If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   Robert Gates goes off on NATO: "What do you do when, as is the case today with NATO in Afghanistan, some of your allies don't want to fight? Or they impose caveats on where, when and how their forces may be used?"   (stripes.com) divider line 177
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4720 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:57 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-23 03:39:45 PM
"Well, don't look at me." - Canada
 
2008-04-23 03:48:04 PM
Imagine that... countries imposing caveats on how their forces can be used.

Don't they know they should all be bowing down before America and doing whatever we wish?


Maybe you should have a talk with your boss about unilateral invasions and cowboy politics. Mr Gates...

...or to put it in folksy terms: "You've made your bed, now lie in it..."
 
2008-04-23 03:51:25 PM
submitter: What do you do when, as is the case today with NATO in Afghanistan, some of your allies don't want to fight?

Bomb Iran.
 
2008-04-23 03:51:37 PM
Until asshole Bush came along, most countries took the USA's good word without asking.
 
2008-04-23 03:54:31 PM
Resorting to name-calling reduces your credibility. Grow up!
 
2008-04-23 03:55:52 PM
Why don't you shut the hell up.
 
2008-04-23 03:56:44 PM
The second letter is NATO is not "Afghanistan"
 
2008-04-23 03:58:37 PM
keylock71: Maybe you should have a talk with your boss about unilateral invasions and cowboy politics. Mr Gates...

If we were talking about Iraq, I might see the point, but Afghanistan and the Taliban all but begged to be invaded.
 
2008-04-23 04:04:41 PM
"Tribal sovereignty means just that; it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."
 
2008-04-23 04:05:35 PM
Golly, I wonder why they don't trust us.
 
2008-04-23 04:06:09 PM
Nabb1: If we were talking about Iraq, I might see the point, but Afghanistan and the Taliban all but begged to be invaded.

Yes... this was the battle that was actually justified. The other one that's now sucking us dry, not so much.
 
2008-04-23 04:12:01 PM
He's right. (Well, sort of)

Afghanistan is a NATO operation. They should follow the commander according to their original national pledges. You can't control an army full of dissent, especially if that is being backed by politicians for votes.

He's also right about it's laughable to have 2 million soldiers in NATO, yet they can't deploy 30.000 troops.

It has been proved in Bosnia that NATO without the US is practically non-existent, and that was in 1998, so the current dissent has little to do with the US Iraq policy.
 
2008-04-23 04:12:37 PM
It's almost as if they wish to use their own judgement over America's. Imagine that.
 
2008-04-23 04:18:49 PM
If someone is habitually driving off the road, getting lost, crashing into trees, never admits an error and constantly asks you for gas money, you too might think twice about getting in that passenger seat. In fact, you might want to sit that person down and have an intervention.
 
2008-04-23 05:13:32 PM
Nestea Plunge: Until asshole Bush came along, most countries took the USA's good word without asking.

Bosnia and Kosovo would like a word with you.
 
2008-04-23 05:15:17 PM
MasterThief: Bosnia and Kosovo would like a word with you.

a.k.a. the "You Forgot Poland" defense.
 
2008-04-23 05:19:42 PM
Or was that a "B-b-but Clinton?"
 
2008-04-23 05:22:14 PM
World organizations like NATO and it's predecessor have never and will never take action when it comes to situations like these. Welcome to duh.
 
2008-04-23 05:28:36 PM
Well, what ya do is, you sit down and talk with your allies and try to figure out why none of them think your "Bombing Brown People Of The Week" mission is worth playing.

Or are the members of NATO now part of the scary furriners we no longer wish to talk to because they're inherently evil and such? I have SUCH a hard time keeping the list of people with cooties straight.

Only when the cootie problem is resolved can we finally address the pressing issue of girl germs.
 
2008-04-23 05:32:42 PM
mediaho: MasterThief: Bosnia and Kosovo would like a word with you.

a.k.a. the "You Forgot Poland" defense.


Actually not. (Poland wasn't even a NATO member until '99).

Go back and read about what happened in Bosnia (1994) and Kosovo (1999). Specifically look at how much we had to press the European members of NATO (esp. France and Germany), into getting off their sorry asses and helping us stop genocides taking place in Europe's own backyard. In both cases, it came down to the U.S. telling NATO that we would act with or without their help, and the hell with any U.N. mandate (the U.S. had one in Bosnia, not in Kosovo).

Sound familiar?
 
2008-04-23 05:59:50 PM
Most of NATO has been hiding behind the US since the 1950s. I see no reason for them to stop now. Brits and Canadians are usually the two exceptions.
 
2008-04-23 06:01:10 PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...huh??

/read the article
 
2008-04-23 06:01:40 PM
Perhaps if we were not wasting men and dollars in Iraq this would not be such and issue.
 
2008-04-23 06:01:52 PM
Well, he's done a great job for Microsoft..
 
2008-04-23 06:04:10 PM
ScottMpls: Most of NATO has been hiding behind the US since the 1950s. I see no reason for them to stop now. Brits and Canadians are usually the two exceptions.

Much love for the meese.
 
2008-04-23 06:04:56 PM
Considering the US spent 40 years keeping western Europe nations in NATO free, it seems like supporting us in this small operation would be the least they could do
 
2008-04-23 06:06:15 PM
NATO is fully prepared to fight to the last American.
 
2008-04-23 06:06:36 PM
Afghanistan is a NATO operation. They should follow the commander according to their original national pledges. You can't control an army full of dissent, especially if that is being backed by politicians for votes.

Thats true. Saying you will deploy troops but only in the North Western provinces and even then only do base duty, is like a private saying "nahh, I can't take that hill, I'm just take the machine guns in the rear while you guys can go ahead and charge".

Of course, they will say it's politics, when really it's all about cowardice.
 
2008-04-23 06:06:50 PM
madmann: Well, what ya do is, you sit down and talk with your allies and try to figure out why none of them think your "Bombing Brown People Of The Week" mission is worth playing.

Or are the members of NATO now part of the scary furriners we no longer wish to talk to because they're inherently evil and such? I have SUCH a hard time keeping the list of people with cooties straight.

Only when the cootie problem is resolved can we finally address the pressing issue of girl germs.


Please be quiet. Adults are speaking.
 
2008-04-23 06:07:12 PM
www.script-pisa.it

Fantastic movie.
 
2008-04-23 06:08:42 PM
Well given how much the Bush administration has been bagging the Europeans lately you actually have to wonder why they're willing to be at all helpful. You can't expect your allies to stick with you when you call them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" or "old Europe" or say "you're with us or against us" especially when their only crime was to suggest that invading Iraq was a bad idea. So why should French kids fight and die for a country that hates and insults them?

PS they were right.
 
2008-04-23 06:09:36 PM
If NATO won't deploy troops when its supposed to, then there is no need for NATO. Just that simple. Either boot the ones who don't want to help or shut the whole farking thing down. This isn't Iraq they are refusing, this is Afghanistan. Afghanistan provided shelter for a group that attacked a member of NATO. If they won't defend a fellow member, then there is no point in it.
 
2008-04-23 06:09:48 PM
It really saddens me that Germany is such a pussified country nowadays. We used to be so badass and now this. For shame.
 
2008-04-23 06:10:09 PM
Robin Hoodie: Considering the US spent 40 years keeping western Europe nations in NATO free, it seems like supporting us in this small operation would be the least they could do

I think we might have owned some of them, you know for helping us become a nation and all that jazz.
 
2008-04-23 06:10:39 PM
MasterThief: Go back and read about what happened in Bosnia (1994) and Kosovo (1999). Specifically look at how much we had to press the European members of NATO (esp. France and Germany), into getting off their sorry asses and helping us stop genocides taking place in Europe's own backyard. In both cases, it came down to the U.S. telling NATO that we would act with or without their help, and the hell with any U.N. mandate (the U.S. had one in Bosnia, not in Kosovo).

ScottMpls: Most of NATO has been hiding behind the US since the 1950s. I see no reason for them to stop now. Brits and Canadians are usually the two exceptions.

I nonconcur with your comments. NATO members have supported us in numerous crisises since its creation.

NATO is not an organization at the beck and call of us, the US. Perhaps if our country's leadership hadn't dropped the ball, pulled US troops out, and run off into Iraq before Afghanistan was dealt with fully, maybe our allies could take us more seriously.

I mean Afghanistan did harbor & provided safe haven to the people who did 9/11. That's why NATO went into Afghanistan with us. I don't recall any Iraqi agents with the 9/11 hijackers, do you?

Why question how France, Germany or any NATO member meet their obligations now after we screwed up over five years ago? Seems like Gates needs to tell his Boss he FUed.
 
2008-04-23 06:12:35 PM
More and more I want the US to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The people there will never accept us there and the rest of the world doesn't care. We can't even get people in the US to abandon superstitious fourteenth century BS, why do we think we'll have better luck elsewhere. We've got enough problems right here that need to fixed.
 
2008-04-23 06:13:32 PM
Uncle Karl: Robin Hoodie: Considering the US spent 40 years keeping western Europe nations in NATO free, it seems like supporting us in this small operation would be the least they could do

I think we might have owned some of them, you know for helping us become a nation and a,ll that jazz.


France is barely in NATO, not to mention it's not exactly run by the same government these days
 
2008-04-23 06:14:39 PM
Robin Hoodie: Uncle Karl: Robin Hoodie: Considering the US spent 40 years keeping western Europe nations in NATO free, it seems like supporting us in this small operation would be the least they could do

I think we might have owned some of them, you know for helping us become a nation and a,ll that jazz.

France is barely in NATO, not to mention it's not exactly run by the same government these days


The US is not exactly run by the same folks either.
These days we are a little less trustworthy and a lot more 1984ish.
 
2008-04-23 06:15:12 PM
AirForceVetWhy question how France, Germany or any NATO member meet their obligations now after we screwed up over five years ago? Seems like Gates needs to tell his Boss he FUed.

I agree totally. If you want your allies to fight and die for you it really helps if you're nice to them.
 
2008-04-23 06:15:35 PM
you mean NATO is full of beaurocrats and getting them to agree to doing anything is a long and arduos task?

Crap! Who'd have guessed?
 
2008-04-23 06:17:56 PM
mediaho: If someone is habitually driving off the road, getting lost, crashing into trees, never admits an error and constantly asks you for gas money, you too might think twice about getting in that passenger seat. In fact, you might want to sit that person down and have an intervention.

"I don't have a problem! You're the one with the problem! Now get in the car or I will force you into the car!"

/the US is more of a sporty model, yes?
 
2008-04-23 06:18:19 PM
FTA:
* Never fight unless you have to;
* Never fight alone; and
* Never fight for long.


Well, 1 out of 3 isn't bad. As long as you remember Poland.
 
2008-04-23 06:19:51 PM
Uncle Karl: Robin Hoodie: Considering the US spent 40 years keeping western Europe nations in NATO free, it seems like supporting us in this small operation would be the least they could do

I think we might have owned some of them, you know for helping us become a nation and all that jazz.


I'm pretty sure we made a payment on that debt in 1917-18, and retired it completely sometime in the early 40s.
 
2008-04-23 06:20:53 PM
Uncle Karl:

The US is not exactly run by the same folks either.
These days we are a little less trustworthy and a lot more 1984ish.


We're worse today? What are we doing comparable to McCarthyism, segregation, etc?
 
2008-04-23 06:21:44 PM
ScottMpls: Most of NATO has been hiding behind the US since the 1950s. I see no reason for them to stop now. Brits and Canadians are usually the two exceptions.

That was actually the intention of NATO. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany are probably militarily the most powerful members of NATO. France would be as well, had they not withdrawn military participation. Germany is apprehensive about war after, you know, starting two of them and has gone to great, great lengths not to "become" Nazi Germany again (often at the expense of reason).

And with the entire purpose of NATO being to create a situation in which war would be extremely unpalatable to the Soviet Union, it's reasonable that the smaller nations of NATO would be hiding behind the biggest one (in fact, that is the intent -- a way of saying to the Soviet Union that any move westward would provoke an attack by a one military superpower and two military major powers all directly on their doorstep.)

So.
 
2008-04-23 06:23:51 PM
Robin Hoodie: Uncle Karl:

The US is not exactly run by the same folks either.
These days we are a little less trustworthy and a lot more 1984ish.

We're worse today? What are we doing comparable to McCarthyism, segregation, etc?


The term Rendition mean anything to you? When we disappear and torture German citizens that does not make them really want to help us.

/warrantless wiretaps, national security letters, etc.
 
2008-04-23 06:25:07 PM
ObeliskToucher: I'm pretty sure we made a payment on that debt in 1917-18, and retired it completely sometime in the early 40s.

We were kinda late to both, and the USSR sorta really helped on the second.
 
2008-04-23 06:25:14 PM
HoKr
Afghanistan is a NATO operation.


This may be true, but the modus operandi of NATO has always been that "attacking one member is considered an attack on all members." While the U.S. invaded as a result of 9/11, it would be a stretch to consider that a state sponsored attack.

Was the Taliban government complacent? Perhaps. But NATO's intent was to be a defensive alliance. Clearly they (debateably) see this as a war of aggression.
 
2008-04-23 06:27:01 PM
As a Canadian all I can say is NATO countries need to put away their purses and come play with the big boys, or perhaps they should rethink their membership. Canada has been slogging away in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan with little relief or support from countries other than the USA (Thanks for the air support gents) and the Brits.

I can picture these countries saying "We sent troops! Look! There they are!" and then when you look over they're twiddling their thumbs in the playground.

Kudos to France for sending another 1000 troops to the South.
 
2008-04-23 06:27:52 PM
And what do you do when your allies start random other wars for no apparent reason? Hmmm?
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report