LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
From what I understand, the UK shall be sending another 1000 troops, bringing our presence up to around 9500, or half whispered, over 10,000 including special forces. It doesnt sound a lot, but with our forces diminished as they are and stretched as they are, its a major deployment of people and a very large investment.
As I understand it, we are the second biggest contributor, and at that miles behind the US, but then we cant compete with US troop numbers and budgets. Meanwhile the British public grows as uneasy about the prospects for success as it is unsure of what success might be, and fears more lives lost not to some hope of victory but to a nightmarish apparition combining support for a corrupt government and a lost cause.
Where are the rest of NATO? Some are contributing more than others but even they are remarkably few in number by comparison to the Brits, let alone the Americans.
E
Well, Spain were involved until the railway station bombings convinced them this was a bad idea. It's a pity we couldn't take the same hint from the London tube bombings in 2005, really. This is America's problem, and I can't see any benefit we're getting from being involved in it.
I'm sorry, but if we are to be members of NATO - a pact whereby each member has the benefit of the others coming to his aid in the case he is attacked, then there is absolutely no excuse for the failure of certain members to live up to their side of the bargain in the event (911) that one member (the US) is attacked.
It speaks volumes about how certain members view NATO; that is, as a means by which they may gain the protection of the US, and not as a reciprocal, mutual pact under which they owe a damned thing to the US on their parts.
The idea that we are getting nothing from being in Afghanistan is one which is being repeated often it seems; on the face of it its true, the US is not favouring us with showers of gifts or even words of praise - but then why and how should it? We entered into a pact - the better half of which pact we as Europeans enjoyed from the immediate post-war period until around 1990, so it can hardly be held that our involvement in Afghanistan is either a favour or something in relation to which the US should pay consideration - if anything it is now time for Europe to pay back the consideration provided by the US for 40 or so years.
Now if the argument is that the Afghanistan theatre is a mess thats been badly handled and with no realistic prospect of deterring terrorism arising from there again, I would agree. But the decisions were made and made badly and we went in and now we're there. We now have to make the best of it - leaving those willing to live up to their commitments to do so in order to keep the electorate happy is simply not acceptable; the NATO pact is one between states not governments, and survives each change of government in its constituency, not requiring re-ratification post each election cycle.
If some members find that they are unwilling to live up to their side of the deal, then they should consider leaving the pact immediately, and providing for their own defence in case of attack. The great danger is, that if some of Europe declines to live up to its side of the bargain then the US may well find itself obliged to leave NATO, finding it to be the one sided bargain that many always thought it to be.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread