Europe as joke

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:

If there are no creditable forces in the European parts of NATO, then
why is the US asking for their troops, and indeed assigning two of the
four zones of Iraq to European command?

To try and get them to shut the hell up about how awful we are for
ousting Hussein...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"??????? ??????" wrote:

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 really think the US "broke" Iraq?

The parts of Iraq that we're asking for money to fix up are the parts
that Europe was very happy to have broken - infrastructure and
government. And both of those were pretty much destroyed by their own
government before we ever dropped a bomb there. When people were
complaining about the water systems in parts of Iraq, they often forgot
to note that many of them were screwed up since about 1980.

We're asking for money to build schools and hospitals, and if you can't
afford some school books and beds, then you're in worse shape than we
thought...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
majority vote

Well, perhaps you should say US politicians as most senior military leaders
feel the current policy renders the alliance impotent.


BUFDRVR

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

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

No you obnoxious loser I mean unable to act. Expanding to 19 nations spread
from the west side of the Atlantic to the Baltics means its going to be
*impossible* to get every nation to agree to any action.


BUFDRVR

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

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?

I don't believe your "thousands upon thousands" makes up 10% of the total
force. I believe we were hoping for (not expecting) closer to 25-33%.

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.

The European nation involved are much appreciated and their contribution is not
taken lightly, however, if it were not for the two nations named above, their
would be much greater (in numbers) European involvement.


BUFDRVR

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

But surely then Rwanda was a purely African issue?

Agreed.

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.

Uhh, Peter, by the time these forces arrived, the slaughter had already been
completed. Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses get out.

The entire world (including Europeans who would never allow genocide ever...)
stood by and watched, there's no getting around this fact.


BUFDRVR

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

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.

However, you argue the US is not permitted to make the same decision in regards
to Iraq and ex-Yugoslavia...interesting.

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

Just guessing, but I believe around 10,000.


BUFDRVR

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

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.


We also have troops in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Croatia.


BUFDRVR

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

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

Just guessing, but I believe around 10,000.

And how many European troops are in Afganistan to play along with all those
cowboys?

We're asking for money to build schools and hospitals, and if you can't
afford some school books and beds, then you're in worse shape than we
thought...

So when you told Europeans to f*ck off because they didn't agree to the war
didn't include their paychecks?