[mr. natural]

Yep, it's another fine day in Afghanistan.

One out of three ain't bad. I mean, at least they're *free* to not have the other two, right?

This must be what Dubya meant when he wrote: "Let freedom reign."

[OldManMac]

A precursor to what will happen in Iraq.

[Spliffdaddy]

Another fine example of the UN doing what they do best.

[Zimphire]

You know, If it doesn't happen immediatly r, well all is lost, lets go back to the way it was. Lets give it back to the terrorists.

I mean look at American. We got it right from the start in 1776

Never mind that little civil war thing 100 years later, that was just an argument. If it takes 50 years for them to get it right they will have a better track record than we did.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You know, If it doesn't happen immediatly r, well all is lost, lets go back to the way it was. Lets give it back to the terrorists.

I mean look at American. We got it right from the start in 1776

Never mind that little civil war thing 100 years later, that was just an argument. If it takes 50 years for them to get it right they will have a better track record than we did.

I think we are still waiting for the US to get it right, so thats 228 years and counting

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Athens:
I think we are still waiting for the US to get it right, so thats 228 years and counting

Well if we got on top for doing it all wrong, that says a lot about the countries below us.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Spliffdaddy:
Another fine example of the UN doing what they do best.

Haha. Ummm, would you care to elaborate?

Actually, i think this is a fine example of what the US does best. We break 'em and let the rest of the world worry about fixing them. Duyba was right when he said he wasn't into this nation building stuff -- not when it's so much more fun to knock 'em over and run.

Next!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
We break 'em and let the rest of the world worry about fixing them.

Whaaaaa?

People were BITCHING about us not letting the UN help, and then when we do, and they screw it up, we get the "We break 'em and let the rest of the world worry about fixing them."

Give me a break...

[mr. natural]

Posted by Zimphire:
You know,...

You know, i don't know.

...if it...

You know, "it" depends on what "it" is.

...doesn't happen immediatly r,...

You know, where'd i say that?

...well all is lost,...

You know, you're projecting!

...let's go back to the way it was.

You know, that's silly!

Which year are you referring too here?

get a grip, zim.

I mean...

You know what, i don't know!

...look at America.

You know, like, oK, i'm *looking* ... now what?

We...

You know what, speak for yourself, bub!

...got it...

You know, "it" depends on what "it" is -- again!

...right...

You know, you could be wrong!

...from the start in 1776

You know what, zimmy: Comparing the homegrown revolution of the USA to the overthrow of the Taliban by the US just doesn't cut it -- especially not when we cut and run, i.e., pull a Coitus interruptus in Afghanistan, just so we can go do a double jack-off over Iraq!

Hey, but what do I know?

[itai195]

LOL, post of the year

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You know, "it" depends on what "it" is.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
LOL, post of the year

It's a tired bit. Been done before. I forget who the original fan was that did that.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Zimphire:
Whaaaaa?

You know, that's what I say (and i think a lot of other people do too reading your posts!).

People were BITCHING...

oK, which "People" are you referring too?

...about us not letting the UN help,...

Please provide the links to prove your allegations.

and then when we do, and they screw it up, we get the "We break 'em and let the rest of the world worry about fixing them."

Give me a break...

Sorry, no break for you, man who can post an authoratative opinion about anything at anytime. I await your response.








:chirp:

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's a tired bit. Been done before. I forget who the original fan was that did that.

But it was sorely needed now

[Zimphire]

I believe France on MANY occasions has complained that the US needs to let the UN be apart of these things. And NOT left in the dark.

Right? Yes.

THX.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
But it was sorely needed now

Why? Where in this thread have I done that?

It was funny the first time...

I've explained why I break posts down like that many times.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Zimphire:

What I believe...

You know, zim, you don't get "it", do you?

*We,* as in the royal macnn 'We,' (for whom I hereby proclaim my sovereign power to speak on the behalf of) don't give a damn what you believe.

*We* are still waiting for *you* to prove the *gross* allegation as stated by you and outlined by me above.

Claiming, as you do, that you believe *FRANCE* "on MANY occasions has complained that the US needs to let the UN be apart of these things" (whatever *these things* are) does not prove anything.

I asked for proof, not what *you believe.*

Believe me, I know full well about what you *believe* in; And if you were to ask me, I'd tell you what I *believe* about your *beliefs.*

But that would *prove* nothing, so I see no point in dissuading you from your *unprovable beliefs.*

However, when one asserts, as you have, a point that can be proven (or disproven for not backing up), I am going to nail you to the cross of your own making -- unless you want to prove with sound factual links what you say you *believe!*

Do Y-O-U UN-der-Stand ME? Or are YOU D-E-A-F, B-L-I-N-D, and D-U-M-B?

I can tell you what *I believe* about this question, but it would prove nothing.

You prove it with your replies all the time.

[Zimphire]

Originally spazzed by mr. natural:

<snipped spaz>

Do Y-O-U UN-der-Stand ME? Or are YOU D-E-A-F, B-L-I-N-D, and D-U-M-B?

Actually I can't hear out of my right ear.

Anyhow.

It is highly uncertain whether these U.S. proposals will satisfy the concerns of Security Council members such as France and Germany who have been demanding greater UN participation ...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...oalition01.htm

I surely hope this ends your little attention getting spazzout.

[mr. natural]

WTF does this Iraq/US/UN SC link you provided have to do with *proving* anything about Afghanistan?

You must be silly. Or is it just D U M B.

[daimoni]

.

[mr. natural]

Posted by daimoni:
Kickin' ass and takin' names!

Alas, with zim, it's like beating up on a baby.

Sadly, there isn't any real thrill to it.

Kinda like the US and Afghanistan.

[SimeyTheLimey]

How many years has the international community been in Bosnia? Clinton promised the US would be out in a year. That was nine years ago. And Bosnia had a bit of a head start over Afghanistan.

Then again, I'd be impressed if we could just get the D.C. Government to function well.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
WTF does this Iraq/US/UN SC link you provided have to do with *proving* anything about Afghanistan?

You need to take a reading comprehension course. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to Afghanistan.

You must be silly. Or is it just D U M B.

More links.

http://www.williamshawcross.com/un.html

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...article6.shtml

[Zimphire]

And another.

Q - In the context of the United States, which wants to keep its hands free in the present situation in Afghanistan, is there some convergence between the U.S. and France on the role of the U.S. which France wants to be determining, contrary to the U.S.?

There was a consensus on resolution 1373. What more can I say? We are placing our action in the context of international action, i.e. the U.N. Are we in agreement with the U.S. in that? Traditionally, the U.S. has a vision of the U.N. which is not exactly the same as ours. But at this time and in this matter, I note that the U.S. itself wanted decisions from the Security Council twice already, on the evolution and on the handling of this crisis. For the fight against terrorism, the U.S. accepted in resolution 1373 a follow-up mechanism (paragraph 6 of the resolution) which establishes a Security Council committee, composed of all the members of the Council, to follow the application of the present resolution with the aid of experts and also asks all states to report to the committee, no later than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution, on the measures they have taken to implement it. So all this shows that the U.N. is heavily involved in dealing with and following up the crisis.

And as you know, we support this.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/a....asp?ART=11004

[Zimphire]

And even Blair wanted it

http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/...ghan_gov011113

British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for a United Nations presence in Afghanistan "as soon as possible."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Kickin' ass and takin' names!

No, that is what is called "Verbal Masturbation"

Mr.Natural likes to see his words on the page.

I hope he didn't bite his pillow TOO hard.

[mr. natural]

posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How many years has the international community been in Bosnia? Clinton promised the US would be out in a year. That was nine years ago. And Bosnia had a bit of a head start over Afghanistan.

Thank you, Simey, for illustrating my point. It may not be completely peaches and cream in Bosnia & Herzegovina, but at least they have more Peace, Freedom and real Democracy than Afghanistan. Frankly, I wish the US had stayed more actively engaged in Afghanistan -- like in Bosnia with our full fledged engagement of military might in coordination with UN/NATO peacekeeping arrangements of 60,000 peacekeepers; now down to 12,000 (that's an improvement!) -- instead of running off to just go "F*ck Saddam."

The way Afghanistan has been left in the lurch, it wouldn't surprise me that we'll end up there again to deal with the remnants of the Taliban, al Queda, and the various well-armed war lords we left in place should the chaos worsen. (Not to mention, we might need some Afghan bases to operate from if nuclear armed Pakistan falls into Islamist hands.)

Then again, it is Afghanistan, and not Iraq, and so, who cares! As long as they aren't in a position to interfere with us and the real geo-political game that surrounds the middle east and all the oil below ground there goes.

Let them eat poppies, eh?

[mr. natural]

Posted by Zimphire:
You need to take a reading comprehension course. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to Afghanistan.

No, you didn't. It's just that this thread and all the posts in it until you showed up are about and refer to... (drumroll)... Afghanistan!

From some lame, apparently randomly generated google search link to the topic at hand by Zimphire:
And as you know, we support this.

pssssst! zim, did you even read and understand the quote you posted? It doesn't support your allegation.

And even Blair wanted it

I guess this makes him one of them *many* "BITCHING people," although I never knew he was French.








Keep it up, zim, you're treading self-administered smackdown territory as readily as spacefreak gave himself not long ago. Of course his was a truly foolish mistake, while you just keep on mistaking yourself for anything but a fool!

I know that's a hard sentence to comprehend but I'll let you puzzle it out.

BTW, I'm done with you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
No, you didn't. It's just that this thread and all the posts in it until you showed up are about and refer to... (drumroll)... Afghanistan!

I was speaking in *drumroll* general.

You shouldn't assume so much.

pssssst! zim, did you even read and understand the quote you posted? It doesn't support your allegation.

Yes it does. They wanted the UN involved.

I guess this makes him one of them *many* "BITCHING people," although I never knew he was French.

Did that post refer to just the French? Your dodges and excuses are getting pathetic.

Keep it up, zim, you're treading self-administered smackdown territory as readily as spacefreak gave himself not long ago. Of course his was a truly foolish mistake, while you just keep on mistaking yourself for anything but a fool!

This is what I refer to when I speak about verbal masturbation. You like to "hear" yourself speak.

BTW, I'm done with you.

Yeah, can't admit I was right. You just dodge, and deny, and leave.

That isn't very honorable. Nor does it gain you credibility.

You are teh lose.

Maybe next time you wont assume, and beat your chest so much. You wont have to dislodge your foot from your mouth that way.

Somehow I don't feel we will hear the last from you on this. Wanna bet?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Thank you, Simey, for illustrating my point. It may not be completely peaches and cream in Bosnia & Herzegovina, but at least they have more Peace, Freedom and real Democracy than Afghanistan. Frankly, I wish the US had stayed more actively engaged in Afghanistan -- like in Bosnia with our full fledged engagement of military might in coordination with UN/NATO peacekeeping arrangements of 60,000 peacekeepers; now down to 12,000 (that's an improvement!) -- instead of running off to just go "F*ck Saddam."

The way Afghanistan has been left in the lurch, it wouldn't surprise me that we'll end up there again to deal with the remnants of the Taliban, al Queda, and the various well-armed war lords we left in place should the chaos worsen. (Not to mention, we might need some Afghan bases to operate from if nuclear armed Pakistan falls into Islamist hands.)

Then again, it is Afghanistan, and not Iraq, and so, who cares! As long as they aren't in a position to interfere with us and the real geo-political game that surrounds the middle east and all the oil below ground there goes.

Let them eat poppies, eh?

Bosnia was and is a much more advanced country than Afghanistan -- notwithstanding the effects of the Bosnian war. Remember also that the US didn't go to Afghanistan for charity and nation building. The fact that the Taliban was replaced with a much better government and international support was a happy side effect. But it was never the reason we went.

The UN and NATO are in charge of Afghanistan. Last time I checked, the US isn't the only country in the UN or NATO. If you think there are inadequate forces in Afghanistan, go talk to the lazy n'ere do wells in Europe. Let them dig into their pockets a little. The EU has a GNP roughly comparable to the US, and a bigger population. It's high time they started taking responsibility for their own neighborhood. Afghanistan is closer to them than to us, and that heroin you are concerned about is mostly destined for Europe. It would be nice if they would let us leave the Balkans too. That isn't just near Europe, it is in Europe.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bosnia was and is a much more advanced country than Afghanistan -- notwithstanding the effects of the Bosnian war. Remember also that the US didn't go to Afghanistan for charity and nation building. The fact that the Taliban was replaced with a much better government and international support was a happy side effect. But it was never the reason we went.

The UN and NATO are in charge of Afghanistan. Last time I checked, the US isn't the only country in the UN or NATO. If you think there are inadequate forces in Afghanistan, go talk to the lazy n'ere do wells in Europe. Let them dig into their pockets a little. The EU has a GNP roughly comparable to the US, and a bigger population. It's high time they started taking responsibility for their own neighborhood. Afghanistan is closer to them than to us, and that heroin you are concerned about is mostly destined for Europe. It would be nice if they would let us leave the Balkans too. That isn't just near Europe, it is in Europe.

Is this the thanks Europe gets for activating the NATO clause that an attack on one is an attack on all?

Quite frankly I don't care what happens to Afganistan, but I do think we should do our best to rebuild it. But that should be a U.N. mission and not a NATO mission. NATO's mission was to get rid of Al Qaida and the Taliban.

And I agree with you that Europe should handle the Balkans ourselves. But do you have any numbers on what nations have troops there and how many?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Is this the thanks Europe gets for activating the NATO clause that an attack on one is an attack on all?

Quite frankly I don't care what happens to Afganistan, but I do think we should do our best to rebuild it. But that should be a U.N. mission and not a NATO mission. NATO's mission was to get rid of Al Qaida and the Taliban.

And I agree with you that Europe should handle the Balkans ourselves. But do you have any numbers on what nations have troops there and how many?

I agree that it was a mistake not to engage our NATO "allies" in the war on terror more after Article 5 was invoked. Because of that mistake, many seem to have forgotten that they invoked it, and they now act as if the war on terror isn't a real war.

However, I can see the reason they didn't do it. It comes from the experience the US military had in the Kosovo campaign. The alliance is clumsy because it relies of consensus. It is also unbalanced with most of the capability in the hands of the US, and with most allies able to bring little more to the table than headaches.

I read the other day (not sure where) that only about 3-4% of European combat strength is deployable out of NATO's theater. That's pathetic. You can afford to do better, you just don't want to because it is easier and cheaper to let the US do it for you. If that is how you want it, you really have little cause to grumble at the US.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree that it was a mistake not to engage our NATO "allies" in the war on terror more after Article 5 was invoked. Because of that mistake, many seem to have forgotten that they invoked it, and they now act as if the war on terror isn't a real war.

Well, I think that most of NATO disagrees on how to fight this war. Perhaps most obvious in Iraq at the moment. Just because they invoked Article 5 doesn't mean that they should give the U.S. complete control over how it is fought and send all their troops and material into wars that have nothing to do with the WoT. It is here the Bush administrations biggest weakness comes into play. Diplomacy. If there is one thing the current U.S. administration has completely and utterly failed in it is in diplomacy and using the 9/11 attack to get a consensus on how to fight this war. You can't expect your allies to just follow your lead.

However, I can see the reason they didn't do it. It comes from the experience the US military had in the Kosovo campaign. The alliance is clumsy because it relies of consensus. It is also unbalanced with most of the capability in the hands of the US, and with most allies able to bring little more to the table than headaches.

Most of the military capabilities might be in the hands of the U.S. but nation-building and similar actions is absolutely not where you can call the U.S. capable of doing anything worth noting. And claiming that the allies have only provided headaches won't give us any more incentive to help you in your future wars. Monetary or Militarily.

And I love this sentence of yours: "The alliance is clumsy because it relies of consensus."

Please tell me in what other way an alliance is supposed to work. I'm very excited about hearing about alliances which don't rely on a consensus between the members of that alliance.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I read the other day (not sure where) that only about 3-4% of European combat strength is deployable out of NATO's theater. That's pathetic. You can afford to do better, you just don't want to because it is easier and cheaper to let the US do it for you. If that is how you want it, you really have little cause to grumble at the US.

Why should a defence treaty have an force that is deployable outside of it's main theatre?

And if the U.S. is so unhappy about that, why are they so unhappy about the German/French/BeNeLux(IIRC) proposal for an EU military that should be deployable around the world?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You know, If it doesn't happen immediatly r, well all is lost, lets go back to the way it was. Lets give it back to the terrorists.

I mean look at American. We got it right from the start in 1776

Never mind that little civil war thing 100 years later, that was just an argument. If it takes 50 years for them to get it right they will have a better track record than we did.

Actually, the Civil War isn't the best example you could have used. The best would have been the Articles of Confederation, the first form of government drawn up by the Framers, which lasted for several years. It cast the "nation" more as a relatively loose confederation of states (or, as it was called then, a "firm league of friendship and cooperation"). It didn't work out very well, though; that's when the Constitution came into play.

The point: it takes a long time to build a nation. The US started out on better footing than most, and it still took years to get it right. Just because technology is better today doesn't change the fundamentals of human nature, and it is these, not communication gaps, which make nation-building so hard.

Look at an area like Afghanistan, and it becomes even harder. This is a nation created less than a hundred years ago, not by a mandate of the people, but by some distant and basically-unconcerned politician's sense of geopolitical aesthetics. In no way did it take into account the differing cultures of the people living there, and as a result the internal situation has been nothing short of "cold civil war" even in the best of times. If the US as a nation started out in a less than ideal situation, then the situation in Afghanistan is positively nightmarish. The process of reunifying that place -if it's even worth it; perhaps simply carving it up into its component ethnic homelands might be a better solution- will probably not be all that much different from simply conquering the whole region again.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please tell me in what other way an alliance is supposed to work. I'm very excited about hearing about alliances which don't rely on a consensus between the members of that alliance.

There is an old military saying: "One bad general will beat three good generals". History seems to demonstrate it rather effectively.

Why is this? Consensus has its pros and cons. Of course, it allows you to arrive at decisions which leave everyone less than satisfied but at least offends no one (truly mutually-satisfactory solutions are exceedingly rare, and for nontrivial problems they're basically unheard of). The major disadvantage is that they're extremely slow. This is alright in peacetime, because there usually isn't much of a rush for most decisions; the Earth will not fall into the sun if the budget does not get passed tomorrow as opposed to today.

There are, however, times when delay is not an option, when the decision has to be made immediately or there will be disastrous consequences. This comes up all the time in war, which is why the military has its own saying about it, but there are other times -such as smack in the middle of an election, or worse, past its appointed deadline- when the decision has to be made now. In cases like this, consensus doesn't work, because by the time any kind of decision is made it will already be too late.

In times like this, there needs to be a leader, a decision-maker. How that decision-maker is chosen -elections, rotations, or whatever- is entirely the prerogative of the group which that leader will govern. Of course, a decision-maker's power should be limited to time-critical, "snap" decisions; anything which can be viably governed by consensus still should be. But reality is not a cartoon; The Bad Guy (whether a literal person or some other kind of time-critical problem) doesn't just sit there and wait for you to decide how you're going to deal with him. There times when a consensus is inherently clumsy, and when those dark times arise, there needs to be some kind of adaptability.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There is an old military saying: "One bad general will beat three good generals". History seems to demonstrate it rather effectively.

...........snipped for brevity..........

That's all fine and dandy but that doesn't apply to Simeys assertion. He was talking about alliances but not an ongoing war and combat situations. Alliances is something it takes time to build and just a moment of idiocity("Old Europe") to destroy. You have to build up alliances before you go to war and not on the go like the Bush administration did in Iraq. If you have alliances like the U.S. has/had with Europe it doesn't take too much time to decide on the the RoE etc. When NATO decided it was time to do something about the Balkan situation it used a half a century old alliance and it did well. But just because you have to have alliances it doesn't mean that the military can't after that be under the control of one general. But that is only after the RoE etc have been established. What Simey said was simply wrong.

And on a sidenote since we brought up Article 5 I thought we should bring up Article 1. It were the European nations(as well as Canada)that decided to apply Article 5 to 9/11. The same people as Simey so disrespectfully calls "Allies". It would be nice if the U.S. could perhaps also adhere to the NATO treaty and follow this Article:

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The point: it takes a long time to build a nation. The US started out on better footing than most, and it still took years to get it right. Just because technology is better today doesn't change the fundamentals of human nature, and it is these, not communication gaps, which make nation-building so hard.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
That's all fine and dandy but that doesn't apply to Simeys assertion. He was talking about alliances but not an ongoing war and combat situations.

No, I was talking about ongoing war and a combat situation. After Kosovo, the US military developed an aversion to fighting a war by committee. Especially not a committee that in the end contributes nothing significant in terms of additional military resources, but contributes an enormous amount in terms of conflicting political objectives. Kosovo was a nightmare of vetoed targets and last minute, high-level bargaining, and that was when the alliance was more or less in agreement, and before the last couple of rounds of enlargement.

Google committees and the design of the elephant. Or consider the number of cooks and the quality of broth.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, I was talking about ongoing war and a combat situation. After Kosovo, the US military developed an aversion to fighting a war by committee. Especially not a committee that in the end contributes nothing significant in terms of additional military resources, but contributes an enormous amount in terms of conflicting political objectives. Kosovo was a nightmare of vetoed targets and last minute, high-level bargaining, and that was when the alliance was more or less in agreement, and before the last couple of rounds of enlargement.

Google committees and the design of the elephant. Or consider the number of cooks and the quality of broth.

OK. So what is your point? Is it that alliances are worthless? Do you think the the rest of NATO shouldn't have applied article 5 to 9/11? Since alliances only complicate things. Can we expect the US to not apply article 5 when/if Europe gets attacked in the near future?

Or do you think that your allies should just send you our troops and hand them over to your command?

In one post you said both that alliances are clumsy and complained about Europe only being able to deploy 3-5% of its troops. These two complaints are hard to solve at once. How do you propose it is solved? And what kind of alliances are you proposing? The CotW type that is created as you run along or the NATO type that you have a long time before and work together at making it suitable for all member of that alliance.

So basically how do you see the power-play between nations(mostly Europe and the US) and what kind of command structure should those alliances have? Also, would you support a strong deployable EU military that would not be under NATO control but that the EU nations could allow to take part in NATO missions if requested.


I'm all questions lately and have no idea why

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
OK. So what is your point? Is it that alliances are worthless? Do you think the the rest of NATO shouldn't have applied article 5 to 9/11? Since alliances only complicate things. Can we expect the US to not apply article 5 when/if Europe gets attacked in the near future?

I'd love for Europe to ask the US to apply Article 5 in the unhappy circumstance that it is attacked. That would end this ridiculous idea that international terrorism is nothing but a law enforcement problem. However, that isn't the point here. The point is that NATO serves essentially no purpose as a meaningful alliance as long as it is so imbalanced in terms of capability. Other than the US, France, and the UK, the rest of NATO is capable of little more than parades. And France and the UK are way down in capability from the US.

NATO is or at least can be a useful political alliance. But it isn't a military one except in that it has become a way for Europe to avoid paying its own way.