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.
So if the UN doesn't work, some of the blame must lay at the USA's feet.
NATO planes flying combat missions over Libya are starting to run out of bombs, officials said Friday.
Read more: www.upi.com...
Originally posted by digby888
if the us would stop invading country's and starting wars willy nilly
and tried to get on with people instead of blowing them up
the us would not have to spend so much on arms and defense
and also this just sound like a sales pitch from the biggest arms dealer
in the word
woodwardjnr wrote: I heard on the news last night that NATO forces are running out of bombs and missiles. Thats not very good, Im sure Cameron will find a few million down the side of the sofa to pay for a few more tomahawks and laser guided bombs. NATO planes flying combat missions over Libya are starting to run out of bombs, officials said Friday.
Originally posted by tooo many pills
I knew it was going to come to this. We are going to start charging other countries for protecting them from terrorists.
Originally posted by Niall197
reply to post by Paulioetc15
So if Europe's capable of defending itself, as is Canada ... with money left over to pay for social programmes ... quite what is the problem ? I see that as European leaders making carefully crafted decisions on their own expenditure.
I can't see any virtue in spending more on your own defence than you absolutely have to. Yet who's country is going to bail them out?
As to the future of NATO, if the US wishes to leave then so be it. Far be it for me to point out that with China becoming more assertive in the Pacific region, it's actually the USA which needs Europe more than they need you.
Originally posted by Niall197
reply to post by Paulioetc15
Serbia ? You mean Kosovo ? NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, right ?
I think Bill Clinton used that campaign to distract opponents from the embarrassment of Monica Lewinsky. The NATO airstrikes took top billing on US news channels at the time, displacing Monica to second or third place. Most Republicans were against that campaign, including George W. Bush (oh, the irony).
That being said, the US Air Force took lead role in the air war, with 3 European aircraft carriers & task forces taking lead in Adriatic naval operations. European servicemen made up the majority of forces deployed in the far more dangerous peacekeeping operations on the ground, from mid Summer 1999 onwards.
To suggest that the Europeans did little, sitting back while the Americans did everything, is just factually incorrect.
As to withdrawing US bases from Europe, most people in Europe wouldn't object. So that's something on which we could probably agree. What plans do you have for all these servicemen once they are repatriated to the USA ? I'm just curious what your own defence requirements would be if the USA opted out of it's self appointed global policeman role.
Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Simple: We rather use our soldiers as national defense to look out for our country and keep eyes on watch to other countries who were threatening us and go back to it's isolationism where we supposed to be. End war on drugs, We all agree that we should pull out military bases but the leaders of both sides are are so stuck up.
I think no matter what we do, we still get hated. That's why our troops should be home now. We had done enough. We should get back to the days of George Washington Isolationist policy