Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 47
1
<< 44  45  46   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   


But nope, Europe's idea of "help" is to just send some $$$, but put the brunt of the work on the U.S. military.

Agree with him or not he is 100% correct.

Look at Afghanistan, UN peacekeeping, Iraq, etc time and again the vast majority of the troops are Americans. The French Army currently numbers about 134,000 yet less then 1,000 are in Afghanistan and half of those are probably cops with rifles.

Check out some of the other contributions to the ISAF; 30 guys from this country, 100 from that country and so forth. If your only going to send us 30 guys then dont bother at all.




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Agree with him or not he is 100% correct.

Look at Afghanistan, UN peacekeeping, Iraq, etc time and again the vast majority of the troops are Americans. The French Army currently numbers about 134,000 yet less then 1,000 are in Afghanistan and half of those are probably cops with rifles.

Check out some of the other contributions to the ISAF; 30 guys from this country, 100 from that country and so forth. If your only going to send us 30 guys then dont bother at all.

Funny last time I checked the UK was the 2nd largest member of the coalition of winning...
Guess some americans dont know thier geography afterall....



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

This list was taken from the ISAF website home page where it states that the above countries contribute some 30,000 troops.

It must be remembered by our American friends, that not all countries have an economy like America and neither do they have such military might.

It must also be said yet again, that many of the countries above have sent non-combatants because their individual laws or constitutions prevent them from taking military action on foreign soil.

How many times do we have to explain that?

It is about time that our friends from across the Big Pond stop whinging and remember that if they had not have gone back on their word to the Northern Alliance, there would not be this mess in Afghanistan now, and they would be able to back up us Brits in Helmand Province instead of chasing the mythical Al Qaeda nuclear bomb which does not exist - yet!



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

This list was taken from the ISAF website home page where it states that the above countries contribute some 30,000 troops.

It must be remembered by our American friends, that not all countries have an economy like America and neither do they have such military might.

It must also be said yet again, that many of the countries above have sent non-combatants because their individual laws or constitutions prevent them from taking military action on foreign soil.

How many times do we have to explain that?

It is about time that our friends from across the Big Pond stop whinging and remember that if they had not have gone back on their word to the Northern Alliance, there would not be this mess in Afghanistan now, and they would be able to back up us Brits in Helmand Province instead of chasing the mythical Al Qaeda nuclear bomb which does not exist - yet!

Fritz, I have nothing but respect for the British military, I truly think that in some respects HM armed forces are the best in the world and you Brits should be proud of that and is a reason for you folks to be opposed to all these budget cutbacks. I was in total shock when I learned that the MOD wanted to get rid of the world famous Black Watch and cut Royal Navy in half. I only hope those ideas have been rejected.

Ever since I saw the movie "Zulu" a little over 10 years ago now which basically fascinated me with the British Army and its traditions and history I have just been in awe of their professionalism, courage and discipline in places like Iraq, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Aden, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Malaya, etc. The fact that there has only been a handful of incidents of unjust force in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years says alot about the quality of the British soldier. We Americans highly admire (and some of us are outright jealous) of the professionalism and discipline of them.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231


But nope, Europe's idea of "help" is to just send some $$$, but put the brunt of the work on the U.S. military.

Agree with him or not he is 100% correct.


His statement is 100% bollocks, and he was rightfully picked apart for it.


Look at Afghanistan, ...


Germany 3000 (once the largest contributor), Italy 2000, Netherlands 2200 etc...


...UN peacekeeping,


The big 5 EU nations all contribute more personnel to Peace keeping operations than the Americans - even Austria! Source


Iraq,...


Iraq is a private hobby of USA and friends. It has no significance in this discussion.


etc time and again the vast majority of the troops are Americans. The French Army currently numbers about 134,000 yet less then 1,000 are in Afghanistan and half of those are probably cops with rifles.


And? France didn´t send half their military to Afghanistan, so what? France has 38.000 troops deployed abroad, 14.000 of them in peace keeping operations, in countries the US military has never even heard of. They do enough.


Check out some of the other contributions to the ISAF; 30 guys from this country, 100 from that country and so forth. If your only going to send us 30 guys then dont bother at all.


Meaningless numbers. 100 engineers sent by country A may be worth more for stability than 1000 infantrymen from country B. When you cross-check the actual troop deployments with the overall population of said country or its overall military personnel, you will find that some nations do contribute significantly more of their resources to Afghanistan than the USA.

Not that it matters though, all the nations do their part, none is really "better" than the other. But somehow its always the American members making these dumbfounded accusations.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by ChrisF231


But nope, Europe's idea of "help" is to just send some $$$, but put the brunt of the work on the U.S. military.

Agree with him or not he is 100% correct.


His statement is 100% bollocks, and he was rightfully picked apart for it.


Look at Afghanistan, ...


Germany 3000 (once the largest contributor), Italy 2000, Netherlands 2200 etc...


...UN peacekeeping,


The big 5 EU nations all contribute more personnel to Peace keeping operations than the Americans - even Austria! Source


Iraq,...


Iraq is a private hobby of USA and friends. It has no significance in this discussion.


etc time and again the vast majority of the troops are Americans. The French Army currently numbers about 134,000 yet less then 1,000 are in Afghanistan and half of those are probably cops with rifles.


And? France didn´t send half their military to Afghanistan, so what? France has 38.000 troops deployed abroad, 14.000 of them in peace keeping operations, in countries the US military has never even heard of. They do enough.


Check out some of the other contributions to the ISAF; 30 guys from this country, 100 from that country and so forth. If your only going to send us 30 guys then dont bother at all.


Meaningless numbers. 100 engineers sent by country A may be worth more for stability than 1000 infantrymen from country B. When you cross-check the actual troop deployments with the overall population of said country or its overall military personnel, you will find that some nations do contribute significantly more of their resources to Afghanistan than the USA.

Not that it matters though, all the nations do their part, none is really "better" than the other. But somehow its always the American members making these dumbfounded accusations.

What good are those engineers to build roads or schools if the Taliban can still come down from their mountain hideouts and blow it up? Yes yes I know they can fight as infantry if needed but I think you can see what im trying to say.

Until we eliminate or severely damage the Taliban and their allies we will not b e able to stabilize Afghanistan. Same thing for Iraq and the insurgents and their allies.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
What good are those engineers to build roads or schools if the Taliban can still come down from their mountain hideouts and blow it up? Yes yes I know they can fight as infantry if needed but I think you can see what im trying to say.

Until we eliminate or severely damage the Taliban and their allies we will not b e able to stabilize Afghanistan. Same thing for Iraq and the insurgents and their allies.

And what use are those infantrymen once the fighting is over? You need engineers to rebuild what YOU destroy, you need to win hearts and minds before you win the war. Thought you had learned that from vietnam....



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ChrisF231
What good are those engineers to build roads or schools if the Taliban can still come down from their mountain hideouts and blow it up? Yes yes I know they can fight as infantry if needed but I think you can see what im trying to say.

Until we eliminate or severely damage the Taliban and their allies we will not b e able to stabilize Afghanistan. Same thing for Iraq and the insurgents and their allies.

And what use are those infantrymen once the fighting is over? You need engineers to rebuild what YOU destroy, you need to win hearts and minds before you win the war. Thought you had learned that from vietnam....

The problem with wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc is that they cannot be solved by brute force alone.

What we need is a paramilitary constabulary force that is more heavily armed then the average US cop but not as militaristic as the US Army. Such forces are invaluable in guerrilla wars and the like. Sadly the DOD has rejected all recommendations for such a force. This constabulary would also be alot more effective in securing our border with Mexico then the current US Border Patrol.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
ChrisF231, on behalf of fellow Brits, may I thank you for your outspoken generosity and praise for our small but very efficient armed forces.

Incidentally ChrisF231, you do realise, that the film Zulu and Zulu Dawn were filmed out of sequence?

The Battle of Isandlwana (Zulu Dawn) occurred on 22nd January 1879, 10 miles east of the Tugela River in Zululand, South Africa.

It was here that 5 companies of the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot, 1 company of the 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot, 2 guns and 70 men of N Battery, 5th Brigade, Royal Artillery (2 x 7 pounder guns) together with 2 companies of the Natal Native Infantry and Mounted volunteers and Natal Police faced a Zulu Impi of approximately 12,000 young warriors. The Zulus won and we didn't.

The outcome of the battle shocked the world. What was so disturbing, was the fact that the professional British infantryman with his modern rifle - a single shot, breech loading Martini-Henry and good old bayonet, was defeated by a native army armed with little more than short stabbing spears.

The Battle of Isandlwana was the backdrop to the film Zulu and I say this, for it was the Zulu Reserve at Isandlwana that attacked the missionary post at Rorke's Drift, because they had not been involved in the main event and they wanted some honour.

139 men of 'B' Coy, 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot, Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery, the Army Service Corps, the Commissariat (QM) and Medical Corps also took part in the action.

Unlike the Holywood version of the film, the Battle of Rorke’s Drift (proper) commenced at 16:20 hours, when shots were fired at about 500 Zulu warriors running towards the South Wall. The battle ended at 07:00 hours the following morning when the main Zulu Impi appeared on the hill overlooking Rorke's Drift.

There is much speculation as to why the Zulus left the area, but one could suppose that their scouts had (probably) seen the approach of Lord Chelmsford’s relief column.

One thing you may not be aware of ChrisF231, is that whilst Hollywood depicted Private Henry (Harry) Hook as a malingerer, trouble maker who was prone to drinking, nothing could have been further from the truth.

He was born at Churcham in Gloucestershire in 1850, was believed to be a land owner in the Forest of Dean (unsubstansiated) and joined the army aged 25 or 26. Although he bought himself out of the army after Rorke's Drift, he re-enlisted in the 1st Battalion, (VF) Royal Fusiliers and completed over 20 years service.

Despite repeated requests by his family, Hollywood has never apologised for the portrayal of this brave soldier.

The following link shows his account of the battle:

www.rorkesdriftvc.com/vc/hook_account.htm


[edit on 4-7-2007 by fritz]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I am aware of the many inaccurate parts of Zulu. Ex. the uniforms, the omission of many key characters and the downplaying of others (such as Commissariat Dalton being depicted as a coward when in reality he was the big hero of the battle). Sgt. Major Bourne was really a young man instead of the stereotypical career senior NCO he is depicted as. And also in many scenes it is clear they are using bolt action rifles instead of the lever action Martini-Henry (look at the guys in the background of the final charge against the redoubt)! I believe Zulu is rated among the best war movies ever made (I think its 7th of the top 10) and not to mention based on one of the most inspiring stories I have ever heard. They just dont make movies today like they used to ...

I have only seen Zulu Dawn on TV here in the US once (and even then I did not get to see the whole thing) and the most memorable part was Burt Lancaster as lt. Col. Durnford and his last stand on the wagon as the right horn swarmed into the camp. That and the fact that I recall thinking that the uniforms used in the movie were more like the 1879 campaign uniforms then in Zulu but cheap and poorly made.

Would you happen to know if both movies are available on DVD?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
The DVD may be purchased from:


www.britmovie.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231

Look at Afghanistan, UN peacekeeping, Iraq, etc time and again the vast majority of the troops are Americans. The French Army currently numbers about 134,000 yet less then 1,000 are in Afghanistan and half of those are probably cops with rifles.

Check out some of the other contributions to the ISAF; 30 guys from this country, 100 from that country and so forth. If your only going to send us 30 guys then dont bother at all.


Hate to burst your bubble chap, but since Somalia when you guys lost a few blokes to some drugged up militia men, the USA does not send ANY personnel into harms way for the UN.

You take a few casualties, so you pack up all your toys and refuse to play any more. Don't preach about how helpful the US is to the world when they shy away from any UN deployment (whilst, i might add blocking UNSC resolutions which would allow others to go in as well)





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 44  45  46   >>

log in

join