Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is exactly why I want to move to Norway.

"BLAME CANADA LOLOLOLOLOLOL."

Canada and Norway are quite similar in a lot of ways actually.

They speak better English in Norway of course.

On the subject of people pulling their weight, perhaps Obama would be so kind to show a little fething support for our current Falklands situation?

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.

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

Flashman wrote:

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.

Neither do the Argentinians, but they won't shut up about it!

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.

@Kill

I know this it's also partly the reason I wana go there that and there is a nice metal and gaming scene there.

Tauzor wrote:

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.

Tauzor wrote:

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.

Bla_Ze wrote: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.

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.

Its irrelevant. Support the treaty or leave the alliance.

Canada FTL!

bsohi wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote: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.

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.

(Feel free to disagree of course)