NATO allies offer limp response to U.S. Afghan call, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times
Topic started on 19-2-2009 @ 10:24 AM by SLAYER69

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


uk.reuters.com
By David Brunnstrom and David Morgan

KRAKOW, Poland (Reuters) - The United States called on its NATO allies Thursday to provide more forces to provide security for Afghanistan's presidential election in August, but had only a limited response.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would not seek a specific number of additional NATO troops from a meeting of NATO defense ministers in the Polish city of Krakow.

But he said Washington would like to see a short-term deployment of troops to Afghanistan from the alliance's rapid response force, the NRF, which has never been utilized.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 10:36 AM by SLAYER69
reply to post by nyk537



You'll like this then here is another NATO responce

NATO: Pakistan is part of solution to terrorism

KRAKOW, Poland: NATO officials say they are confident Pakistan's government remains a dedicated partner in the fight against terrorism despite a decision to impose Islamic law in a strategic northwestern territory.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said at an informal meeting of the organization's defense ministers that Pakistan is "part of the solution." NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the organization believes Islamabad has the "firm intention" to tackle extremism.




reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 10:41 AM by SLAYER69
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


reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 10:52 AM by Frankidealist35
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 posted on 19-2-2009 @ 10:56 AM by ItsallCrazy
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.


reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 10:58 AM by Mike_A
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 -

Originally posted by ItsallCrazy
I hope the UK are going to send some troops over


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]


reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 11:01 AM by ufoorbhunter
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 posted on 19-2-2009 @ 11:02 AM by marg6043
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 posted on 19-2-2009 @ 11:05 AM by Frankidealist35
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.


reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 11:34 AM by SLAYER69
Mute response to US Nato troop call

France said it had no plans to send additional forces. 'Little to contribute' The UK, which has the second largest force in Afghanistan, said it had made no decision on whether to send more troops.


Why doesn't the French response surprise me

[edit on 19-2-2009 by SLAYER69]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags