NATO allies offer limp response to U.S. Afghan call

NATO allies offer limp response to U.S. Afghan call

uk.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ok so now we will separate the BS from reality I'm wondering who will also chip in? It seems that the US and a few of our closer allies will have to go it alone again.

They know this has to be done but no let's let the US do it. Seems to be the attitude. I just don’t want to hear it from anybody a few months or years later when they start calling us war mongers and there was no need to invade blah blah blah yadda yadda
The fact is that we are going in whether we get more NATO support or not.


uk.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Whats the point of having the NRF available and never use it?

This is actually something I agree with Obama on.

We need those troops in Afghanistan, and we need them there now.

Rest assured as well though that other countries will be wagging their fingers saying "shame on you" later on.

At least Obama is showing a little bit of guts here.

reply to post by nyk537

---

You'll like this then here is another NATO responce

NATO: Pakistan is part of solution to terrorism

NATO is impotent and useless, much like the United Nations.

They're turning a blind eye to what's going on.

reply to post by nyk537

---

Yeah Islamic law! Yeah right it gives the Taliban a safe haven from which they can regroup gather more soldiers and find a place for a respite to continue fighting in the east Afghanistan.

You know they will say things like the US has acted unilaterally

I just love this part here.

What you people expect, as US is losing his standing due to his economic crisis and inability to support itself without the need of borrowing money from allies, so the power of the US is brushed aside in favor of what nations seems more convenient to them.

Been the biggest borrower in the world comes with attachments, US no longer can impose policies like it used to to before when other nations were more Dependant on us.

Sad but truth, in the future we will be a follower rather than a leader.

At least we still have a mighty Army, but for how long.

reply to post by marg6043

---

That's not the point. The point is that NATO is refusing to fight the war on terror. Essentially now they're giving up against terrorism...

reply to post by Frankidealist35

---

There will be peace in our time!

reply to post by marg6043

---

This is why I'm hoping the UK never fully gives in to the EU, cos they never do squat.. they sit there and go lets look at both sides while the Americans do everything. (Most of the time it is you guys leading the front)

Your goverment might get a lot of stick from around the world for its involvement in foreign affairs but THANK GOD someone does something. Most of the european countries sit back and do sod all.

I hope the UK are going to send some troops over, not because you guys need the back-up, but to show the rest of Europe that unlike them we've got a backbone and we will follow through doing the right thing.

Afghanistan is teetering on the edge of NATO’s remit so invoking the treaty and the NRF is scraping the bottle of the barrel and imho somewhat undermining the whole purpose of NATO.

However having said that those nations that are involved did so of their own free will and must shoulder part of the burden. But more so this means relaxing rules of engagement as well as deploying more troops, it’s no good sending 3000 extra troops if they’re going to spend most of their time in base.

In the end though I think Afghanistan has become folly. The whole purpose of the war, removing Al Qaeda, is never going to be achieved in a practical sense. They may leave the country but they have clearly just moved their operation to Pakistan; if Pakistan kicks them out they’ll find some other lawless countryside, and there’s plenty of them, to base themselves. Al Qaeda is too fluid and too amorphous to be pinned down and eradicated; with hindsight it would in my opinion have been better to allow a militarily primitive country (Afghanistan) host the group allowing for easier monitoring and if needed military strikes against key targets.

edit -



You're welcome to volunteer. But right now the UK is operating well beyond its limits; sending more troops would cause untold damage and that is unacceptable without significantly more investment from government.


[edit on 19-2-2009 by Mike_A]

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Mike_A]

Sorry to burst the bubble again Frankidealist35, But the War on Terror was Bush endeavor and right now he is not the president anymore we all know the reason he did that to be able to invade Iraq.

See the rest of the world remember how Bush got into Afghanistan claiming the rights to defend itself for the 9/11 and retaliated.

But then it left Afghanistan on its own with minimum care to go after is price Iraq.

Now Obama has to convince the rest of the allies nations that Bush was wrong and the he never should have forgotten Afghanistan for Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Whoa, memory becomes shady after a while.

reply to post by Frankidealist35

---

Please don't expect the Continental European members of NATO to help out. They are shorty of memory when it comes to remembering who saved their asses from the Nazis and the Soviets. I always wonder why the Brits and Yanks bothered saving them from themselves.

reply to post by ItsallCrazy

---

And to tell you the truth that will be the only country right now that will help the Obama administration bring some control to afghanistan after Bush forgot them for Iraq.

reply to post by marg6043

---

No, my memory hasn't been shady. The mission was to fight against the war on terror. Bush went into Iraq illegally, people complained, now we're asking for their help legally, and they're still turning us down. NATO people are hypocrites for not helping.

like I said before probably our friends in the UK will be the ones lending a helping hand.

But I don't see anybody else doing much.

Mute response to US Nato troop call



Why doesn't the French response surprise me

[edit on 19-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

European Nato members have pledged troops that number in the hundreds, not thousands [AFP]