Support (or Lack Of It) For Nato

[KENNYR]

I feel the need to vent! I have just watched a news broadcast here in Canada reference the "forthcoming break-up of NATO".

How can the people of Germany, France and Belgium forget the sacrifice that the USA made in WW2 to liberate them from the tyranny of the nasty little man and his thugs. All the USA are asking for is support for their efforts to free the oppressed population of Iraq.

Am I wrong in thinking that this is an ideal situation for the said peoples to repay the USA for the ultimate sacrifice made by so many thousands of young men, sent into a conflict that many of them did not even know why they were sent in the first place??

Vent over!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Kenny,
No sword crossing here but you have to try and see the other side of the coin. Polls here show that less than 10% of the UK who would support any action against Iraq without a 2nd resolution from NATO.

Some of our European "partners", I fuc@in hate the French...remember Agincourt our finest moment, are trying to stop the Bush/Bliar stride towards the use of THEIR weapons of mass destruction to remove saddams supposed WMD, wheres the smoking gun??? from the playing field!

A large proportion of the guys I work with are planning for an eventuall conflict with same mixed emotions as the "wermacht", excuse the spelling, must have had in the late 30's. We are going to do exactly as we are ORDERED to, but does that make it right? Lots of us are not sure.

All nations sacrificed many in WW1 and 2 etc but believing the propoganda of G'w and Mr Bliar does none of us any credit at all.

I have visited Canada on many occasions and believed that it did not have the "island" mentality of it's neighbour however it sounds like you have been "suckered" by the media and need to look further afield to see what WORLD opinion really is.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jackonicko]

The difference between Germany, France and Belgium, who you condemn, and Britain, who you'd presumably praise, is that these three continental governments are probably more accurately reflecting public opinion.

The US administration has not provided the evidence to convince most Europeans that action against Saddam is legally justifiable at this moment without a further UN resolution. The US administration has not overcome our fears that any war against Saddam will actually make us less secure and more of a target for terrorists. The US administration has done nothing to persuade its natural allies that it is not partial on this. To ignore Israel and North Korea while urging war against Iraq does not convince us.

And while the USA helped us in WWII, we also made our own sacrifices over here, and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was as much in your interests as it was in ours. Maybe the USA owes its European allies the courtesy of some understanding, humility and restraint?

And if all the USA wants is "support for their efforts to free the oppressed population of Iraq" why has it tried to starveso many of them to death with ill-thought out, badly focused sanctions, and why did it encourage them to rise up after the last spat, then abandon them to Saddam's tender mercies?

[West Coast]

Legal right is encompassed in resolution, argue forth on the moral grounds is still available for the taking though...

I have gone on record here as admiring France for its stance. I prefer allies with a modicum of irreverence. Many here expect Euro to vote based on some quid pro quo payback. Just aint so.

As to N Korea, that next on the agenda I believe. I would be just as happy to see us pull our troops from there.

[steamchicken]

Shouldn't we also give the same credence to Russia's views that America seems to expect? After all they had literally several million men killed, not to mention the civpop, and broke the back of the Wehrmacht. But "If it wasn't for Uncle Sam you'd be Krauts." It's not impressive when the US's European policy degenerates into an unoriginal football chant.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Sorry to barge in on your forum guys, but just can't let this one slip ....

I don't know how history is taught in the US of A, but somehow I think that we don't get quite the same books this side of the pond.

Germany effectively lost WW2 during the spring of 1943, at the hands of the Red Army. The patient was already brain dead, lying in the coffin when the yanks (and brits, canadians, ozzies, kiwi's, polish etc etc etc) hit Normandy. Sure, you helped put the nail in the coffin and that's about it. The war in Europe was won by the staunt refusal by Churchill to surrender and the massive loss of men on the Russian side. Let me spell it out, THE RUSSIANS AND BRITS WON IT IN EUROPE. Ok? I'll hand you the war in Asia though, but obviously with the help of the brits, kiwis, ozmates and so on. It is just as obvious that without US monetary and equipment support the war would be lost. BUT YOU DID NOT F.ING WIN IT FOR US.

Besides which, to mis-quote an often used expression, if it wasn't for you lot we would all be driving Mercs and Porkers by now :O

So if Europe was to seek advise, based on help giving to defeat Germany, we would be best served by listning to Russia, following your line of thinking. Do you know where the Russians stand on this, or rather, do you know where ANYBODY stands on a possible war with Iraq, other than the BS you are being spoon-fed by your local press?

Finally, it is not really the policy of the US government to liberate an oppressed population now is it? Zimbabwe, Haiti, N. Korea hell even Cuba springs to mind as places the US has decided to do f. all about. So could it, just possibly, be because Iraq has a rather large supply of black gold, and that your dimwitted non-democratically elected cowboy President want's to complete Daddy's unfinished business.

It is exactly attitudes such as the one you display that makes us Europeans say NO, NO, NO and yet again NO F.ING WAY.

On the other hand, show us the evidence. Prove that Saddam has nukes or gas shells, show us how he poses a threat to his neighbours, given the rather appaling state of his army, how he cooperates with any terrorist organisation and most importantly tell us what your plans for Iraq are after the war. We know you'll start pumping oil from day one, but what about the oppressed population you hold so dear, what of democratic institutions and please do tell us how you plan to get out again, and how you plan to deal with the reaction from the Arabic population to any occupation of Iraq. Answer those questions satisfactory, get UN backing for a war and THEN WE'LL BE WITH YOU!

[A and C]

To attack Iraq or not to is one issue and if a number of european nations dont want to do it then so be it , after all they have not made any agreement to do so.

To not help defend a nation IF attacked when you have a long standing agreement with them to do so and have had your own saftey underwriten by the very same agreement is the act of the very worst trechery.

The leaders of these nations are totaly untrustworthy as proved by there actions ( or lack of them ) and NATO protection should be instantly withdrawn , as for the leaders they should not expect to an invitation to another NATO nation in the future after all what is the point of talking to people whos words , honesty and integrity can be trusted count for nothing.

[West Coast]

FFF
Dont get your shorts in a bunch. First note the location from which the original missive was sent. It may be en vouge in the UK and other parts of Europe to slam the US, but not all see it that way.

As a point of order, you are with us on this one. With or without the UN.

You enjoy some revisionary history in your school books I see. Refusal to surrender to use your words is hardly the basis of victory. If however it is what you need, press on. You are correct, the US didn't win the war in Europe, we assisted in a regional conflict that Europeans were unable to handle themselves.

Tell me please, just how do you know that the predicate for war is oil? It seems pretty clear to you. Do you as an individual enjoy some greater level of prescience than the rest? Have you been consulted on the matter? If its all about the oil, then ergo, the North sea must be added to the list of sites to be invaded.

Spoon fed by our local press? Interesting. The bulk of the media has shown a bias against a war, the gold standard of this bias being set by the NY Times. I presume from your comments that the BBC and othe mdia outlets in the UK are unbiased? I really look forward to your reply.

Deal in fact, not in prejudicial beliefs.

[soddim]

FFF, there is plenty of evidence that saddam had wmd at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and, as a condition of keeping his job, he agreed to destroy them and allow the UN to verify the destruction. For 12 years since then he has ducked and dodged and weaved around UN attempts to enforce this condition and there is still no evidence of his compliance.

Because we let him off the hook he has continued in his efforts to procure nuclear weapons and, probably, has retained or increased his chemical and biological capabilities.

He is patently not in compliance because he is not helping the verification process. It is not necessary to find these weapons but it is necessary for him to prove that he no longer has them.

This is not a game of hide and seek but it is a game of show and tell - he is not showing or telling.

These are the facts by which the situation should be judged.

[Semaphore Sam]

I'm a Yank who's resided in the Middle East for 25 years; I'm an 11 year Veteran of the US Armed Forces. My politics is libertarian/right-wing.

The US is embarked on a very self-destructive course, in my opinion, as well as the opinion of many of my countrymen, and most Europeans and the rest of the world. What better way to 'pay-back' the Yanks, then to try to prevent such self-destructive behavior? The Arabs, and Muslims in general, almost to a man (women, sadly, don't count) believe the US is involved in a power-grab for oil, and that the Israelis will use the upcoming war as cover to take over the West Bank & Gaza. Al Quaeda (sp)ill, as a result, be very successful in recruiting terrorists for events in the US & other places.

Sadly, Bush is not very aware of the Middle East situation; I despised Clinton, but he,at least,tried to settle the Israel/Palestinian problem. Bush seems hell-bent on a course-of-action which may result in a permanent state of conflict (terror) in the West. Have you looked at Heathrow/JFK in the last day or 2?

Chirac & Schroeder might just succeed in pulling Bush's bacon out of the fire; for that I say, "Thanks, Gentlemen". True Friends speak truth even when such is unpleasant.

[Shagster]

OK girls, put down your handbags (purses). The original thread was about the potential break up of NATO, not who won WW2!
(by the way; that was German scientists working for the Americans).
Historically, the French have never fully supported NATO due to its heavy reliance on the USA. They have always viewed it as a force to defend Europe and that it should be controlled by Europe (France / Germany). Even back in the late 40's early 50's they had designs on a European supersate to rival the wealth of the USA.
However, there is a flaw, a lack of the basic ingredient...unity. Europeans cannot even agree on the size of a sausage, never mind a common defence policy that works. :rolleyes:
The Franco-German pact does not speak for Europe as a whole and should not presume to do so. If they refuse to defend a fellow member of NATO then the organisation will be undermined for ever. The trust that member nations will honour the agreement of mutual defence will be gone for ever.
What ever your views on the forthcoming Iraqi war (late Feb 03), the NATO question is another issue.

[soddim]

NATO - No Action Talk Only - bound to be against action. Why should the leopard change its spots now.

[Used Ink]

I agree with shagster, initially.
"The original thread was about the potential break up of NATO"

I think the whole NATO argument stems around article 5, which states that if any member state of NATO is attacked, then other members are expected to uphold further actions against the initial attacking force.

WELL EXCUSE ME! I for one do not remember the USA, or even Turkey come to think of it, being attacked by any Iraqi force, or anyone linked to Iraq.

No-one owes any-one any more for the 2 WW, thats gone, history. (Except perhaps the fact that the UK still has a financial debt to the USA) So forget that side of it. Otherwise I'll have to bring up the world cup 1966 :p

This is about REVENGE. USA can't get bin Laden or quash the Taliban, who can we get who is not well defended?

If you need to bring up WW2, then the ONLY reason USA joined was because of Pearl Harbour and the revenge that was gained by being able to nuke Japan.

HELLO USA, can anyone else see the similarity here?

Beside it's not 9/11, its 11/9 or 11 Sept.

And Ground Zero refers to Nuclear weapons. Someone - tell most Americans that a nuke was not used in NY, because thats what most believe.

NATO is not at risk here, only world peace caused by the blood lust for revenge of the American nation.

Sorry if this offends, but lets smell the coffee America


Finally, Powells name is pronounces colin, (as in coll-in), not colin, (as in colon).:eek:


Sorry, I had to post again.

West Coast, you must be on a different planet to the rest of us.
(or is that just a film studio in Area 51) ;)

You said, "You are correct, the US didn't win the war in Europe, we assisted in a regional conflict that Europeans were unable to handle themselves.

And you are so good at it aren't you? Assisting in a conflict they can't handle. Korea, Vietnam! and then you went home.

Can't see the enemy, lets get the Canadians / Brits. The good quote was from a Nat Gd pilot, " I thought they were firing SAMs at me" This was flying over a small arms range used by the Canadians at the time.

Those vehicles shouldn't be here, so the alliance markings on the vehicles and Union flags on antannae, not to mention basic vehicle recognition meant yet more blue on blue. Funny how it's always the USA doing the firing. I revert to my last post of blood lust revenge. :mad:

You said,"Deal in fact, not in prejudicial beliefs."

And what facts are these then? So false, they've come out of that same film/sound studio in the Nevada desert.
It normally takes weeks to verify a bin Laden tape. However this last tape was verified in only hours. And this verification came only 2 hours after being broadcast initially. :confused:

For XXXXXX sake, if there are WMD there, why don't the int agencies tell the inspectors?

HERE'S A FACT . Now the emphasis is based on Iraqi missiles having a greater range than allowed. True, but only because they are not guided, which, america, means once launched you can't control it! and its only by an extra 10-15 km.

Now take this in the way it's meant america....

You said,"Tell me please, just how do you know that the predicate for war is oil? "

Don't you watch James Bond? Suggest you hire out GoldenEye on DVD. :p

Quick, theres a new delivery of duck tape at the store.......

utterly laughable :D

[ORAC]

Tsk Tsk Used Ink, obviously back from the pub>

"This is about REVENGE. USA can't get bin Laden or quash the Taliban".

Seem to have squashed the Taleban quite well. And Bin Laden's on the run, even if he's not found.


"If you need to bring up WW2, then the ONLY reason USA joined was because of Pearl Harbour and the revenge that was gained by being able to nuke Japan. HELLO USA, can anyone else see the similarity here?"

Bit of a circular argument here. The USA declared war on Japan because Japan attacked them. They declared war on Germany and Italy because they declared war on the USA first.

They dropped the bomb because of the estimated 1.5 million casualties they'd incur in an invasion. When they asked the allies who they'd just helped in Europe if they'd help support an invasion they declined to a man.

Similarity? None that I can see.

"NATO is not at risk here, only world peace caused by the blood lust for revenge of the American nation."

Pure ignorant supposition. The effect of the attack on the USA was to crystallise the Americans into a policy of pre-emptive engagement against those they perceived as a threat. Containment was no longer perceived as adequate. But to mix that up with revenge is misleading, even if you fundamentally disagree with it.

"And you are so good at it aren't you? Assisting in a conflict they can't handle. Korea, Vietnam! and then you went home."

Actually, yes they are. If only because they have the numbers required, the airlift etc. I might point out they had to step in and help pull Europe's eggs out of the fire in Bosnia/Kosovo. I also seem to remember that the root cause of he situation was Germany's meddling in Croatia. They weren't so high minded then.

"Finally, Powells name is pronounces colin, (as in coll-in), not colin"

I think he knows how to pronounce his own name. Who's being arrogant now?

"Can't see the enemy, lets get the Canadians / Brits. The good quote was from a Nat Gd pilot, " I thought they were firing SAMs at me" This was flying over a small arms range used by the Canadians at the time."

A totally ficticious quote. An inquiry is being held. The pilots involved will probably be Court Martialled. But why spoil a good story with the facts.

"Those vehicles shouldn't be here, so the alliance markings on the vehicles and Union flags on antannae, not to mention basic vehicle recognition meant yet more blue on blue. Funny how it's always the USA doing the firing."

The perception that it's always the Americans' is probably because they provide around 99% of the air power. We just tag along to make up the numbers. They also, however, provide the 100% air superiority which stops the enemy attacking. Hence no incidents such the attack on the Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove when we fought on our own.

If you offered me the choice of fight with them or without them, I'd take with them every time.

"And what facts are these then? So false, they've come out of that same film/sound studio in the Nevada desert.
It normally takes weeks to verify a bin Laden tape. However this last tape was verified in only hours. And this verification came only 2 hours after being broadcast initially."

A Qatari government spokesman has now confirmed that they proved the USA with an advance copy they were given by Al Jazeera. Hence they were able to analyse it. Al Jazeera had been refraining from broadcasting it and only did so after Powell quoted from it. Al jazeera has confirmed they received the tape through the same sources who provided all previous tapes.

"For XXXXXX sake, if there are WMD there, why don't the int agencies tell the inspectors?"

Knowing there are WMD and knowing the precise ocation are two different things. The UN has proof of their previous existence, the Iraqis cannot provide proof of their destruction.

"HERE'S A FACT . Now the emphasis is based on Iraqi missiles having a greater range than allowed. True, but only because they are not guided, which, america, means once launched you can't control it! and its only by an extra 10-15 km."

A claim by the Iraqi's which is not corroborated by the independent assessment by the UN. Not only does the range, fully equipped, exceed the maximum allowed by 30km - 20%; but the diameter exceeds the maximum allowed and the rocket motor is of a type not allowed. They, therefore, are in violation on at least 3 counts. The first they might try and make a case for, the other two are blatant violations for which there can be no excuse.

According to the assessment, as reported by the BBC, they are also designed for future growth in both fuel and engine size providing added range and payload.

But otherwise a rational, logical way to discuss the subject and to talk about a major ally. :rolleyes:

[West Coast]

Used ink
You are out there. I imagine your countrymen who oppose the war yet do so with thought provoking arguement must cringe when they read that kind of diatribe.

[Used Ink]

Sorry everyone, must be fairly quick.

Packing the final bits for the trip tomorrow.
Looks like 3 proper wars in the service for my queen/country/government.

Times were that if someone had a Northern Ireland GSM, they were the old sweat.
Even us 'brits' are now looking like americans in the medal stakes!

Hopefully, if I can get mobile coverage to link up the laptop, I can continue to give my slant on the world as I see it.

Briefly for now though;

Orac "Seem to have squashed the Taleban quite well. And Bin Laden's on the run, even if he's not found. "

I think you'll find the Taleban is moving back into Kabul and Afghanistan in general. The US swore to get rid of bin Laden.

As for the colin thing. I think it's along the line of old stormin' norman, when he says that Schwartzkopf doesn't translate to be 'blackhead'

Firstly, try telling the german nation that, (including my german ex-wife) and of course the manufacturer of the shampoo of the same name with the company logo being black cameo.

Sorry it's short, running short of time.

I wish you all well, please don't take all this too seriously and if I bump into any of you out there, you'll all be very welcome to share my water bottle.

:cool:

[Jackonicko]

Westy,

The fact that he soon will really be 'Out there' makes me forgive the tone of his post, I have to say!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Good grief,
Whilst I had a few reservations with kennyR and his original post it would appear that usedink........stroker:yuk: ......has "used" something before his last two posts.

ORAC has it spot on, because as my good wife often tells me, he/she who does MOST makes most mistakes, and mistakes are exactly that.

I hope "blot" eventually comes down from the substance he is obviously abusing and offers his humble apologies to our allies who he has so rudely insulted................and in the meantime if any of our "cousins" come across him you may want to consider...............no it's just a waste of valuable munitions:rolleyes:


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Danny]

Sorry, but not another thread diverging into a pro/anti war diatribe with the usual Jackonicko strategy of introducing the Israeli aggressors somehow into the reason that Saddam is such a nasty man.:rolleyes: The original poster queried the refusal by France, Germany and Belgium to agree to a request by a NATO alliance member, Turkey, for additional DEFENSIVE support in case of an attack by neighbouring Iraq. They didn't ask for permission and support for a pre-emptive or defensive attack on Iraq, they just requested defensive support.

There are enough threads on PPRuNe, both here and in Jet Blast, if you want to air your views and I won't put up with another one where some of the posters show such ignorance and base their suppositions on old prejuduces and myths.:*