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.

 

Dutch become 1st NATO member to quit Afghanistan

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Dutch become 1st NATO member to quit Afghanistan


news.yahoo.com

KABUL, Afghanistan – The Netherlands became the first NATO country to end its combat mission in Afghanistan, drawing the curtain Sunday on a four-year operation that was deeply unpopular at home and even brought down a Dutch government.

Canada has announced it will withdraw its 2,700 troops in 2011 and Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has promised to pull out his country's 2,600 soldiers the year after.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Looks like this may be the beginning of the end of the war. I say, good job Netherlands. The Dutch people didnt even like the idea of having only 2,000 troops in the war.

Although the number is low compared to other countries, this is problably a pretty big political thing for NATO.

Canada is next on the list to pull out in 2011, then Poland the year after. I wonder when/if the US is going to pull out.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Actually this should be interpreted as the Dutch are the latest casualty of the Afghan War.

Don't be fooled ... the last man on the battlefield wins the war ... simple as that.

NATO collapsed completely on 21 June 2010.

Loser's heading for the door shouldn't be surprising.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by bruxfinn]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
This is where the "rats abandoning a sinking ship" analogy comes into play. The Dutch are obviously the smartest and Canada is the next country to pull out in 2011. The UK has said they are staying until 2014 then that only leavs the US. By then the US should be balls deep into Iran, right?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Im thinking the Dutch have their priorities straight when it comes to a pointless war. Canada is number 2. Im going to guess that the US will say, "Dont worry, we are still this close to winning this war and dont need anyone elses help and the war will be over really soon." A couple years later......the US will say the same thing.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
According to the Dutch government, the input of the Dutch troops was in the end useless because the US change their strategy from rebuilding into targeted killing.

24 soldiers died and 140 got injured at this mission, which was never supported by the dutch people. Thereby the government also acknowlegded the strenght of the Taliban forces in Uruzgan where the Dutch troops were stationed was much higher then estimated.

this article is in dutch
www.bndestem.nl...

and another about the useless mission
www.joop.nl...

Personal note... I always was against our presence in Afghanistan, a war started by the US without the approval of the UN.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by buni11687
Im thinking the Dutch have their priorities straight when it comes to a pointless war. Canada is number 2. Im going to guess that the US will say, "Dont worry, we are still this close to winning this war and dont need anyone elses help and the war will be over really soon." A couple years later......the US will say the same thing.


The Dutch government collapsed because of the things their politicians were up to. The Dutch lost because they are immoral and unethical. Leaving a battlefield before the end of a war is ALWAYS evidence of complete failure.

Priorities straight? What a joke...after nine years. Anything to bolster the mythology that the only responsible thing to do is let the country fall to religious fanatics.

The Taliban and Dutch were on the same side the whole time and the world will see this as fact in 10 days.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bruxfinn
Actually this should be interpreted as the Dutch are the latest casualty of the Afghan War.

Don't be fooled ... the last man on the battlefield wins the war ... simple as that.

If someone wins a war that means they will get some advantage from it. If US is the last one standing in the war they still end up with nothing to show for it. The stated mission of the war was to capture Osama Bin Ladin. Afghanistan was therefore a total, complete, and absolute failure. The entire chain of command should be executed immediately... yes, they screwed up that badly.

Just kidding about execution, the whole war was a joke in the first place. They never intended to find Osama Bin Ladin even though that was their stated goal, they just want to piss away our tax dollars while foolishly hoping the economy will get a war boost and a plunder boost. So yes, the longer the US is in the country, the more the politicians "win", because they will get exactly what they went in for: pissing away money while looting a little bit of plunder here and there. Bruxfinn, maybe when they win like you say they will send you a postcard showing their new 300B+ oil & gas contracts for the elite lobbyist groups that they spent 600B+ of our money getting.

And that is what middle and middle-upper class neocons just don't get... sure the US really is plundering hundreds of billions in resources from countries, which no doubt makes them (neocons) very happy. But look at the trillions of dollars spent to get them... its a net loss any way for every one except for the lobbyists and resource extraction companies. The longer the war goes on the more the US loses even after the looting is taken into account.

The war was lost in 2001 when Osama left for Pakistan. We only stuck around because the CIA wanted a cut of the heroin and Exxon wanted the oil. And that is the real reason why we went in. With the proof of that being OBL left and we were still there for "no reason".

[edit on 1-8-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
The war was lost in 2001 when Osama left for Pakistan. We only stuck around because the CIA wanted a cut of the heroin and Exxon wanted the oil. And that is the real reason why we went in. With the proof of that being OBL left and we were still there for "no reason".
The US has been trying to stabilize the massive power vacuum that they left in Afghanistan. Whether or not you are for/against the war, that is the reason that troops stayed, patrolled, and why the US started actually implementing a new democratic Afghanistan government.

The failure, is that the Afghanistan government can't maintain the country and if the US leaves, the war lords will just resume control and it would make the entire effort for nothing. The belief is that the ANG will eventually be able to maintain control.

As for something on-topic I'll say that if the Dutch government sent less than 4% of their armed forces, it seems as if this were just a token effort anyway and doesn't actually matter either way.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
BRAVO the Netherlands for pulling out. Shame they were ever there in the first place.

Now the invaders have nicely messed up the country, got control of the natural resources and got the drug industry going well, they're ready to pull out and leave the poor Afghans to sort out the mess.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


I don't suppose the 9 billion dollars which 'went missing' had anything to do with them staying on, or to get the heroin industry pumped up, or the oil, or the millions the military corporations make from the war...had anything to do with them staying?

Funny how they didn't find Osama BL...which was their reason for going there.....but there again, they didn't find WMD in Iraq either. I wonder if they'll find nuclear bombs in Iran!







[edit on 1-8-2010 by wcitizen]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Why is it any business of US or anyone else if the warlords run Afghanistan? That's an Afghan problem for the Afghan people to sort out. It ABSOLUTELY doesn't jiustify invading their country.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


In November 2007, Benazir Bhutto stated on TV that Osama Bin Laden was dead, and named his murderer.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Two months later she was also dead.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
It might be a coincidence that according to BBC news the last Bin Laden video was in September 2007.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


I don't suppose the 9 billion dollars which 'went missing' had anything to do with them staying on, or to get the heroin industry pumped up, or the oil, or the millions the military corporations make from the war...had anything to do with them staying?

Funny how they didn't find Osama BL...which was their reason for going there.....but there again, they didn't find WMD in Iraq either. I wonder if they'll find nuclear bombs in Iran!
[edit on 1-8-2010 by wcitizen]

9 Billion Dollars aren't missing. They know what agencies they went to. They just don't know what those agencies spent them on. Certainly, the lack of accountability is appalling, but isn't interesting that a federal agency is the one that found the discrepancy with the federal government and let everyone know?

Certainly a major objective for the US being in Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, however, it was also to destabilize Al Qaeda. While doing so it created the power vacuum that I spoke about before in an already destabilized country.

Is there corruption in the US government? Sure, but obviously going to war has not helped out economy, but thrown us even further into debt. With the amount of money being authorized by Congress on the war, it was no surprise that this was happening. So I seriously doubt that this is or was the intention.

I remember, when I was involved, there was a report of finding things such as chemically laced motar shells in Iraq that was never covered by the MSM. And of course the MSM never really covered that the that the UN reported that Iraq was researching and developing biological chemical warfare. Remember WMD's aren't just Nukes.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Zaxxon]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Zaxxon
 

Why is it any business of US or anyone else if the warlords run Afghanistan? That's an Afghan problem for the Afghan people to sort out. It ABSOLUTELY doesn't jiustify invading their country.
The US didn't go into Afghanistan because war lords were running the country. And I never said so. I said that they stayed after creating a power vacuum. I guess you think I meant that, because I used the word "resume". I meant that the war lords would in fact resume the control that was lost by destabilizing the power that was already there - Al Qaeda.

Should that happen, then Afghanistan would just continue churning out terrorist support. It is in the US' best interest to have an Afghanistan government that would have the US' best interest at heart, correct?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by bruxfinn
Actually this should be interpreted as the Dutch are the latest casualty of the Afghan War.

Don't be fooled ... the last man on the battlefield wins the war ... simple as that.

If someone wins a war that means they will get some advantage from it. If US is the last one standing in the war they still end up with nothing to show for it. The stated mission of the war was to capture Osama Bin Ladin. Afghanistan was therefore a total, complete, and absolute failure. The entire chain of command should be executed immediately... yes, they screwed up that badly.

Just kidding about execution, the whole war was a joke in the first place. They never intended to find Osama Bin Ladin even though that was their stated goal, they just want to piss away our tax dollars while foolishly hoping the economy will get a war boost and a plunder boost. So yes, the longer the US is in the country, the more the politicians "win", because they will get exactly what they went in for: pissing away money while looting a little bit of plunder here and there. Bruxfinn, maybe when they win like you say they will send you a postcard showing their new 300B+ oil & gas contracts for the elite lobbyist groups that they spent 600B+ of our money getting.

And that is what middle and middle-upper class neocons just don't get... sure the US really is plundering hundreds of billions in resources from countries, which no doubt makes them (neocons) very happy. But look at the trillions of dollars spent to get them... its a net loss any way for every one except for the lobbyists and resource extraction companies. The longer the war goes on the more the US loses even after the looting is taken into account.

The war was lost in 2001 when Osama left for Pakistan. We only stuck around because the CIA wanted a cut of the heroin and Exxon wanted the oil. And that is the real reason why we went in. With the proof of that being OBL left and we were still there for "no reason".

[edit on 1-8-2010 by truthquest]


Well, I have a different interpretation of what winning the war is supposed to look like.

And based on what I think the outcome should be, I know the war is won.

I will stick to my guns that Al Qaeda is Vatican City and NATO is the Taliban and that their goal was the worldwide destruction or subjugation of the Nation-States as a concept and the exaltation of a global theocratic state administered to by the Religious Elite.

But if you think this was about money...what can i say?

the Dutch exit represents to the me the disintegration of the NATO alliance and the failure of the Taliban and will soon be followed by the collapse of Al Qaeda's global ambitions.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DutchBigBoy
 


http://__._/wiki/CIA_report_into_shoring_up_Afghan_war_support_in_Western_Europe,_11_Mar_2010


CIA Red Cell
A Red Cell Special Memorandum 11 March 2010
Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led
Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough (C//NF)
The fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan
demonstrates the fragility of European support for the NATO-led ISAF mission.
Some NATO states, notably France and Germany, have counted on public
apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission, but
indifference might turn into active hostility if spring and summer fighting
results in an upsurge in military or Afghan civilian casualties and if a Dutchstyle
debate spills over into other states contributing troops.



If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for “listening to the voters.” French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now:


There you have it. Those damn Dutch leaders are "listening to the voters," and their doing so is endangering the propaganda campaigns in France and Germany.

Its not difficult. The CIA has been bullying other nations into supporting a war the citizens of other countries dont want to pay for. And the Dutch people scared their politicians enough to make them listen.

Good for them. I hope citizens everywhere do the same.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaxxon

I remember, when I was involved, there was a report of finding things such as chemically laced motar shells in Iraq that was never covered by the MSM. And of course the MSM never really covered that the that the UN reported that Iraq was researching and developing biological chemical warfare. Remember WMD's aren't just Nukes.



Saddam got rid of his chemical weapons during the first Gulf war, and we knew it. We knew damn good and well he did not have WMD when we went in after 9-11.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Saddam got rid of his chemical weapons during the first Gulf war, and we knew it. We knew damn good and well he did not have WMD when we went in after 9-11.

Really?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join