when you invade them and overthrow the government. On one hand, you have those who crash airplanes into buildings, on the other, you have a farmer fighting to kick out the invaders from his country.
When he calls me an ignorant propaganda believer, I'll get as flamey as I like. I stated nothing but fact. If the Afghans cannot clean up there mess, and there mess results in attacks on foreign soil, don't you think we have an obligation to clean there mess up for them? The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time. They gave Al-Qaeda permission to operate the training camps on Afghan soil. So we went to Afghanistan to destroy said training camps. The Taliban fought us to prevent us from doing that. I mean, that's as simple as it gets. There were no American military operations in Afghanistan BEFORE the september 11th strike on United States soil. This was a planned, offensive action. And this is precisely the type of things the NATO treaty was drafted for. An attack on a member state! I mean, if you're not going to respect that, get the hell out of NATO. Canada, the United States, and Britain can't hold the bloody line forever with combat deaths in the hundreds and thousands, while little old Sweden twiddles its thumbs, Germany sends troops but refuses to put them into combat roles, and France gets all whiney.
bsohi wrote:
I know it wasn't designed that way. But nowhere in the NATO charter does it state that the attack must be from a nation-state. The charter doesn't mention state or non-state anywhere, it simply says 'an attack', no question of 'by whom?'
It says this:
NATO charter wrote:
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.
Deems necessary is a key phrase.
bsohi wrote:
I agree that the issue in Afghanistan confused it, but I don't see how that confusion should last for so long. America was attacked not by the Taliban, but by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda received the tacit approval of the Taliban Government to operate on Afghanistan soil. NATO is now obligated to wage war on Al-Qaeda, and by extension, the Taliban. You can argue the extension all you want, but ALL of NATO is now obligated to do all in it's power to destroy Al-Qaeda.
Nope, it isn't obliged to do anything.
bsohi wrote:
I mean, I like to engage in the occasional bit of America-bashing myself, especially as a Canadian (it's a national sport here). But it just smells like if the Sept 11th attacks occured in Paris, and the Eiffel Tower was brought down, France would be raising one hell of a s**t-fit if America didn't send combat troops to help. Reeks of hypocrisy and all that....
EDIT: Note, this is not my personal opinion. But I can understand the reluctance of some European countries to get dragged down into this hell hole.
Al-Qaeda had Taliban approval and permission to operate training camps on Afghan soil. So when we went to shut down those training camps, the Taliban fought us. But EVERY single NATO country should be there in the attempt to flush out Al-Qaeda wherever they are. Remember, the NATO charter doesn't limit NATO actions against just nation-states. By your logic, there should be war EVERYWHERE Al-Qaeda is. So by contrast, I think the way the governments of the more involved parties have been pretty modest about the scope of their actions.
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Support the treaty or leave the alliance.
They are supporting the treaty. Americans simply tend to read what they want to, rather than what's actually there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bsohi wrote:
Al-Qaeda had Taliban approval and permission to operate training camps on Afghan soil. So when we went to shut down those training camps, the Taliban fought us. But EVERY single NATO country should be there in the attempt to flush out Al-Qaeda wherever they are. Remember, the NATO charter doesn't limit NATO actions against just nation-states. By your logic, there should be war EVERYWHERE Al-Qaeda is. So by contrast, I think the way the governments of the more involved parties have been pretty modest about the scope of their actions.
But the NATO treaty does not require any action at all, therefore the criticism is moot.
How many civilians died in 9/11? Enough to warrant the destruction of Al-Qaeda, but enough to warrant the invasion of what seems to be a seperate country?
Keep in mind that NATO was formed in years of the Cold War. It was meant to unite the countries if there was ever a Soviet/Communist invasion. Insurgent attacks are arguably not the same thing.
NATO charter wrote:
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.
Deems necessary is a key phrase.
And that's the kicker. All the two-bit minor NATO countries who are trying to cop out of sending forces say 'it's not necessary for us to send forces'. Well, if America and Canada, and Britain withdrew all their combat troops, now it WOULD be necessary for France, Germany et all to step up, wouldn't it? What do you deem is necessary to destroy Al-Qaeda then?
I mean, it's undisputable truth that the September 11th attacks were planned and executed by Al-Qaeda operatives. It was an attack in North America. So now France has to treat it like France itself just got attacked. And France responds by doing nothing at all! Way to defend yourself France! The 'deems necessary' is just being used now as a GIANT cop-out by the lot of people who say that European countries are not required to send troops.
EDIT: Note, this is not my personal opinion. But I can understand the reluctance of some European countries to get dragged down into this hell hole.
And your statement is still wrong.
Al-Qaeda was considered a separate entity, which is why the Taliban and the 'lawful' government of Afghanistan were told to turn them over within an allotted timeframe, or be considered allies of Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban and the government decided to bunker down and hope they could survive what was coming their way.
Some people don't think that troop deployment is the best way to deal with terrorists.
Is sort of the point. Though as I posted above, most likely the reasons are more cynical than that in most cases. It's a mix of both.
Da Boss wrote:Some people don't think that troop deployment is the best way to deal with terrorists.
Is sort of the point. Though as I posted above, most likely the reasons are more cynical than that in most cases. It's a mix of both.
Troop deployment against something like the Irish Republican Army or the American Nazi Party as they stand now?
Yeah, that's not a good idea. It's overkill in the worst possible way.
But against an organization that has access to conventional military hardware, and is deeply enmeshed with a local government?
It's the absolute best way to do it, short of ordering assassinations and forming paramilitary groups.
Seems i hit a nerve, it's not smart to respond to these kind of threads if you're to emotionally involved. Anyway according to the propaganda you've been spoonfed any man to take up arms against a invading agressor are terrorists? What a joke.
I'm not involved in this at all. I know my flag says America, but I'm actually Canadian. I'm afraid the only person who's been spoonfed information here is you. What was Al-Qaeda defending itself from pre-sept-11? Nothing at all. They launched a hostile aggressive action against the United States of America. Your country signed a treaty, that SPECIFICALLY states, that an attack on any member state, is to be considered like an attack on EVERY member state.
So either those other NATO countries are liars and don't support treaties that they signed, need to send combat troops to Afghanistan (not Iraq, they are two VERY seperate wars), or leave NATO.
The choice is for them to make!
Frazzled wrote:Its irrelevant. Support the treaty or leave the alliance.
Couldn't have put it better myself Frazzled.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, bsohi, no need to get flamey here.
He makes a very valid point. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter gets very shady, very quickly, especially when you invade them and overthrow the government. On one hand, you have those who crash airplanes into buildings, on the other, you have a farmer fighting to kick out the invaders from his country.
When he calls me an ignorant propaganda believer, I'll get as flamey as I like. I stated nothing but fact. If the Afghans cannot clean up there mess, and there mess results in attacks on foreign soil, don't you think we have an obligation to clean there mess up for them? The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time. They gave Al-Qaeda permission to operate the training camps on Afghan soil. So we went to Afghanistan to destroy said training camps. The Taliban fought us to prevent us from doing that. I mean, that's as simple as it gets. There were no American military operations in Afghanistan BEFORE the september 11th strike on United States soil. This was a planned, offensive action. And this is precisely the type of things the NATO treaty was drafted for. An attack on a member state! I mean, if you're not going to respect that, get the hell out of NATO. Canada, the United States, and Britain can't hold the bloody line forever with combat deaths in the hundreds and thousands, while little old Sweden twiddles its thumbs, Germany sends troops but refuses to put them into combat roles, and France gets all whiney.
First: RE-READ my first post, im simply asking a philosophical question how many of these so called "terrorists" are not terrorists but freedom-fighters. NOTE that i said gak and bricks about Al-Qaeda, shiiate, mammelucs and santa clauses.
So any offended take a chill pill.
Second: Now if you took the time to think before you type you would know sweden is not a member of Nato.
Kanluwen wrote:What're we supposed to do? Bomb Argentina?
All it is, currently, is talk. If it escalates--we might see US troops and ships deployed down that way to aid the UK/Falklands.
We're perfectly capable of bombing Argentina ourselves thank you However, something a little more than stating that the United States has no position over the current disagreement over the Falklands would have been nice given the hell holes we've followed you into over the last eight years.
I probably sound crosser than I actually am. Not trying to start a , just observing
To be fair:
We really DO have no position in an argument over the Falklands. It's territory that has accepted itself as part of Britain--with Argentina and the 'new' coalition they've got going down there being rabblerousers after they've just started up.
This situation is best left with the US out of it, but quietly backing us. The British position is strong, de facto control as recognised by the UN.
Argentina is approaching the UN under the provision of the Decolonisation committee. however it is not a colony, but a self determining territory. It is also very clear which way the islanders themselves stand.
Ironically if Argentina wants the islands that would be colonial rule, as it is a very clearly against the wishes of the populace. Have a referendum monitored by international observers and even give the Argies a chance to canvass the island to convince them to sign up for unity with Argentina. Winner takes all.
I would like to see that happen because I would like to see the reaction Argentinian officials would get from locals in front of the international press. 87% want continued ties with the UK, according to the last poll on the subject and of that 87% most are very strongly affirmative of that viewpoint. They have been invaded once before and most would never accept Argentinian rule under any circumstances.
The Argentinian claim should not be given any further credence, not only is is against all principles of self determination. That should be enough. Their position is like the Germans demanding that we give Poland 'back' to them. They had their shot, and missed. End of.
Kanluwen wrote:The answer would still be "You're wrong on all counts, Blaze".
Freedom fighters imply that they're trying to better the lot in life of the general population.
How in the hell does blowing yourself up in a crowded market square, or detonating a car bomb outside of a school do any of that?
IF they were truly "freedom fighters" as you claim, they'd be targeting government troops and the outside help they receive.
As i said earlier in the thread S-T-O-P making stuff upp. Read what i said, taking up arms against a invading agressor doesn't make you a terrorist.
Taking up arms against the general population does however.
Kanluwen wrote:The answer would still be "You're wrong on all counts, Blaze".
Freedom fighters imply that they're trying to better the lot in life of the general population.
How in the hell does blowing yourself up in a crowded market square, or detonating a car bomb outside of a school do any of that?
IF they were truly "freedom fighters" as you claim, they'd be targeting government troops and the outside help they receive.
As i said earlier in the thread S-T-O-P making stuff upp. Read what i said, taking up arms against a invading agressor doesn't make you a terrorist.
Taking up arms against the general population does however.
Backtrack more please.
These freedom fighters that you're so staunchly supporting rarely attack the invading armies anymore.
They devote their time and efforts to...what's the word?
The thing about al-Qaida (and militant islamofacsim in general) is that it is not just an American issue. If al-Qaida is allowed to operate unimpeded, and if the pressure is let up enought that they can recoup their losses, they will strike again. And it won't just be America. These guys don't care who you are or where you come from. Anyone who stands in the way of their dream of a global caliphate and the extermination of the Jewish people. That includes you, EU. You may not have a problem with them, but they have a problem with you. Bottom line is the only way to stop them is to keep them disorganized and on the run. The best way to do that is to keep killing their leadership, and to deny them a secure base of operations. That is what we are working towards in Afghanistan.
Also, lay off Canada you guys. Those dudes have been a great help out there. I work with Canadian airmen and soldiers at my base, and they are good allies. Don't knock them.
Tauzor wrote:
And the french sold the argies the Exocet missiles ,
Can you cite your source/ref for the sat surveillence and sale of sidewinder , I have a historic intrest in this period ,
and I am aware of deployment of US"advisors" on the landing zones
The UK had its own sat surveillence at the time.
I just covered the period in my degree course. The exact book escapes me, but the UK borrowed 200 Sidewinders off NATO shelves after the US agreed to replace them immediately afterwards.
Frazzled wrote:Simply if the US had wanted you to stop, you would have stopped. Don't forget where the Falklands are. That goes for now as well.
Arrogance. You forget this wasn't an era in which the Foreign Office was dominated by Washington-centric concerns. Back then, the UK and USwere equal partners defending against the Soviet threat. You guys might have been providing the money, but it was our bases being operated out of, our special forces prepared to dash in and seize key European objectives, and our submarine fleet, the most professional in the world, that was patrolling the North Atlantic. Washington was never going to do anything to endanger that relationship, especially not over a two bit facist state in South America. Your only concern in all this was that it left a gap in NATO's response capabilities should the Russians had made a move then.
Even if Reagan had attempted to pull another Suez Canal, the odds are that we would have ignored you anyhow. Regardless of what you think of her, Thatcher was one to tell other Nations to get their nose out of our affairs, or get bent. With the fact that she'd linked her political career to the success of the task force, and the tremendous upsurge of public support for the war at the time, there was never any question of her stopping the fleet halfway there.
Ah man, OT is fun.
Shuma, you're an angry little legend, don't let anyone tell you different, and don't stop posting.
The rest of us probably need to chill out a bit and stop taking international policy and sweeping slowed generalisations personally.
Also, I freaking love fridays.
bsohi wrote:
And that's the kicker. All the two-bit minor NATO countries who are trying to cop out of sending forces say 'it's not necessary for us to send forces'. Well, if America and Canada, and Britain withdrew all their combat troops, now it WOULD be necessary for France, Germany et all to step up, wouldn't it? What do you deem is necessary to destroy Al-Qaeda then?
They don't have to destroy Al-Qaeda. It can be written off as American problem. There is no provision by which NATO members are bound to each others aims.
bsohi wrote:
I mean, it's undisputable truth that the September 11th attacks were planned and executed by Al-Qaeda operatives. It was an attack in North America. So now France has to treat it like France itself just got attacked. And France responds by doing nothing at all! Way to defend yourself France! The 'deems necessary' is just being used now as a GIANT cop-out by the lot of people who say that European countries are not required to send troops.
They aren't required to send troops. It isn't a cop out of any sort, its simply the way the treaty if written.
bsohi wrote:
Yes it does. It requires them to treat an attack on any of them, like an attack on all of them. That says enough right there.
No it doesn't. No nation is required to retaliate when attacked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Freedom fighters imply that they're trying to better the lot in life of the general population.
How in the hell does blowing yourself up in a crowded market square, or detonating a car bomb outside of a school do any of that?
If you can't understand your adversary, you are destined to lose. Freedom is a vague notion which can apply to nearly any concept, and is certainly not intrinsically connected to betterment.
Al-Qaeda, as it has been since the Mujahadeen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, isn't interested in freedom. It's interested in spreading a religious ideal which has been corrupted by its higher-ups to justify a xenophobic interpretation of their religion.
The idea of a freedom fighter is a pretty vague and formless one as it stands in regards to the line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'.
I've always thought of it as pretty black and white:
Mujahadeen?
Freedom fighters, even if being used as proxies in the Cold War.
Al-Qaeda?
Terrorists.
bsohi wrote:
Yes it does. It requires them to treat an attack on any of them, like an attack on all of them. That says enough right there.
No it doesn't. No nation is required to retaliate when attacked.
No, it doesn't require them to treat it like an attack on all of them? Then you're FLAT wrong there Dogma. The NATO treaty was signed by all member states. And it clearly states, article 5 if I recall, that an attack on one is an attack on all. If you sign the nato treaty, you agree to the statement. That's all there is to it.
No nation is required to retaliate when attacked? Then please let those countries die, they don't deserve to survive.
Al-Qaeda, as it has been since the Mujahadeen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, isn't interested in freedom. It's interested in spreading a religious ideal which has been corrupted by its higher-ups to justify a xenophobic interpretation of their religion.
The idea of a freedom fighter is a pretty vague and formless one as it stands in regards to the line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'.
I've always thought of it as pretty black and white:
Mujahadeen?
Freedom fighters, even if being used as proxies in the Cold War.
Al-Qaeda?
Terrorists.
Terrorists are identified by their methodology, not their tactics. The mujahadeen were hardly saints.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bsohi wrote:
dogma wrote:
bsohi wrote:
Yes it does. It requires them to treat an attack on any of them, like an attack on all of them. That says enough right there.
No it doesn't. No nation is required to retaliate when attacked.
No, it doesn't require them to treat it like an attack on all of them? Then you're FLAT wrong there Dogma. The NATO treaty was signed by all member states. And it clearly states, article 5 if I recall, that an attack on one is an attack on all. If you sign the nato treaty, you agree to the statement. That's all there is to it.
No nation is required to retaliate when attacked? Then please let those countries die, they don't deserve to survive.
Thats not a particularly tenable position in reality. Were it North and South korea would be nuclear craters, as would india and pakistan and Israel and like the two dozen countries Israel kills people in. There are dozens of examples of nato signatories doing nothing in the face of foreign aggression, both civilian, terrorist, and military.
Al-Qaeda, as it has been since the Mujahadeen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, isn't interested in freedom. It's interested in spreading a religious ideal which has been corrupted by its higher-ups to justify a xenophobic interpretation of their religion.
The idea of a freedom fighter is a pretty vague and formless one as it stands in regards to the line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'.
I've always thought of it as pretty black and white:
Mujahadeen?
Freedom fighters, even if being used as proxies in the Cold War.
Al-Qaeda?
Terrorists.
Terrorists are identified by their methodology, not their tactics. The mujahadeen were hardly saints.
I never said the Mujahadeen were saints Shuma, but they were 'freedom fighters' in the sense of the term as it's used.
The real problem in making a distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is the ideology and the general tactics involved.
While freedom fighters do resort to the same general tactics as terrorists(insurgency strikes, etc) they tend to restrict them towards collaborators and the so-called enemies.
Terrorists target anyone and anything they can hit.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats not a particularly tenable position in reality. Were it North and South korea would be nuclear craters, as would india and pakistan and Israel and like the two dozen countries Israel kills people in. There are dozens of examples of nato signatories doing nothing in the face of foreign aggression, both civilian, terrorist, and military.
Patently not true. NATO's statutes only apply to attacks in North America, or Europe. Attacking NATO members anywhere else is fair game for the rest of NATO to say "sod off". Also, Israel, India, and Korea are not NATO members. Remember, NATO is North Atlantic Treaty Organization. India, Korea and Israel would be hardpressed to explain why the north atlantic is important to them lol.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats not a particularly tenable position in reality. Were it North and South korea would be nuclear craters, as would india and pakistan and Israel and like the two dozen countries Israel kills people in. There are dozens of examples of nato signatories doing nothing in the face of foreign aggression, both civilian, terrorist, and military.
Patently not true. NATO's statutes only apply to attacks in North America, or Europe. Attacking NATO members anywhere else is fair game for the rest of NATO to say "sod off".
I was stating a point in regards to the idea that nations who do not retaliate deserve to die. National darwinism in regards to military violence is an idiotic position. It should be quite obvious that conflicts between non nato states do not impact nato members in regards to an article concerning chimeric military response to threats against nato signatories.
Kanluwen wrote:
Al-Qaeda, as it has been since the Mujahadeen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, isn't interested in freedom. It's interested in spreading a religious ideal which has been corrupted by its higher-ups to justify a xenophobic interpretation of their religion.
Al-Qaeda didn't form until after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, if certain reports are to be believed. At best they were concomitant events.
In any case, freedom for who? Al Qaeda is certainly interested in their own freedom to establish an Islamic state. Often time we forget that what Americans call freedom, isn't really freedom; its liberty, which is a very different thing.
bsohi wrote:
No, it doesn't require them to treat it like an attack on all of them? Then you're FLAT wrong there Dogma. The NATO treaty was signed by all member states. And it clearly states, article 5 if I recall, that an attack on one is an attack on all. If you sign the nato treaty, you agree to the statement. That's all there is to it.
Yes, but said treaty does not require its signatories to respond to attacks with violence. My statement pertained to your comment that those member states who have not sent troops were in violation of the agreement. They are not because the NATO charter does not require them to attack groups that attack them.
bsohi wrote:
No nation is required to retaliate when attacked? Then please let those countries die, they don't deserve to survive.
Yes, you can be quite emotional about this if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that retaliation isn't necessary. In fact, it would be foolish for any European nation to waste their defense efforts of its allies by spending more on the military. Masculinity does not a sound foreign policy make.
Dogma wrote:
Masculinity does not a sound foreign policy make.
Nor does doing nothing when attacked. And thats what they're meant to emulate.
And I agree with you, they can do nothing if they want.
And that's where me and Frazzled say they shouldn't be in NATO. They're abusing the spirit of the Charter, and if they're not helping you defend, but expect you to help them; they're dead weight.
Nor does doing nothing when attacked. And thats what they're meant to emulate.
Indopakistan, north/south korea, cold war soviets and america, etc. The invention of the nuclear weapon has largely invalidated the idea of an eye for an eye in modern armed conflict. I'm sure that if Georgia tried to take the fight back into russia russia would be a bit bigger right now.
And that's where me and Frazzled say they shouldn't be in NATO. They're abusing the spirit of the Charter, and if they're not helping you defend, but expect you to help them; they're dead weight.
bsohi wrote:
Nor does doing nothing when attacked. And thats what they're meant to emulate.
In a sense, sure. The only statement they are making is one of temporary indifference to attack. Knowing how and when to pick fights is central to any nation's interest.
bsohi wrote:
And that's where me and Frazzled say they shouldn't be in NATO. They're abusing the spirit of the Charter, and if they're not helping you defend, but expect you to help them; they're dead weight.
They're not really dead weight, as they aren't costing the belligerents anything by doing nothing. It would be foolish to drop them from the alliance when they might prove useful in the future; don't burn bridges and all that.
EDIT: Note, this is not my personal opinion. But I can understand the reluctance of some European countries to get dragged down into this hell hole.
And your statement is still wrong.
Al-Qaeda was considered a separate entity, which is why the Taliban and the 'lawful' government of Afghanistan were told to turn them over within an allotted timeframe, or be considered allies of Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban and the government decided to bunker down and hope they could survive what was coming their way.
How is my statement wrong? How, in any way, is NATO responsible to attack the allies of the agressor? It makes no sense.
EDIT: Note, this is not my personal opinion. But I can understand the reluctance of some European countries to get dragged down into this hell hole.
And your statement is still wrong.
Al-Qaeda was considered a separate entity, which is why the Taliban and the 'lawful' government of Afghanistan were told to turn them over within an allotted timeframe, or be considered allies of Al-Qaeda.
The Taliban and the government decided to bunker down and hope they could survive what was coming their way.
How is my statement wrong? How, in any way, is NATO responsible to attack the allies of the agressor? It makes no sense.
I chose not to address the second part because either way it was the first time the NATO countries used Article 5.
The first part though, I thought I explained well. Guess not.
Al-Qaeda was considered a separate political entity that was operating unsanctioned by the Afghanistanian government at the time(read: the Taliban).
The United States issued the ultimatum to the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and the other higher-ups, who were known to be in Afghanistan at the time, or we'd come in and get them.
The Taliban refused to hand him over and granted him and Al-Qaeda sanctuary. They chose to use the time leading up to the deadline to attempt to fortify their positions, expecting us to go in like the Soviets did.
Still, I fail to see how the other NATO nations are in any way obliged to send troops into a fight against the Taliban, rather than direct conflict against Al-Qaeda.
Hell, I find the two hard to seperate at the moment.
halonachos wrote:Personally, I think China should step up its involvement militarily instead of just grabbing land.(Ie, buying rights to use the land for oil).
They could quite well stabilize most conflicts we are in with simple weight of numbers while gaining significant experience functioning multilaterally and in a police action. They are also at consistent 10% GDP growth and believe strongly in national sovereignty to the point of selling arms to Iran.
Can't we just agree that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters are extremists and are not very nice people? Is it that important to distinguish between to very similar flavors of opposition? After all, a weapon aimed at you is still a weapon aimed at you no matter who's holding it.
Also, can we say that NATO wanted to help out because they believed that it was a good cause, but didn't feel that it was necessary to use a large amount of forces as america felt it was it's duty to attack those who attacked it first?
Those may be incredibly simple, but sometimes the simple may be true.
Maybe we should get all of the american corporations to pull all of their business out of China. Loss of employment=>loss of income for citizens=> loss of income for government=> poor China.
Kanluwen wrote:The Taliban were the lawful government at the time, as corrupt as they may have been.
Al-Qaeda wasn't.
The Taliban's leftovers have, for the most part, folded into Al-Qaeda.
And they weren't 'obliged to'. They chose to utilize Article 5 which calls an attack against one country an attack against them all.
But it wasn't the Taliban who attacked them, therefore NATO wasn't obliged to attack Afghanistan. Isn't that a fairly simple step to make?
Anyway, the point is moot if they are not even obligated to provide military aid at all according to the NATO agreement.
Okay.
How is this complicated, at all?
The Taliban was TOLD that if they did not turn over Al-Qaeda and sever ties with bin Laden and his stooges, they'd be considered allies of Al-Qaeda and complicit in the attacks.
The Taliban refused to turn them over and pretty much said that if we wanted Al-Qaeda and its leadership, we'd have to come and take them.
halonachos wrote:Maybe we should get all of the american corporations to pull all of their business out of China. Loss of employment=>loss of income for citizens=> loss of income for government=> poor China.
What in the hell are you blabbering about China for in a thread about NATO?
1) It ALWAYS matters who points the weapon at you. (An extreme example would be a scared, starving child holding a scavenged gun at you, as compared to a trained cold-blooded killer who knows what he is doing) The less you know about the threat the more danger you are in. It's that simple approach that makes a situation worse. I believe Orlanth made a good point earlier, the trick is to make them hand over/drop the gun, not shoot them dead.
2) You're assuming that they wanted to help at all. You're assuming they didn't see immediately recognise it as 'An American Problem'.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Above post was aimed at Shuma.
As for that post of halonachos.
1) It ALWAYS matters who points the weapon at you. (An extreme example would be a scared, starving child holding a scavenged gun at you, as compared to a trained cold-blooded killer who knows what he is doing) The less you know about the threat the more danger you are in. It's that simple approach that makes a situation worse. I believe Orlanth made a good point earlier, the trick is to make them hand over/drop the gun, not shoot them dead.
2) You're assuming that they wanted to help at all. You're assuming they didn't see immediately recognise it as 'An American Problem'.
In regards to #2, listen to the MP3 transcription of the NATO Article 5 declaration on the site I linked.
In regards to #1...
The scared, starving child example really doesn't work nor does "trained, cold-blooded killer" examples. War isn't black and white anymore, as much as we'd like it to be. Children are involved quite often in warfare, especially when dealing with the third world nations and quite often they ARE trained and cold-blooded killers(despite being 'brainwashed').
The Taliban was TOLD that if they did not turn over Al-Qaeda and sever ties with bin Laden and his stooges, they'd be considered allies of Al-Qaeda and complicit in the attacks.
The Taliban refused to turn them over and pretty much said that if we wanted Al-Qaeda and its leadership, we'd have to come and take them.
Who TOLD them this and handed them this Ultimatum?
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm
In regards to your second part about the obligations.
They don't say "OI! YOU LOT! We've been attacked! Grab your guns and let's go!".
Well, actually it said surprisingly little on what, if any, military effort should be taken. All it said was that it confirmed that "An attack on one is an attack on all".
The Taliban was TOLD that if they did not turn over Al-Qaeda and sever ties with bin Laden and his stooges, they'd be considered allies of Al-Qaeda and complicit in the attacks.
The Taliban refused to turn them over and pretty much said that if we wanted Al-Qaeda and its leadership, we'd have to come and take them.
Who TOLD them this and handed them this Ultimatum?
Does it matter who told them?
No. The NATO member nations didn't get involved, either way, until they felt the evidence was strong enough to justify their involvement.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm
In regards to your second part about the obligations.
They don't say "OI! YOU LOT! We've been attacked! Grab your guns and let's go!".
Well, actually it said surprisingly little on what, if any, military effort should be taken. All it said was that it confirmed that "An attack on one is an attack on all".
Because what, if any, military efforts that should be taken are up to the member nations themselves.
NATO doesn't tell them what to send. They decide on their own.
halonachos wrote:Maybe we should get all of the american corporations to pull all of their business out of China. Loss of employment=>loss of income for citizens=> loss of income for government=> poor China.
Why can't we? A few tax deductions for domestic only businesses and a year for all factories, etc to relocate and hire new american employees, lower industrial tax to make it competitive and bada bing! Employment in america and economic turbulence in China.
Kanluwen wrote:
In regards to #2, listen to the MP3 transcription of the NATO Article 5 declaration on the site I linked.
Ah, that's why it wasn't working. Sorry. I thought it was an article that wouldn't load.
In regards to #1...
The scared, starving child example really doesn't work nor does "trained, cold-blooded killer" examples. War isn't black and white anymore, as much as we'd like it to be. Children are involved quite often in warfare, especially when dealing with the third world nations and quite often they ARE trained and cold-blooded killers(despite being 'brainwashed').
I understand, and it being a child wasn't supposed to be the main point. Rather I was trying to point out the difference between a farmer fighting for his religeous beliefs, as compared to a farmer fighting becuase bombers took out his home and family.
With the first fighter, the problem is the religeon. (Not that I'm saying I know what do about that)
With the second fighter, the problem is the indiscrimanate killing of civilians.
If you identify the problem, you can figure out how to combat it, and you do a lot more than you ever could by just shooting the guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Okay.
How is this complicated, at all?
The Taliban was TOLD that if they did not turn over Al-Qaeda and sever ties with bin Laden and his stooges, they'd be considered allies of Al-Qaeda and complicit in the attacks.
The Taliban refused to turn them over and pretty much said that if we wanted Al-Qaeda and its leadership, we'd have to come and take them.
Who TOLD them this and handed them this Ultimatum?
Does it matter who told them?
No. The NATO member nations didn't get involved, either way, until they felt the evidence was strong enough to justify their involvement.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm
In regards to your second part about the obligations.
They don't say "OI! YOU LOT! We've been attacked! Grab your guns and let's go!".
Well, actually it said surprisingly little on what, if any, military effort should be taken. All it said was that it confirmed that "An attack on one is an attack on all".
Because what, if any, military efforts that should be taken are up to the member nations themselves.
NATO doesn't tell them what to send. They decide on their own.
But it didn't even say that they HAD to send any military forces at all.
Except alot of the current people blaming the United States and other Coalition countries are blaming them for things that Al-Qaeda's done.
It's the "If you weren't here, my life wouldn't be ruined" attitude that some parents adopt with their children to justify abuse.
And as for the first one:
There's no difference between the two. They've taken up arms for a reason, and any idiotic demagogue can find a way to justify a call to arms on religious grounds or manipulate someone's misfortunes to their own gain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then what the hell is the point of arguing this?
If they don't want to send forces, fine. They can piss off then when they decide THEY need help.
Kanluwen wrote:Except alot of the current people blaming the United States and other Coalition countries are blaming them for things that Al-Qaeda's done.
It's the "If you weren't here, my life wouldn't be ruined" attitude that some parents adopt with their children to justify abuse.
America would have a lot more to go on if it wasn't for the almost constant stream of stories concerning the deaths of civilians.
And as for the first one:
There's no difference between the two. They've taken up arms for a reason, and any idiotic demagogue can find a way to justify a call to arms on religious grounds or manipulate someone's misfortunes to their own gain.
*facepalm*
Okay, I guess that was another bad example. Try this one:
1) One man joins the Taliban becuase he simply views the alternative government as too corrupt.
2) The other joins because the Taliban offer food.
With the first one, you can decrease the number of fighters by kicking out the corrupt leader and cleaning up office. With the second one, you can provide a means for the villagers to feed and educate themsleves, while being very public that it is YOU that is providing these opportunities. In both cases you are adressing the root of the problem. Far better than fighting the symptoms.
Then what the hell is the point of arguing this?
If they don't want to send forces, fine. They can piss off then when they decide THEY need help.
Kanluwen wrote:Except alot of the current people blaming the United States and other Coalition countries are blaming them for things that Al-Qaeda's done.
It's the "If you weren't here, my life wouldn't be ruined" attitude that some parents adopt with their children to justify abuse.
America would have a lot more to go on if it wasn't for the almost constant stream of stories concerning the deaths of civilians.
The vast majority of these stories are coming from the fethwits over at Al-Jazeera TV, with no confirmations of death via US equipment.
Just the claims of some wackadoo Al Qaeda cameraman shooting a bunch of dead bodies.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And as for the first one:
There's no difference between the two. They've taken up arms for a reason, and any idiotic demagogue can find a way to justify a call to arms on religious grounds or manipulate someone's misfortunes to their own gain.
*facepalm*
Okay, I guess that was another bad example. Try this one:
1) One man joins the Taliban becuase he simply views the alternative government as too corrupt.
2) The other joins because the Taliban offer food.
With the first one, you can decrease the number of fighters by kicking out the corrupt leader and cleaning up office. With the second one, you can provide a means for the villagers to feed and educate themselves, while being very public that it is YOU that is providing these opportunities. In both cases you are addressing the root of the problem. Far better than fighting the symptoms.
*facepalm*
Even working WITH both cases, it doesn't work in Middle Eastern countries due to the tribal and religious nature of the cultures.
You seem to be forgetting that quite a few of the higher ups in Al Qaeda and its partner organizations have extensive education, but still bow down and exploit the religious ideals they grew up with.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Then what the hell is the point of arguing this?
If they don't want to send forces, fine. They can piss off then when they decide THEY need help.
Well, I guess so.
That's kind of the point of an organization like NATO, EF. It's like having a group of friends you can count on reliably to have your back, IF the situation arises.
Would YOU drop everything you're doing to go and aid a friend who left you hanging?
halonachos wrote:Why can't we? A few tax deductions for domestic only businesses and a year for all factories, etc to relocate and hire new american employees, lower industrial tax to make it competitive and bada bing! Employment in america and economic turbulence in China.
halonachos wrote:Why can't we? A few tax deductions for domestic only businesses and a year for all factories, etc to relocate and hire new american employees, lower industrial tax to make it competitive and bada bing! Employment in america and economic turbulence in China.
Kanluwen wrote:Except alot of the current people blaming the United States and other Coalition countries are blaming them for things that Al-Qaeda's done.
It's the "If you weren't here, my life wouldn't be ruined" attitude that some parents adopt with their children to justify abuse.
America would have a lot more to go on if it wasn't for the almost constant stream of stories concerning the deaths of civilians.
The vast majority of these stories are coming from the fethwits over at Al-Jazeera TV, with no confirmations of death via US equipment.
Just the claims of some wackadoo Al Qaeda cameraman shooting a bunch of dead bodies.
During my time in the Middle East I always found that Al Jazeera offered an interesting point of view and in most cases was, dare I say it , refreshingly unbiased when compared to the trash that spins out of the CNN and other media outlets.
Honestly, if you believe that every video showing every dead Afghan civilian is just a piece of Al-Qaeda's propaganda then you are severely deluded.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And as for the first one:
There's no difference between the two. They've taken up arms for a reason, and any idiotic demagogue can find a way to justify a call to arms on religious grounds or manipulate someone's misfortunes to their own gain.
*facepalm*
Okay, I guess that was another bad example. Try this one:
1) One man joins the Taliban becuase he simply views the alternative government as too corrupt.
2) The other joins because the Taliban offer food.
With the first one, you can decrease the number of fighters by kicking out the corrupt leader and cleaning up office. With the second one, you can provide a means for the villagers to feed and educate themselves, while being very public that it is YOU that is providing these opportunities. In both cases you are addressing the root of the problem. Far better than fighting the symptoms.
*facepalm*
Even working WITH both cases, it doesn't work in Middle Eastern countries due to the tribal and religious nature of the cultures.
You seem to be forgetting that quite a few of the higher ups in Al Qaeda and its partner organizations have extensive education, but still bow down and exploit the religious ideals they grew up with.
So you're saying we shouldn't waste any time trying to figure out WHY they're attacking us, and instead just shoot the bally lot of them? Great Plan.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Then what the hell is the point of arguing this?
If they don't want to send forces, fine. They can piss off then when they decide THEY need help.
Well, I guess so.
That's kind of the point of an organization like NATO, EF. It's like having a group of friends you can count on reliably to have your back, IF the situation arises.
Would YOU drop everything you're doing to go and aid a friend who left you hanging?
Yes I would. Although that's easy to say now...
You have to realise that NATO was really supossed to be in response to situations like a full-scale invasion. Such as Soviet Russia invading West Germany or Italy. If any country of NATO was to actually face a 'real' threat to their being such as an invasion, you can damn well bet the others would come running. However, given the luaghable nature of some of NATO's miliatries that might not be saying much.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
During my time in the Middle East I always found that Al Jazeera offered an interesting point of view and in most cases was, dare I say it , refreshingly unbiased when compared to the trash that spins out of the CNN and other media outlets.
Honestly, if you believe that every video showing every dead Afghan civilian is just a piece of Al-Qaeda's propaganda then you are severely deluded.
I pay a good deal of money in order to have access to Al Jazeera. Its certainly no more biased than CNN, as you have pointed out, and it is illuminating in that sense.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
However, given the luaghable nature of some of NATO's miliatries that might not be saying much.
Still, far and away, the most powerful alliance in the world.
Primarily becuase of a select few (two?) nations. Which reminds me, does the EU ask for any sort of aid in the case of an attack on one/more of their members?
Kanluwen wrote:
it doesn't work in Middle Eastern countries due to the tribal and religious nature of the cultures.
By God, this.
Most people, and alot of our governments especially, think that 'fixing' the middle east is as easy as giving them democracy! It's not! The people of Afghanistan will always have more loyalty to their tribe than any national government ever formed. They can barely be considered a country, more like a ragtag group of tribes and factions living within a common border.
Karzai maybe a corrupt power-monger, but he's the best corrupt power-monger we can choose from.
bsohi wrote:! The people of Afghanistan will always have more loyalty to their tribe than any national government ever formed. They can barely be considered a country, more like a ragtag group of tribes and factions living within a common border.
A group of tribes that has a rather impressive strike record when it comes to dealing with "Friendly Intervention Forces".
Kanluwen wrote:
it doesn't work in Middle Eastern countries due to the tribal and religious nature of the cultures.
By God, this.
Most people, and alot of our governments especially, think that 'fixing' the middle east is as easy as giving them democracy! It's not! The people of Afghanistan will always have more loyalty to their tribe than any national government ever formed. They can barely be considered a country, more like a ragtag group of tribes and factions living within a common border.
Karzai maybe a corrupt power-monger, but he's the best corrupt power-monger we can choose from.
Fixing the middle east isn't tantamount to fixing afghanistan, a small sparsely populated desert region. It's also been done several times before, tribal loyalties aren't immortal, and men are just men. They aren't marble monoliths of generational honorable virtue where every babe and grandfather can feel ten thousand years of culture in their veins. Treating the region like something it's not is not constructive.
The US army should be kept for invasions and counter-invasions, they are very good at that. But they should even try to help in other circumstances. Yes keep sending the supplies but stay out of the policing. Hypocritically I would have liked to have seen US troops in Belfast, or better yet Israelis, a month of that and the locals would have quickly realised our boys know their jobs and are not the rampaging slaughterers some like to imply.
The tone of this post implies that british troops are somehow better in the role. Given the number of incidents involving them and their disproportionate numbers in the theatre this is simply not the case.
Yes I imply that very strongly and with good reason. I dont know where you get your opinion from, but its not from anyone wearing a uniform unless they are lying to you to keep their own spirits up. Yanks like to beat the drum about being the 'best in the world' and and all that, we dont. We dont need to.
Make yourself look like someone worth speaking the truth to, then go to a US soldier who has actually served alongside European soldiery, excepting the Spanish and Italians, and ask on the quiet what its really like.
The US soldier is well equipped trained and brave, but the US combat doctrine leaves a lot to be desired. This is normally a fault of people far higher up the chain. Besides even wirth the fething misery of political ciorrectness creeping into our military the quality is still there. There is a definate skill in taking fire without spamming fire back, peace keeping involves casualties without reply. the US hasnt learned that lesson lose a soldier to a sniper, the block the sniper is from gets smacked. sometimes you have to take the hit and deal with the priblem another way.
The idea that if you kill one of us we will flatten you is a leaf they have taken from Israel. In case you havent noticed Israeli militasry policing is not successful, things are as bad as ever no matter how many districts they reduce to rubble. Its a never ending cycle that can only end in total destruction. That is not the way forward.
Da Boss wrote:I don't think troops were the answer in Northern Ireland, and I think that's a lesson the british government learned to their credit. Political solution is working much better.
(Feel free to disagree of course)
I agree with almost everything you say Boss, particularly with regards to the whole "neutral" thing... whats that all about eh? For example, even though im not a man of faith i=I have always admired devout religious people over fence sitting fethers that just cant make their mind up! Pick a team is my motto, even if they arent mine!
Regards this though, i feel i must disagree. Im something of an expert (if i do say so myself) with regards to the complex troubled history of Ireland, simply because i was paid to learn about it for a great deal of time and then i did a lengthy tour of duty over in South Armagh, known as "Bandit Country" to the visiting British soldiers at the time!
Aside from all of the military based books i read on the matter, one of the better books i thought for learning about the troubles was a non military book, simply entitled "Ireland, a concise History" i found the book here... (mine is the 1985 edition)
Anyway, cut a long story short, The team behind the book are uniquely qualifed (i feel) and they summed up brilliantly at the end of the book, Marie O Brien is the daughter of Sean Mac Entee, veteran of the rising of 1916 and deputy prime minister in successive governments, and her husband has a long distinguished career in the Irish Foreign service. Excuse the wall of text im just copying it out of my book here.
"In general, after the dual ceasefire, as before it, the alternatives for the future of Northern Ireland remain stark and forbidding. There appear to be only two reasonable prognostications for Northern Ireland, one uninviting, the other terrifying.
The uninviting one is the indefinate continuation of direct rule from Britain against as much resistance on the part of the IRA as they can muster, quite wide support internally from a large section of the Catholic population and externally from Irish Americans, and some support although considerablly less, from the Republic.
The terrifying one, at least for Irish people, is the British disengagement, which is the primary objective of the IRA. It can be predicted with a probability amounting almost to certainty, hat British disengagement would lead to complete civil war in Northern Ireland. The process had already begun in August 1969, but now nothing would stop the spread of the blaze.The protestant majority would attempt to impose its own agenda through its own security forces, and the Catholic areas would of course resist. The casualties in a week would likely exceed the last 15 years of violence and large numbers of people both Catholic and Protestant would be rendered homeless, with a new border in place and a homogenous population, Catholic and Protestant on both sides.
Those which call on Britain to unite Ireland are basically asking for something that do not have the power to deliver. We do not believe that Britain will abandon Northern Ireland during the present century, and it is possible that a eventually a solution may present itself.
The point is mate, the British army HAD to be there to stop the two sides ripping each other apart. Im well aware that there was some complicity and some covert assistance given by some motivated parties to the prod side, but generally, the army was doing its best to remain as neutral as possible. Certainly the working class lads recruited to go over there for 6 months at a time, we had no interest in sectarianism or religion, we just went to do our jobs. And one of the things that sickened me was that of course, when i was one of the boots on the ground, you would protect Catholics from Prods and Prods from Catholics with equal vigor, but the pro IRA lot never seemed to understand it and they were happy to put a bullet in an Ignorant working class teenager from Liverpool as a result of it.
As usual the average fighting age (16-30) male involved in these type of things seem to know very little about what they are actually fighting for, they just replace knowledge with zeal and rage. And their parents gift them that.
Needless to say 90% of British servicemen would be just as disgusted by a baying mob throwing rocks at a Catholic school as a Protestant one. The whole Sectarian thing was irrelevant to the great many of us.
Of course, talks is the way forward, but when some nutter wants to burn a school down because it happens to be full of "Taigs" or "Fenian-Bastards" then you need to take some action!
I think the whole problem would have been better sorted if we just had American servicemen go and peace keep instead of the Brits that the IRA have such a hatred for, but then that might piss off the Prods and draw just as many accusations of collusion... maybe we should have asked the Belgians to go or something!?
Here is to hoping the peace process lasts... the cynic in me wonders if the brain washed bigots on both sides will ever be able to make it work.
Kanluwen, while I have many sympathies with your stance, some of it is a bit rich coming from our cousins across the sea.
Kanluwen wrote:
I've always thought of it as pretty black and white:
Mujahadeen?
Freedom fighters, even if being used as proxies in the Cold War.
Al-Qaeda?
Terrorists.
I never said the Mujahadeen were saints Shuma, but they were 'freedom fighters' in the sense of the term as it's used.
The real problem in making a distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is the ideology and the general tactics involved.
While freedom fighters do resort to the same general tactics as terrorists(insurgency strikes, etc) they tend to restrict them towards collaborators and the so-called enemies.
Terrorists target anyone and anything they can hit.
Both used/are using the same tactics. Al-Qaeda see anyone not resisting the occupying forces are collaborators and as such are legitimate targets. We should not label anyone over there as either Terrorists or Freedom Fighters because they are the same thing, just seen from different perspectives.
My opinion is that we had no right to go into Afghanistan, as the then titular gov't had done nothing to anyone outside their own country. History has shown that no 'alien' (and by that I mean originating from outside Afghanistan) force has ever controlled the area. We attacked an 'innocent' bystander who, while not being exacly angels, had no involvement in the conflict at hand.
Al-Qaeda may have had bases within their borders, but they had never commited illegal acts within them. There was no legal right for the Taliban to deport et-al to the USA. I seem to remember a similar situation with the IRA fund raisers in the States. The UK asked the American Gov't to stop them and we were politely told that as they had done nothing illegal, the American authorities would do nothing to stop or curb their activities, even though there was a direct link between the funds raised and the ability of the IRA to maintain operations (if not in the physical sense, certainly in the moral 'we have recognition from abroad' sense. To the Brits the IRA were terrorists, but to a significant proportion of the US they were freedom fighters against the British oppressors. So who's right?
Are you suggesting that the UK should then have invaded the states in order to stop the funding?
The local afghan populace is stuck in a hard place, on one side there are trigger happy forces on one side and fanatics on the other, and they can not see which one is better for them. When you have things like US civilian bodyguards indescriminately firing into a crowd and the US Gov't refusing to hand them over to Afghan courts, I can see why some people are preferring to stick with resistance forces.
Great post Mattym, I take your point completely.
You're dead right that troops were needed for the police action in the North, I wasn't thinking when I implied they weren't. What I meant, and should have been more careful to say, was that an "afganistan style" (like, overtly military) troop deployment wouldn't have worked. The troops that were there were there as police. I think the britiish army are fantastic at that sort of work, and have tonnes of respect for the poor sods who had to do the work you did up North. I also have to agree that total independance or direct british rule would kinda suck, and I'm happy that things are going a different route. Anyway, hope that made my POV clearer- my first post was a bit unclear and dumb.
There are differences between the old US/UK/Northern Ireland situation and the US/UK/Taliban/Al Qaeda situation.
1. The UK was able to deal with the USA through diplomacy. There was no effective diplomacy possible between USA and Taliban.
2. The US supporters of the IRA were private citizens. Al Quaeda were supported by the titular government.
The invasion could have been made to work properly if the border to Pakistan had been sealed off to prevent the Al Quaeda and Taliban setting up in the tribal North-West provinces.
As this was not done we now have the problem of stopping them from destabilising Pakistan. We can't really get out of Afghanistan or the Taliban/Al Quaeda will be able to escape the Pakistani authorities' counter-measures by moving back into Afghanistan.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are differences between the old US/UK/Northern Ireland situation and the US/UK/Taliban/Al Qaeda situation.
1. The UK was able to deal with the USA through diplomacy. There was no effective diplomacy possible between USA and Taliban.
2. The US supporters of the IRA were private citizens. Al Quaeda were supported by the titular government.
The invasion could have been made to work properly if the border to Pakistan had been sealed off to prevent the Al Quaeda and Taliban setting up in the tribal North-West provinces.
As this was not done we now have the problem of stopping them from destabilising Pakistan. We can't really get out of Afghanistan or the Taliban/Al Quaeda will be able to escape the Pakistani authorities' counter-measures by moving back into Afghanistan.
I concur but there was a third pressing point.
3. The US supporters of the IRA were private citizens in safety donating to a cause out of ignorance. Al Quaeda are supported by people with full support for the methodologies of terror.
Frankly what killed the IRA was 9/11, not just the support Bush gave us in return for our backing but mostly because all but a handful of extreme racists understood that day that there was nothing heroic about terrorism. The few remaining fanatics shut up out of peer pressure, much of it from within the Irish American community.
The IRA was defeated by a combination of our security forces and by bringing them to the negotiating table to conclude the Belfast Agreement in 1999.
The Eire government were also involved and were got to drop their constitutional clause calling for a united Ireland.
This effort simultaneously much reduced the chance of the IRA achieving their aims by force, and gave them a political stake in the governance of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps unexpectedly, extremist elements of the IRA have actually got stronger since 9/11, and the plethora of new anti-terrorism on the statute books seems to be having little effect, perhaps because it is used mainly to harass amateur photographers and people who are through to have sent their children to the wrong school.
Strange as it seems, The british goverment is more concerned about photographers.
Than thousands of illegal aliens from the same areas were fighting in. Most without any form of ID
halonachos wrote:Why can't we? A few tax deductions for domestic only businesses and a year for all factories, etc to relocate and hire new american employees, lower industrial tax to make it competitive and bada bing! Employment in america and economic turbulence in China.
Do you want to pay $40 for a t-shirt?
Some people already do, and some even pay $100 for made in china shoes as well.
The point would be that there would be no more international tax, no more shipping from nation to nation, etc. This will either balance out the loss of "cheap" labor that creates mostly inferior products(toyota, lead poisoning in foods/paint). These are all caused by the outsourcing to anonymous manufacturers who pump out a product that they are paid to pump out. The american company doesn't watch over them to much, but sells the product at a profit. Like I said though, removal of outsourcing and lowering of the industrial tax should has profound reactions in terms of quality and pricing.
Lowering the tax by 50% of what it is now increases profit of these companies and then allows the company to either hire more employees or lower the prices of their products. With an increase in american factories and the necessity of hiring employees and hiring people to watch said employees will be covered by the reduction of industrial tax. Furthermore, a tax deduction for companies that maintain factories only in the U.S will spur further want for a corporation to industrialize in the U.S along with foreign companies trying to get a taste of a lower industrial tax(wasn't canada once advertising the fact that their tax rates are lower than the U.S's?).
An increase in employment of factory workers also means more income for the areas these workers live in. A restaurant may cater to the workers and also have a profit as well as clothing stores that now see increased patronage. This means the demand will be up, but supply will also go up as more factories and companies spring up in areas around the country. Not only that, but company headquarters will be able to manage their product manufacturing closer to home than before.
There will be a price increase, but many more people will be able to afford it as they will have jobs. After all, a T-shirt may be only $7.00, but that's too much money if you don't have a job.
halonachos wrote:
Some people already do, and some even pay $100 for made in china shoes as well.
Luxury items are not a part of this conversation.
halonachos wrote:
The point would be that there would be no more international tax, no more shipping from nation to nation, etc. This will either balance out the loss of "cheap" labor that creates mostly inferior products(toyota, lead poisoning in foods/paint).
You're going to include Toyota, who does a ton of manufacturing in the US, in a conversation about poor product quality as the result of outsourcing? Not the best opening point.
In any case, the only reason outsourcing occurs is the presence of employment costs (including tariffs, shipping, etc.) which are lower than those in the United States. Simply cutting corporate income tax rates, which already affect the profits of domestic companies that outsource and foreign companies that operate domestically via a branch, will have no effect on the presence of manufacturing jobs in the US. The only way to affect the net cost of labor in the US is through reductions to employer side payroll taxes, and I doubt that even that would be sufficient to overcome the Chinese/Indian/Indonesian/etc. competitive advantage.
Then we could start getting into a conversation about tariffs, or the disproportionate taxation of foreign corporation (the WTO would frown on that), but those are separate issues.
Halonachos, when you look at an economic issue you can't just rely on common knowledge. You have to look at the actual facts of international trade.
The biggest misconception is that the US manufactures very little, and exports no manufactured goods. The truth is the US is the biggest manufacturer in the world, producing about $2.5 trillion in goods each year. It is able to do this because the US focuses on high skilled, capital intensive manufacture, leaving low skilled manufacture to unskilled, capital poor nations. This is why the US is able to generate about $45k per person each year, while China produces about $3k per person.
You might increase employment by getting your citizens into basic manufacture, but you'd be cutting average incomes by at least half. Meanwhile, the parts of the world that currently rely on US high end manufacture wouldn't be able to develop those processes themselves - it'd be disastrous for them, leaving the whole thing as an all around bad idea.
No, I know that the U.S manufactures a lot of the high end stuff. However, a lot of homeless people may not have the skills necessary to manufacture the high end products and may be geared more towards shoes.
At the point of toyota, where is their HQ? It's overseas, which leads to my point. A company with an HQ on one side of the ocean and the factories on the other side have difficulty meeting each other and communication gets lost.
Also, how would the average income be cut in half? 10% of the U.S is unemployed so removing that 10% unemployment is bound to raise the average per capita income. More tax revenue is made by the new employees.
As to the other nations, I don't really care too much yet. I think America should dig itself out of it's own hole first before thinking of others. I don't major in economics of any sort, but if the reigning theory (keynesian or something like that) leads to the current results, its not a very good theory and needs to be renovated.
halonachos wrote:No, I know that the U.S manufactures a lot of the high end stuff. However, a lot of homeless people may not have the skills necessary to manufacture the high end products and may be geared more towards shoes.
And? No really, do you have a point? Due to Federal minimum wage laws it will still cost a company more to hire that homeless person than it will to have some kid in India do it.
At the point of toyota, where is their HQ? It's overseas, which leads to my point. A company with an HQ on one side of the ocean and the factories on the other side have difficulty meeting each other and communication gets lost.
You're so far off base it's not even funny. You're not dealing with a quality issue here that was due to a break down in communications. Besides, in this day and age trying to claim you can't communicate with other members of a corporation with the resources of Toyota is... idiotic.
Also, how would the average income be cut in half? 10% of the U.S is unemployed so removing that 10% unemployment is bound to raise the average per capita income. More tax revenue is made by the new employees.
You cannot pay that 10% what you'd have to pay for them to be competitive. You simply can't. Unless you want to build subsidized welfare factories it won't work.
Tyyr wrote:You simply can't. Unless you want to build subsidized welfare factories it won't work.
Yep. Under the current tax system, employing that 10% at the average wage rate of equivalent workers in China would be a net tax loss via income tax credits. Even if that system were reworked to eliminate negative taxation we're still talking about people who are probably living in publicly funded housing, or homeless shelters.
At the point of toyota, where is their HQ? It's overseas, which leads to my point. A company with an HQ on one side of the ocean and the factories on the other side have difficulty meeting each other and communication gets lost.
You're so far off base it's not even funny. You're not dealing with a quality issue here that was due to a break down in communications. Besides, in this day and age trying to claim you can't communicate with other members of a corporation with the resources of Toyota is... idiotic.
Ever hear of a game called "telephone". Because we use technology we have a greater chance of messing things up while using the technology. Sony's online network was messed up simply due to the dates on the PS3 consoles being set incorrectly, result was hundreds of thousands being unable to play online during that time frame. I'm not saying that toyota is like a PS3, just that technology can mess up. So, no it's not idiotic.
As far as taxes goes, I don't know how tax credits work. I do believe that there is some way it can be worked out, it may be because people are too satisfied with the status quo to attempt to find a way. How has keynesian economics lasted for as long as it has without that many challengers? Again, not an economics major and I doubt wikipedia can help me with that.
halonachos wrote:
Ever hear of a game called "telephone". Because we use technology we have a greater chance of messing things up while using the technology. Sony's online network was messed up simply due to the dates on the PS3 consoles being set incorrectly, result was hundreds of thousands being unable to play online during that time frame. I'm not saying that toyota is like a PS3, just that technology can mess up. So, no it's not idiotic.
So can verbal interaction. What does the word 'locution' mean?
halonachos wrote:
As far as taxes goes, I don't know how tax credits work. I do believe that there is some way it can be worked out, it may be because people are too satisfied with the status quo to attempt to find a way. How has keynesian economics lasted for as long as it has without that many challengers? Again, not an economics major and I doubt wikipedia can help me with that.
Keynesian economics has several challengers. Read up, then you'll learn.
halonachos wrote:
Ever hear of a game called "telephone". Because we use technology we have a greater chance of messing things up while using the technology. Sony's online network was messed up simply due to the dates on the PS3 consoles being set incorrectly, result was hundreds of thousands being unable to play online during that time frame. I'm not saying that toyota is like a PS3, just that technology can mess up. So, no it's not idiotic.
So can verbal interaction. What does the word 'locution' mean?
halonachos wrote:
As far as taxes goes, I don't know how tax credits work. I do believe that there is some way it can be worked out, it may be because people are too satisfied with the status quo to attempt to find a way. How has keynesian economics lasted for as long as it has without that many challengers? Again, not an economics major and I doubt wikipedia can help me with that.
Keynesian economics has several challengers. Read up, then you'll learn.
Point goes that difference in location of HQ and factories can lead to quality control issues. I think its mainly because HQ is less likely to send someone out to check on a factory every single day. Sure there's a factory manager and department managers, etc... but one may lie to the other to look good or goof with results to look good.
As far as reading goes, I'm too busy with learning about how things fall and how we make and name chemicals. Biochem FTW! Will have to pick it up someday when I'm richer and have more money to worry about.
halonachos wrote:
Point goes that difference in location of HQ and factories can lead to quality control issues. I think its mainly because HQ is less likely to send someone out to check on a factory every single day. Sure there's a factory manager and department managers, etc... but one may lie to the other to look good or goof with results to look good.
Point goes that you're searching for a way to inviolate the US. Not smart. Your own critique should apply evenly across all corporations, domestically focused and otherwise.
Also, telecommunications are awesome. Learn to use them.
halonachos wrote:
As far as reading goes, I'm too busy with learning about how things fall and how we make and name chemicals. Biochem FTW! Will have to pick it up someday when I'm richer and have more money to worry about.
AndrewC wrote:To the Brits the IRA were terrorists, but to a significant proportion of the US they were freedom fighters against the British oppressors. So who's right?
Thats easy to answer. a minority fighting against a democracy qwith a majority mandate is a terrorist, even if he has friends in America or anywhere else.
Northern Ireland is part of a democracy. Even Sein Fein admitted that at times, by the back door. In the 70's their main slogan was victory 'by the ballot box and the armalite'. So they admit they have access to ballot boxes, this measn they are in a democracy. When the Republic of Ireland was established six counties of the province of Ulster with a heavy protestant majority were allowed to remain part of crown territories by treaty. The population of Northern Ireland has always been majority pro loyalist. The political administration of Northern Ireland by the Uk is accepted in the UN the EU and is de facto legal worldwide. Any excuse the IRA had disappeared in 1922, to be fair so did the IRA, the IRA we know and love is in fact the Provisional IRA, and since peace with them was established in the 90's we now have the Continuity IRA. Which is a very small group indeed.
Most IRA supporters in the US were and are pig ignorant. Some even didn't know there was a Republic of Ireland. I remember a American talk show host who listened to a five minute briefing for the sake of the radio audience from a political commentator and interrupted to ask that question: Was the republic of Ireland trying to cecede from the Union? No it wasnt a slip of the tongue either.
Up to a point this is our fault in that nothing is done to counter propaganda from plastic paddies. I remember comments in the New York Times about the one extreme sidedness of the state's school education textbooks on Irish history. if you read those books at school you could fairly consider our people as little better than the Nazis and some wanted to give exactly that impression, and resisted all attempts to inject a balance into the curriculum. This plus half baked pro-terrorist or anti-English Hollywood productions, not all about Ireland directly - Braveheart is the most damaging, it has led to a lot of racism and is not in any real way accurate beyond the character and place names.
9/11 was the best thing that happened to Britain in the last decade sorry to say. Once Americans worked out that terrorism wasn't heroic support for the IRA dropped to nothing. after the 1997 peace IRA elements were still bombing, just not bombing soldiers. Some of the worst atrocities occured afterwards, but since 2001 they have been quiet and Adams and McGuiness no longer get the parades they once did. They are no better than bin Laden and may indeed by a whole lot worse, some of the IRA tortures were really really nasty, and they had no qualms about using them on any opponent, even dissidents in the catholci community. If Bin laden surfaced somewhere and was paraded on the Islamic equivalent of St Patrick's day you would be quite upset yes.
I must admit that during all this time some pro-loyalist groups also committed atrocities of their own, they are as much a threat to peace as the IRA and no less cruel. In fact many security operations were directed against loyalist terror groups, and we lost soldiers and policemen to them.
I'm surprised this wasn't spotted before, surely the numbers of boots on the ground in Afghanistan tells you something bleedingly obvious?
British society's getting weirdly weak, I find, when we're faced with a problem that needs resolving with force. I'm not sure if it's a side-effect of liberalism, but if something's worth fighting for - having a safer country, society, governmental model - death is required. Sacrifices made by men/women who know and understand that their job entails risk of injury and death, which they accept but much of the public does not. That's why we can't be fethed to help out.
@Orlanth - You are exactly right, couldn't have summed up the Northern Ireland situation better myself. It's about time the American public understood the truth about what happened over there in NI and why. I actually saw some moron post 'fething brits - get outta Ireland!!!1!!!' on a youtube video the other day! I found it hilarious, but also quite depressing at the same time.
dogma wrote:Keynesian economics has several challengers. Read up, then you'll learn.
As far as reading goes, I'm too busy with learning about how things fall and how we make and name chemicals. Biochem FTW! Will have to pick it up someday when I'm richer and have more money to worry about.
Kids these days! No time to learn about economics unless it's on The American Idols, or part of your Hippy Hoppy music videos!
Is the ADM Stradivarius who is in charge of NATO the same guy that wrote the Division Officer and Watch Stander's guides? I thought those (and consequently him) were much older, since they are in like, their 13th editions.
halonachos wrote:
As far as reading goes, I'm too busy with learning about how things fall and how we make and name chemicals. Biochem FTW! Will have to pick it up someday when I'm richer and have more money to worry about.
So, high school?
I wish.
I'm not dead yet, but most certainly steril thanks to o-chem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Wait a moment...
Braveheart wasnt accurate?
Surely you jest Orlanth. I mean, William Wallace was of course fluent in three languages and was shagging the French nobility..... right?
Every country and nation has its heros and enemies. To some, spartacus was a hero, to the romans he was a nuisance. Same as Wallace, Boudicca, Washington, Khan, Colombus, etc. However, once Hollywood gets it's hands on them, they can shag just about anyone they feel like.
OT though, the problem is with the casualty reports. If the D-Day casualties were reported, most of Europe and maybe america would be speaking German. People don't like it when the "big bad government" sends their fellow countrymen out to fight and maybe die just like people who support the death penalty may not be as willing to perform the actual execution itself.
Also, just going to put this out there, but being a Gladiator didn't always mean you were a slave. Sure, for the most part that was the case, but children in the Empire back then would often look at becoming a galdiator in the same way we do at running off and joining the circus. I'm not going to claim a vast knowledge about how the Games worked in depth, but in some parts Gladiators were held in very high esteem. (Even if still only seen as commodities)
Emperors Faithful wrote:Doesn't mean he wasn't roman.
I replied to a question too vague to have an objectively correct yes or no answer in regards to Spartacus ("was he Roman?") with a clarification ("he was a slave of the Romans").
Emperors Faithful wrote:I was under the impression that Spartucus was Roman?
There's been some historical debate over whether his fathers name was Naughtius Maximus, or Sillius Soddus. Some modern revisionists have pointed to another centurion called Biggus Dickus, but to date, there's little evidence to support this viewpoint.
Boudica exhorted her troops from her chariot, her daughters beside her. Tacitus gives her a short speech in which she presents herself not as an aristocrat avenging her lost wealth, but as an ordinary person, avenging her lost freedom, her battered body, and the abused chastity of her daughters. Their cause was just, and the deities were on their side; the one legion that had dared to face them had been destroyed. She, a woman, was resolved to win or die; if the men wanted to live in slavery, that was their choice.
off the locals.
, refreshingly unbiased when compared to the trash that spins out of the CNN and other media outlets.
