Europe as joke

On or about 25 Oct 2003 17:00:42 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

Bottom line, because of Germany, France, Belgium and Russia, Europe's
participation in rebuilding Iraq is minimal, particularly in the area of armed
forces.

2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
that's minimal, what were you expecting?

If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
countries on the continent.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about 25 Oct 2003 17:43:14 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

Peter,
From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
Germany NATO is impotent and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,
what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,
great, we'll go elsewhere.

Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
majority vote, for the same reasons we'll never voluntarily give up
our UNSC veto - we want to be able to stop things *we* don't like.
Short of the other NATO nations saying that we alone can keep our veto
it's not going to improve, and I don't see that happening.

For what it's worth I fully support the move towards deploying forces
further east. There is zero point in having several bases in Germany
in this day and age, and keeping large forces abroad is horribly
expensive. I would suggest providing 1st line bases around the
periphery of the NATO area, fully up to scratch with at least some
munitions in place, but with a minimal manning outside the host
nation. then when necessary forces can easily surge forwards. Of
course there would need to be very regular exercises to keep the
integration of the forces together (IMO the best part of NATO these
days is the relative ease that multinational forces can be put
together - we've been training an equipping together for 50 years).

Then more US and UK troops can be based at home, far cheaper and
giving a better personal life for the forces.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about 25 Oct 2003 16:52:41 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?

When its confined to a very small part of Europe, involves only European
countries and citizens of Europe.

But surely then Rwanda was a purely African issue?

It happened in
Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.

It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
turn away from it

Is that why so many European nations rushed forces to Rwanda?

Composition of UNAMIR from
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamir.htm

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian
Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo,
Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe

I count 12 European nations with forces in UNAMIR. And no US forces.
Not a good example of how the Europeans ignored it.

However the mandate was never strong enough to work, and so the best
part of a million people died.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Peter Kemp
blurted out:

For what it's worth I fully support the move towards deploying forces
further east. There is zero point in having several bases in Germany
in this day and age, and keeping large forces abroad is horribly
expensive. ...

Then more US and UK troops can be based at home, far cheaper and
giving a better personal life for the forces.

I'm in total agreement with you on this...perhaps this will come to
pass.

Juvat

For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
$235 million.

How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?

Why should they pay for what the US broke? You see, if Europe begin to shell
out for every country the US invades, it might become a pattern. If Mr. Bush
does not know how best to blow his mint, let him donate those billions he
spends on war in iraq to some charity.

Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
$235 million.

How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?

Someone please remind me how much the U.S. has spent in the former
Yugoslavia. How many billions have we ****ed away, putting out fires
in Europe's outhouse? Why are we continuing to put men and treasure
into the Balkans?

(I say this with a salute to Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, and even
Holland, who have indeed put cash and troops into Iraq. Europe is not
entirely defined by France and Germany.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On 25 Oct 2003 17:43:14 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
Er, BUFDRVR, you have seen the ToEs of the new nations haven't you
(silly question, I'd damn well hope you were better briefed than me)?

Some of them are stretched to provide more than a battalion for ops,
very little professional military due to the soviet style national
service, and their air forces tend to be in meltdown. If you start to
push out the more traditional members of NATO, then the US will have
to shoulder even more of the burden than currently, and it's the air
components that will really be hurting.

Not Smart


Peter,
From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
Germany NATO is impotent

By "impotent" I presume you mean "not a puppet of the USA".

and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,

That's not true. Several NATO nations would like to be in a
pan-European alliance *as well as* NATO.

what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,

However, no informed commentator believes Germany will leave NATO.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On 25 Oct 2003 17:00:42 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.

You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of every
nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in Asia
(Iraq) is absolutely fine?

Yugoslavia is in Europe, so it is very much in the interests of
other European nations to make sure genocide doesn't happen there.
Europe (and the USA, for that matter) lost the ball during the
Bosnia war (which is why Europe and the USA intervened in Kosovo,
and is also why Milosevic thought he could bluff his way out).

From a human rights perspective, Iraq (and Rwanda for that matter)
are equally deserving of attention. But from a practical point of
view, it's a higher priority fro Europe to make sure there are
enough peacekeepers in ex-Yugoslavia than in other places. Not that
Europe shouldn't help in rebuilding Iraq -- it should, because the
whole world will be better off if iraq becomes democratic and
stable.

Bottom line, because of Germany, France, Belgium and Russia, Europe's
participation in rebuilding Iraq is minimal, particularly in the area of armed
forces. US forces are currently, and have since 1995, been a permanent
presence in the Balkans. If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
burden in Iraq.

How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On 25 Oct 2003 17:32:07 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

Not likely, but what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces will
move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population,

I suspect US forces would be more welcome on Okinawa if they raped
Japanese women less often.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

From: bufdrvr@

what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces
will
move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population,
better
training spaces and much more cooperative governments. I think we'll keep
some
of the headquartersin western Europe, but every other uniformed US personel
will leave where they are currently stationed. Should be interesting.

What may also prove interesting is how fleeting Russia's schmoozing with France
and Germany may prove to be, as Russia's financial interests may lie much more
with the US of A, as witness this recent press release:

"President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation attended a LUKOIL gas
station opening ceremony in New York City today.

The gas station, carrying the LUKOIL brand, is part of a Restructuring Program
being implemented by OAO LUKOIL (‘LUKOIL’) as a follow up to its
acquisition of Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (‘Getty Petroleum’) of the
USA. There are some 30 gas stations operating under the LUKOIL brand in the
states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The number of such stations in
the North Eastern states is expected to gradually grow.

Business restructuring in the United States also envisages supplies of Russian
petroleum products. In May 2004 LUKOIL plans to start deliveries of petroleum
products to the United States via a terminal on the island of Vysotsky,
Leningrad region. A special terminal to receive the Russian deliveries has been
leased in NYC and is now being revamped.

At a later stage, LUKOIL plans to begin crude supplies from Timan Pechora oil
and gas province.

LUKOIL acquired Getty Petroleum in 2000 for USD71 million. Getty Petroleum
operates nearly 1,300 gas stations in 13 states in the North Eastern United
States plus nine tank farms. It owns a fleet of 170 tank trucks. Every year
Getty Petroleum distributes more than one billion gallons of automobile fuel.
Getty Petroleum has control of 4% of the oil products market in the areas where
it operates. Its revenues in 2002 exceeded USD1 billion, while its assets
totaled USD225.6 million.

«LUKOIL’s joining the US retail fuel market contributes to more diversified
deliveries of petroleum products. Here, in the United States, we are going to
confirm LUKOIL’s high reputation and its commitment to high ethical standards
in business », said Vagit Alekperov, President of LUKOIL."

This should drive the "everything is about oil" conspiracy theorist nuts.

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Always wondered where your sig came from and what it means. Finally saw Dr.
Strangelove for the first time and now know where it comes from (still not sure
what it means). Loved the movie. My favorite line was "Gentlemen, you can't
fight in here--this is the War Room!"


Chris Mark

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:28:11 +0100,
ess (phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?

Couldn't find exact figures, but in Bosnia, the US is part of the
Multinational Brigade North, which is a total of 2,700 personnel, so
figure 2000 tops.

In Kosovo, the US leads Multinational Brigade East, which according to
the KFOR website is the 28th Infantry Division, plus a Greek and
multinational unit. Presumably it's a Brigade or less of the 28th (or
it would be one hell of a big Multinational Brigade), but no numbers
are quoted on the website.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster