It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

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)




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Whats the point of having the NRF available and never use it?



U.S. President Barack Obama authorized 17,000 more U.S. troops for Afghanistan this week, taking the U.S. contingent to around 55,000, in addition to the 30,000 from 40 other mostly NATO countries already operating in Afghanistan.

Some European allies have announced plans to send more troops, but these numbered in the hundreds, not thousands, and Germany said the NRF should not be used for Afghan duty.

"The NRF should not be used as a reserve," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters in Krakow. "The NRF has fundamentally different tasks."





posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
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.




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
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.




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
NATO is impotent and useless, much like the United Nations.

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



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I just love this part here.

A deal reached Monday in Pakistan allows the imposition of Islamic law in the former tourist resort of Swat and surrounding districts in exchange for an end to a brutal insurgency that has killed hundreds and sent up to one-third of the area's 1.5 million people fleeing.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
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...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


There will be peace in our time!




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
European Nato members have pledged troops that number in the hundreds, not thousands [AFP]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join