Whos not pulling their weight in Afghanistan?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by shagnasty, Oct 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not meant as a "Premier League" but these figures published today in the Telegraph do provide an insight to who is suffering the most in NATO.
    Death Toll since 2001.

    USA - 867
    Britain - 219
    Canada - 131
    Germany - 35
    France - 35
    Denmark - 25
    Spain - 25
    Netherlands - 21
    Italy - 21
    Others - 63 (who dey?) Estonia, Latvia, etc?

    Total 1,442

    Personally I am against this 'War on Terror' dreamt up by Blair & Bush and continued by Broon & Obumsidaisy. With a son in Afghanistan at present I do have a right to make a point. My own years of service in hotspots don't count, I had no more of a choice than my son has....but I don't like it nonetheless.
  2. Very interesting.Do you have a link to the article? Looked at the DT but couldn't see anything.
  3. Bit older, but wiki has a full list :-

    Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country
    USA: 800*
    UK: 219
    Canada: 130*
    Germany: 39
    France: 35
    Denmark: 27
    Spain: 25
    Italy: 21
    Netherlands: 21
    Poland: 13
    Australia: 11
    Romania: 11
    Estonia: 6
    Norway: 4
    Czech Republic: 3
    Latvia: 3
    Hungary: 2
    Portugal: 2
    South Korea: 2
    Sweden: 2
    Turkey: 2
    Belgium: 1
    Finland: 1
    Lithuania: 1
  4. Now, lets find a formula that gives us a figure incorporating population and contingent size as well as a breakdown into combat deaths vs accidental blablabla... I hate these number games but if we want to play it, lets try and get it right, especially if we take the numbers as an indicator of "pulling ones weight". :roll:
  5. Not au fait with links but see page 4, Armed Forces, in today's Telegraph article, "Rebels kill 8 US soldiers in border raids." Death Toll in block above this report. Page also gives telegraph.co.uk/frontline
  6. how do those numbers stack up as a percentage of the total personnel for each nation?
  7. Too right my friend. I too dislike the numbers game, but raising the awareness of who is doing what may do something towards setting some kind of balance. F'rinstance the Canadian losses must be the highest as a proportion of their effort.
  8. Thanks Shagger.
  9. Cow

    Cow LE

    That was going to be my comment as well. Figures are only as good as their supporting information/when in context.
  10. Yes thanks you just helped me to see the point I was trying to come to terms with re other thread.We are being seen off surely?Why are we being asked to give so much?If the N.A.T.O. treaty has no regulation to compel the service of its members what is the point of it?
  11. Exactly for the same reason why we dont like the EU: NATO is an alliance of sovereign democratic nations - emphasis on sovereign.
  12. So, "pulling ones's weight" is determined by how many body bags one receives.

    That's comforting!
  13. If a sovereign government giving up the right to decide for themselves how a Treaty should be interpreted in light of a situation not explicitly covered by it is 'pulling their weight', then consider ours well and truly pulled.

    Personally, I'd have preferred the 'Poke it, Georgy' option myself. The NAT was drafted at a time when it was an agreement on defence against aggression by nation-states, not non-state actors. That's a significant difference right there, never mind the means and ends discussion that never took place before we went into Afghanistan.

    Anybody know if anyone's ever tried to invoke Articles 12 or 13?
  14. That's not the point and you know it.