The Demea of Doom wrote:
As some famous guy somewhere once said, "War is politics by other means."
It was probably Oscar Wilde, but then again, every quote is attributed to him.
von Clausewitz.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The end of NATO?
The end of NATO?Follow
As some famous guy somewhere once said, "War is politics by other means."
It was probably Oscar Wilde, but then again, every quote is attributed to him.
von Clausewitz.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Nobby wrote:
OK, we broadly agree, but
Don't tar us Brits with the same brush as the greasy continentals. We're pulling our weight alongside the yanks. 
Singdall wrote:
so why is it that the US has to bail you out of everything and risk our boys in a fight but you get to sit there and not risk that?
i am deeply sorry to of insulting the UK troops. that was not my intent as the UK has been a major player in NATO and continues to be just as major as the US. i tend to NOT lump the UK in with the rest of EU. that is my bad.
as for what military support can smaller nations provide, simple they have man power and that means they can supply logistics and other types of support and as mentioned they can supply funds to the cause to help pay back those countries who do send troops like the UK and the US and to a lesser extend Canada.
Russian Bombers just flew over the USS Nimitz...I guess NATO will have some work to do.
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Singdall wrote:
i am deeply sorry to of insulting the UK troops. that was not my intent as the UK has been a major player in NATO and continues to be just as major as the US. i tend to NOT lump the UK in with the rest of EU. that is my bad.
No hurt, no harm
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
The NATO treaty was written with a mass attack on western europe in mind, is it any surprise that members are reluctant to get involved in Bush's private b*tchfight which poses no threat to any NATO country?
so you are telling me that all of the Clinton b*tchfight's had nothing to do with NATO either?
get off it.
has nothing to do with one pres. or the other. it has to do with MOST NATO countries not doing their part of the bargain.
heck just look at what Puttin has said about the Ukrain right now.
get off it.
has nothing to do with one pres. or the other. it has to do with MOST NATO countries not doing their part of the bargain.
heck just look at what Puttin has said about the Ukrain right now.
Quote:
so you are telling me that all of the Clinton b*tchfight's had nothing to do with NATO either?
If you are refering to Gulf War 1 and associated tasking it was a UN operation not NATO.
Singdall wrote:
has nothing to do with one pres. or the other.
Of course it does. Sending troops abroad, in harm's way, is extremely expensive in domestic politics. Even more so the war drags on, and no short-term military solution is in sight to end it. And even even more so when the war was started by Bush, by far the most unpopular US president in Europe since... well, since a hell of a long time. The price to pay for the German, the French, or any other European leader is to get kicked out of office.
Funadamentally it's all about a cost/benefit analysis, and the cost at home is getting higher and higher.
Quote:
heck just look at what Puttin has said about the Ukrain right now.
Like Nobby said in another thread, Putin has been making loud noises for a while. The issues haven't changed, the missile defence bases, the expansion of NATO. At home he's playing the strongman that will give Russia back its pride and standing in the world. He can't be seen to be weak, or impotent in what in Russian term is an expansion of the US military complex to their back yard.
And he's stepping down as President to become Prime Minister, and no one's really sure how any of it is gonna work out practically.
Domestic politics.
Singdall wrote:
heck just look at what Puttin has said about the Ukrain right now.
Loser.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
It's just "Ukraine". No "The" 
Loser.
Loser.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
so you are telling me that all of the Clinton b*tchfight's had nothing to do with NATO either?
If you are refering to Gulf War 1 and associated tasking it was a UN operation not NATO.
ok let me give you a bit of a history lesson here. Clinton did not become President of the USA until AFTER the end of GW1.
Clinton did his stick in Europe not in the ME.
Quote:
ok let me give you a bit of a history lesson here. Clinton did not become President of the USA until AFTER the end of GW1.
Clinton did his stick in Europe not in the ME.
Clinton did his stick in Europe not in the ME.
Remember i live in Europe and serve in a NATO military force, so bullsh*t will be recognsed as such.
Quote:
Again what ************
Bosnia? Somalia? I dunno, but I think those were both with the UN.
and involved NATO countries.
Singdall wrote:
and involved NATO countries.
So does the Eurovision song contest.
What's your point?
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Singdall wrote:
and involved NATO countries.
So does the Eurovision song contest.
What's your point?
What's French for pwnt?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
hmm what NATO actions did Clinton deal with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#The_NATO_bombing_campaign
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n40_v6/ai_17513180
i suppose those were small potatoes and no one was killed.
like i said it does not matter who is Pres. of the time of the action when it comes to NATO forces. most NATO military action is provided by the US and the UK. the rest of NATO for the most part does NOTHING to risk its soldiers.
no risk all benefits is not a fair trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#The_NATO_bombing_campaign
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n40_v6/ai_17513180
i suppose those were small potatoes and no one was killed.
like i said it does not matter who is Pres. of the time of the action when it comes to NATO forces. most NATO military action is provided by the US and the UK. the rest of NATO for the most part does NOTHING to risk its soldiers.
no risk all benefits is not a fair trade.
Nobby wrote:
What's French for pwnt?
Le pwnt!
J'apprend du maitre, nobby, j'apprend du maitre...
Can I have a clarification about what exactly is Singdall's fUcking point?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
The Honorable Annabella wrote:
Can I have a clarification about what exactly is Singdall's fUcking point?
But that would ruin the surprise.
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
so you are telling me that all of the Clinton b*tchfight's had nothing to do with NATO either?
If you are refering to Gulf War 1 and associated tasking it was a UN operation not NATO.
that is my point.
1. Clinton had NOTHING to do with GW1.
2. Clinton had more then a "b*tchfight* using NATO forces.
that is my point.
Tarv has no clue what he is talking about.
Singdall wrote:
1. Clinton had NOTHING to do with GW1.
Good point, though I can't see Tarv stating that anywhere.
Quote:
2. Clinton had more then a "b*tchfight* using NATO forces.
I still fail to see how comparing an 11-week bombing campaign without the use of ground troops and in reaction to a bout of ethnic cleansing, to a 7-year long war in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, is in anyway a proof that the identity of the US Prez has nothing to do with the reluctance of other NATO countries to sending troops in harm's way.
what the hell are you talking about? Iraq? um GWII and the current "occupation" is not a NATO action. it was a coalition of countries most are NATO, but it is not a NATO action.
at least not according to a quick google search on the matter.
GWII did not send in NATO to over through Sadam, the US and UK sent in troops to over through Sadam.
at least not according to a quick google search on the matter.
GWII did not send in NATO to over through Sadam, the US and UK sent in troops to over through Sadam.
Quote:
The US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, appealed directly to Europeans yesterday to support the war in Afghanistan, warning that violence and terrorism would increase if Nato was defeated there.
Ring a bell?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Recent Visitors: 207
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (207)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The end of NATO?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC