NATO In Afganistan . . .

[CaptnKirk]

Replace US Troops by 2006

Now here's a step in the right direction. If it is really stable enough, NATO can take on the security role there next year.
That will free up 17,000+ US troops, and allow them to return to CONUS, or be assigned to units that need their skills.

Now if only Commander Beligerent and his crew of hacks will get the political situation stabilized in Iraq - and let NATO work there too.
Iraqi's would most likely be more co-operative and tollerant of a multi-national force under NATO control
than the imperialistic appearing presence that we are keeping there.
. . . and it's just in time for the 2006 mid-term election cycle.

 

[Genx87]

2 weeks ago the left was complaining we should have sent 160,000 troops into afghanistan. Now NATO may take over and it is considered good?

btw the US has asked NATO nations for help in Iraq. We got a few military trainers and some guns. I dont think NATO will be conducting combat patrols in Iraq ever.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Genx87
2 weeks ago the left was complaining we should have sent 160,000 troops into afghanistan. Now NATO may take over and it is considered good?

btw the US has asked NATO nations for help in Iraq. We got a few military trainers and some guns. I dont think NATO will be conducting combat patrols in Iraq ever.

Once again you don't have a clue about what's going on.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Genx87
2 weeks ago the left was complaining we should have sent 160,000 troops into afghanistan. Now NATO may take over and it is considered good?

btw the US has asked NATO nations for help in Iraq. We got a few military trainers and some guns. I dont think NATO will be conducting combat patrols in Iraq ever.

Once again you don't have a clue about what's going on.

Well at least that is settled

 

[2Xtreme21]

Genx just likes seeing US citizens being killed for pointless operations.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Genx just likes seeing US citizens being killed for pointless operations.

Afghanistan is a pointless operation?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Genx just likes seeing US citizens being killed for pointless operations.

Afghanistan is a pointless operation?

Your post referred to Iraq.

 

[jpeyton]

Freeing them up for Invasion: Iran.

Or is it Operation Iranian Liberation?

Anyways, we're going to need those boys in Iraq first. Losing 7 men per day in Iraq isn't easy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Genx just likes seeing US citizens being killed for pointless operations.

Afghanistan is a pointless operation?

Your post referred to Iraq.

Isn't a New World Order and Global American Capitalism a point?

 

[halik]

good,
i've been saying to do that in IRAQ for the past 2 years.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: halik
good,
i've been saying to do that in IRAQ for the past 2 years.

You have ignored Pottery Barn Rule #1. Subparagraph C. It states that allies that are not approving of an invasion will not be enlisted at a later date.

This rule and subparagraph do not apply to Afghanistan. France, Germany, Quebec, I mean Canada, Spain and other longterm allies were unhesitating in standing with, by and behind the US there.

When Bolton gets his feet wet at the UN, the Coalition as it is called in Iraq, will shrink, not grow. It's all part of the plan, you see. Von Schlieffen could not have planned it worse or executed it better.

 

[CaptnKirk]

General clarification of UN & NATO for the bennefit of Genx87:

Exhibit A - NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Exhibit B - UN, United Nations

Different Organizations, each with different charters.

However, they are begining to each look like twins, joined at the lips - each making the other more dysfunctional

NATO somehow falls under UN authority, but more acting as a standing Army that the UN itself does not have.

Perhaps Klixxer can shed some light on this - if he's still around, he's an officer in the NATO forces, and has served in both Kosovo & Afganistan.
Any help ? Anyone ?

 

[chcarnage]

Well, the USA is the biggest member of the currently most present ISAF as well as of the NATO so I don't think they will redraw more than half of its Afghanistan troops... Not to be overly pessimistic, but there is an election to defend, drug production and smuggling to stop and a big area to secure (Kabul alone won't be enough), everything in the next few months!

The member states of NATO usually follow the Charter of the UNO. By the letter of the law (UNO-contracts) the NATO attack on Former Yugoslavia was illegal because the UN Security Council didn't approve it. From an ethic/humanitarian viewpoint most agree it was justifiable. The interpretation of this intervention varies, though. Some see it as one-time exception, others fear erosion of the Charter significance.

But there is no fusion happening. The Security Council gave military mandates to other organizations than NATO. The UNO even have "own" military forces (the Blue Helmets) but they fight against some drawbacks like logistic problems and reaction time.

NATO has not made any attacks without UN mandate since then (well, some of the NATO member states have...) The UN remain the only playfield for written international war laws and the best source for the legitimacy to go to war. However, with members like Russia and China in the Security Council, in extreme cases military actions without formal UN support could make sense in the future, too...

Err, what was the question, again?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Perhaps Klixxer can shed some light on this - if he's still around, he's an officer in the NATO forces, and has served in both Kosovo & Afganistan.
Any help ? Anyone ?

Ask Starbuck1975, I seem to remember him stating he served in Kosovo.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Genx just likes seeing US citizens being killed for pointless operations.

Afghanistan is a pointless operation?

Your post referred to Iraq.

Isn't a New World Order and Global American Capitalism a point?

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. It is undeniable that what you have mentioned is part of the agenda. Whether the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are aware of it or not, they are certainly doing the bidding of those who have planned and pushed this ideology relentlessly for some time now. They may be few, but they are there, no question about it.

Part of the Iraq war was about showing who's master. I think the point has been made abundantly clear now. And I think that this step was important for the success of any future unilateral action.

The debility of the United Nations and the militaristic superiority of one particular nation has been highlighted by the Iraq war. It has also sent the message across to much of the industrialized world that it is better to be a player (however reluctant) in this "war on terror" than to be a spectator, much less an opponent.