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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

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.

bsohi wrote:

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.

NATO has quite a few other functions.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

How is my statement wrong? How, in any way, is NATO responsible to attack the allies of the agressor? It makes no sense.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

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.

Which...you 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.

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.

Personally, I think China should step up its involvement militarily instead of just grabbing land.(Ie, buying rights to use the land for oil).

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.

Kanluwen wrote:
The Taliban's leftovers have, for the most part, folded into Al-Qaeda.

Debatable. Very different goals, and theological beliefs.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Anyway, the point is moot if they are not even obligated to provide military aid at all according to the NATO agreement.

Yep.

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.

They won't help.

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.

Why would they?

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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.

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!".

I could only hope.

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?

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'.

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').

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?

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".

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.

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.

We can't do that.

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.

Well, I guess so.