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.

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

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?

Flashman wrote:

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.

Maybe you should reply to anything i wrote? Stop making stuff up.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Flashman wrote:

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.

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

1) Al-Qaeda =/= Afghanistan
2) Al-Qaeda =/= Taliban

Therefore:

NATO =/= require an attack on Afghanistan.

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.

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....

Not hypocrisy, diplomatic self-interest.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Al-Qaeda =/= Afghanistan
2) Al-Qaeda =/= Taliban

Therefore:

NATO =/= require an attack on Afghanistan.

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.

dogma raises a valid point to answer that.

"Deems Necessary"

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.

dogma wrote:
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.

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Al-Qaeda =/= Afghanistan
2) Al-Qaeda =/= Taliban

Therefore:

NATO =/= require an attack on Afghanistan.

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.

dogma wrote:

But the NATO treaty does not require any action at all, therefore the criticism is moot.

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.

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.

bsohi wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

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.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

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.

Bla_Ze wrote:

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?

Oh. Terrorizing the populations.

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.

You're just being ignorant. If you are not going to respond to the content in my posts don't answer at all.

Bla_Ze wrote:You're just being ignorant. If you are not going to respond to the content in my posts don't answer at all.

You haven't responded to every point or person directed at you either.

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.

Sorry Dogma?

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.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:Sorry Dogma?

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.