Naming names - NATO / Afghanistan

#1
Should we not be naming names of the lightweight nations that are not supporting a war they voted for.

It is not good enough to send 30 blokes to run a Provincial Reconstruction Team and then claim that you are fully committed. NATO assets should be available to all NATO nations (helicopters , FGA Arty etc it isnt and the weak twunts who wont help us should be outed.
 
#3
Depends.

What else are they doing?

30 blokes may be a significant portion of their army. (Lux)

If you "out" them what do you lose on the ground? Strategic bases for example.

What if they decide to "out" us?
 
#4
As said its not worth rocking the Apple Cart, we have enough enemies as it is . Saying that if you wanted to say France was sh*t I wouldnt stop you :wink:
 
#5
French are actually doing a good job, its countries like Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Germany (who cant decide to fight or not) Turkey, Greece the list goes on.
 
#6
The French are only doing a good job cos everyone including the enemy is in shock that theyre not running away...

To be fair, all countries involved (in theatre at least) appear to be pulling the stops out and getting the job done.
 
#7
Please forgive ignorance (put it down to advanced senility after 10 years of you all know what) but I would't mind betting that Canada, Poland, Denmark and Holland are contributing. Do I win or not ?
 
#8
Outstanding said:
Should we not be naming names of the lightweight nations that are not supporting a war they voted for.
Go right ahead. Feel free to name all those states that "voted" to join an Afghan civil war against the Taleban who are now not pulling their weight. You may end up with a very long list with approximately zero names!

You may also like to look at what Romania's (amongst others) contribution was/is to Afghanistan. They made it to Kandahar at least a couple of years before 16 AA Bde!

What I'm afraid you have chosen to ignore is that NATO is merely a club of independent members who can choose whether to come out and play or not - especially when it is outside the AO specified in the Treaty. Any NATO member has every right to refuse to get involved in the US/UK's escapades down south.

Just why should they bail 'us' out now that we've got ourselves in too deep? Just why should they come to Bush and Blair's rescue?
 
#10
Outstanding said:
French are actually doing a good job, its countries like Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Germany (who cant decide to fight or not) Turkey, Greece the list goes on.
Not saying that there not doing a good job its just France is full of the smelly, snivelling *****. :twisted:
 
#11
Indeed Iron.

So snivelling that if you go pretty well anywhere in France, you'll see memorials to Resistance members who were killed in WW2.

Furthermore, the French have lost troops in Afg, so perhaps they aren't staying as far from the line of fire as you may think.

Edit to add:

There have been 639 coalition deaths -- 417 Americans, one Australian, 68 Britons, 66 Canadians, one Czech, four Danes, nine Dutch, two Estonians, one Finnish, 10 French, 21 Germans, nine Italians, two Norwegians, one Portuguese, four Romanians, one South Korean, 21 Spaniards, two Swedes -- in the war on terror as of August 3, 2007, according to a CNN count

From the CNN site here
 
#12
FluffyBunny said:
Indeed Iron.

So snivelling that if you go pretty well anywhere in France, you'll see memorials to Resistance members who were killed in WW2.

Furthermore, the French have lost troops in Afg, so perhaps they aren't staying as far from the line of fire as you may think.
And if you go ANYWHERE in the UK you WILL see Memorials to all those killed in WW2.
 
#13
FluffyBunny said:
Indeed Iron.

So snivelling that if you go pretty well anywhere in France, you'll see memorials to Resistance members who were killed in WW2.

Furthermore, the French have lost troops in Afg, so perhaps they aren't staying as far from the line of fire as you may think.
As said not saying anything about the french military work just the French people who I am not keen on as I hate the ***** after the way they have treat British Lorry drivers and motorists in the past. I cant see in any of my posts where I have said anything about the French Troops staying away from trouble or not losing troops (unless you can find I said what your accusing me of saying)
 
#14
EX_REME said:
FluffyBunny said:
Indeed Iron.

So snivelling that if you go pretty well anywhere in France, you'll see memorials to Resistance members who were killed in WW2.

Furthermore, the French have lost troops in Afg, so perhaps they aren't staying as far from the line of fire as you may think.
And if you go ANYWHERE in the UK you WILL see Memorials to all those killed in WW2.
The point being made is that, like us, the US, the Spanish and many other countries, the French have lost troops in Afghanistan.

We like knocking the French because they are the old enemy. In jest, I do the same.

However, this thread is about casualties in a war, and not one for jokes or ill-informed comments.

In France, you'll also see the CWGC cemeteries, French Military, US and many others. Brave men and women all.
 
#15
FluffyBunny said:
Indeed Iron.

So snivelling that if you go pretty well anywhere in France, you'll see memorials to Resistance members who were killed in WW2.

Furthermore, the French have lost troops in Afg, so perhaps they aren't staying as far from the line of fire as you may think.

Edit to add:

There have been 639 coalition deaths -- 417 Americans, one Australian, 68 Britons, 66 Canadians, one Czech, four Danes, nine Dutch, two Estonians, one Finnish, 10 French, 21 Germans, nine Italians, two Norwegians, one Portuguese, four Romanians, one South Korean, 21 Spaniards, two Swedes -- in the war on terror as of August 3, 2007, according to a CNN count

From the CNN site here
Yes and how many memorials to their brave allies who actually helped them free la Belle France of Le Boche? If you go to their war museums they give the impression that the Resistance won the war.
Another example - On Le Chemin des Dames there are hordes of stones showing how in spring 1917 the valiant French forces struggled for 3 months to wrest the ridge from the enemy. What it doesn't say was that on July 4th the Germans counter-attacked on a 17km front and took the lot back right nippily.

History is history and the Frogs are masters at putting on the good side. This doesn't have much to do with if they are in action now.
My impression is that the country deliberately holds back from a full-blooded commitment, giving only what they can get away with, but that individual units and troops give good value for money.
But I may be wrong.
 
#16
The_IRON said:
Outstanding said:
French are actually doing a good job, its countries like Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Germany (who cant decide to fight or not) Turkey, Greece the list goes on.
Not saying that there not doing a good job its just France is full of the smelly, snivelling *****. :twisted:
Totally agree
 
#17
whitecity said:
Outstanding said:
Should we not be naming names of the lightweight nations that are not supporting a war they voted for.
Go right ahead. Feel free to name all those states that "voted" to join an Afghan civil war against the Taleban who are now not pulling their weight. You may end up with a very long list with approximately zero names!

You may also like to look at what Romania's (amongst others) contribution was/is to Afghanistan. They made it to Kandahar at least a couple of years before 16 AA Bde!

What I'm afraid you have chosen to ignore is that NATO is merely a club of independent members who can choose whether to come out and play or not - especially when it is outside the AO specified in the Treaty. Any NATO member has every right to refuse to get involved in the US/UK's escapades down south.

Just why should they bail 'us' out now that we've got ourselves in too deep? Just why should they come to Bush and Blair's rescue?
WC, I believe that all 26 NATO Nations should be involved and there should be a greater degree of burden sharing across the whole piece. I do agree that NATO has become a club, largely to nbenefit overpaid/weight and useless civvies. I also think that the whole effort is directed towards getting procedures right with less thought for the effect we should be having on the ground. Why should they be involved, because they arte in the club and they all voted for NATO (not just US and UK ) to carry out this operation.
 
#18
Outstanding said:
I also think that the whole effort is directed towards getting procedures right with less thought for the effect we should be having on the ground. Why should they be involved, because they arte in the club and they all voted for NATO (not just US and UK ) to carry out this operation.

Just the UK & the US?


FluffyBunny said:
There have been 639 coalition deaths -- 417 Americans, one Australian, 68 Britons, 66 Canadians, one Czech, four Danes, nine Dutch, two Estonians, one Finnish, 10 French, 21 Germans, nine Italians, two Norwegians, one Portuguese, four Romanians, one South Korean, 21 Spaniards, two Swedes -- in the war on terror as of August 3, 2007, according to a CNN count

From the CNN site here

edited to add part of Outstanding's post
 
#19
Outstanding said:
WC, I believe that all 26 NATO Nations should be involved and there should be a greater degree of burden sharing across the whole piece. I do agree that NATO has become a club, largely to nbenefit overpaid/weight and useless civvies. I also think that the whole effort is directed towards getting procedures right with less thought for the effect we should be having on the ground. Why should they be involved, because they arte in the club and they all voted for NATO (not just US and UK ) to carry out this operation.
And you have every right to "believe" whatever you wish. In similar fashion, all those member states that are not performing up to your expectations have every right to listen to their populace who are quite against any increased combat operations.

Just because we unfortunately had a PM that chose to ignore his populace and democractic values does not mean others have endure the same mistake.

Before you rant any further about how these states are not living up to their side of the bargain, I suggest you actually read what they signed up to/for. In that respect, they are meeting their individual obligations quite perfectly. In fact, many are going well beyond it.

The problems 'we' are facing in Afghanistan are a direct consequence of 'our' failed policy. It is coming back to haunt us. Other (more combat sensitive) NATO members are simply sitting back and saying, 'well we told you this could happen, why should we now have to bail you out!'

It's the same in Iraq. US and UK are now (again) pushing for UN involvement. If you remember, just a few short years ago, the US was doing everything possible to keep them out to the point of doing everything to discredit them in public.

Oh how the wheel turns!!! :x
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
shaka REME 92
CaptainRidiculous Southern Africa 10
F Current Affairs, News and Analysis 8

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top