Europe as joke

Indeed, and they'd be right, but they're not saying that the alliance
should move to the majority system. Until they and the rest of the
alliance are prepared to change, arguing about it is futile.


I didn't know we were arguing. Additionally as a point of fact, NATO military
leaders are "arguing" about it themselves and according to a some, this is the
first step to the politicians "arguing" about it.


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

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

About 1000, but when NATO takes over the Kabul security area I believe it'll
increase to 1,500.

How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
just arrived in place).

KSK troops aren´t counted in these numbers.

BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
just arrived in place).

Hmm, I'll take your word on current German force size, but I believe when NATO
takes over ISAF their plan is for approximately 1,500.


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
just arrived in place).

Hmm, I'll take your word on current German force size,

I took if of several sources.. Financial Times Deutschland, ARD
(german public broadcasting network).. pretty trustworthy medii.. The
"ISAF Mission" site maintained by the Bundeswehr says nothing on it.

Oh, it seems that the 250 troops for Kunduz are included in the 2250
total.

but I believe when NATO
takes over ISAF their plan is for approximately 1,500.

I haven´t read of any reduction yet.

BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

And, oddly enough, many European companies are lined up to help do the
rebuilding. As long as the US pays for it. Again.

And European countries have agreed to give more money when and if the
decicion power is transferred to UN or to the Iraqis. So as long you want to
run the show, be prepared to pay for it.

In other words, charity begins when they get the power to screw things
up. Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

phil hunt wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:42:41 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:

Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be,

That's nonsense and you know it. European policy is for Iraqis and
the UN to be in charge of Iraq in the interim period; US policy is
for the USA to be in charge.

It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Perhaps the "European" needs to be
defined here. France, Germany, Belgium, with variable support from Russia.

The "policy" is use of "multilateralism" in the UN to counter military
weakness in shaping world events.

I have now come to the conclusion it is EU "policy" as defined and shaped
by the nations listed above, to attempt to counter, contain, and weaken
the US economically and militarily, not necessarily through direct confrontation,
but via subtle means and forums (WTO, UN, other forms of "multilateralism").

Just my view of the situation. Nothing personal against any particular
European "individual" (just as we always hear Euros don't hate Americans,
just our current government).

by its little financial
support, refusal to give the overthrow of the Saddam government any
legitimacy via the UN

The arrangements in Iraq will be given legitimacy when they become
legitimate, i.e. UN or Iraqi control.

Legitimate coming only after [non-Baathist] Iraqi leaders emerge, with
the tools (police, army, militia, courts, constitution, legal system,
financial system) in place for effective self-determination?

And you think that can happen with US/UK forces gone in 6 months? A year?

You're dreaming, and you're basically stating that Europe will make no
effort to create a legitimate government, and stabilize the country, until
the US departs.

If that happens prematurely, Saddam is right back in power! Remember,
as defined by UN, Europe and multilateralism, this guy is the legitimate
leader of Iraq!

and pushing for the premature removal of US
troops,

Europe is not pushing for this.

The French-German-Russian axis certainly is.


SMH

On 26 Oct 2003 02:07:26 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
By "impotent" I presume you mean "not a puppet of the USA".

No you obnoxious loser

Well, you know what they say about people who resort to personal
abuse during an argument...

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.

If unanimity isn't possible, that doesn't prevent individual NATO
members form acting, either individually or together -- there are
plenty of examples of this. So you are wrong, they are not unable to
act.

I would point out that the USA is hardly likely to want to change
NATO from unanimity to majority voting, since all except 2 or 3
(depending how you count) members of NATO are European.

--
"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 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:54:51 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:
phil hunt wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:42:41 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:

Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be,

That's nonsense and you know it. European policy is for Iraqis and
the UN to be in charge of Iraq in the interim period; US policy is
for the USA to be in charge.

It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Perhaps the "European" needs to be
defined here. France, Germany, Belgium, with variable support from Russia.

That's not what European means, and you know it. If you are going to
arbitrarily redefine terms in the middle of a discussion, no
meaningful discussion is possible.

And even in those terms, you are wrong. I challenge you to provide
one, just one, cite from the govmt of any of these nations saying
they want Saddam back in power in Iraq.

I have now come to the conclusion it is EU "policy" as defined and shaped
by the nations listed above,

Do you have aqny idea how EU policy is made? Obviously you don't, or
you wouldn't write such crap.

So I will tell you. EU foreign policy is, at present, defined by
unanimity in the European Council. So all 15 mmeber states must
agree to it. You memtioned 3 EU countries (and one not in the EU) --
you you really think they'd be able to "define and shape" EU policy
in the opposition of the other 12 members? If you do, you're a
****wit.

to attempt to counter, contain, and weaken
the US economically and militarily, not necessarily through direct confrontation,
but via subtle means and forums (WTO, UN, other forms of "multilateralism").

If the EU did attempt to counter, contain and weaken the USA, it
would be doing lots of things it is not doing now. Such as selling
advanced weapons to potential future enemies of the USA.

The arrangements in Iraq will be given legitimacy when they become
legitimate, i.e. UN or Iraqi control.

Legitimate coming only after [non-Baathist] Iraqi leaders emerge, with
the tools (police, army, militia, courts, constitution, legal system,
financial system) in place for effective self-determination?

And [do] you think that can happen with US/UK forces gone in 6
months? A year?

Assuming you missed out a "do" there (which I've added), I'll try to
answer.

I never suggested that US and UK forces should leave right now.
Obviously they would be within their rights if they did. If they
did, it would make it less likely that a truely democratic govmt
emerges in Iraq. IMO the best chance for democracy is if: (1) US and
UK troops remain, (2) they are reinforced by troops from other
countries, (3) the Americans cede more control in Iraq either to
Iraqis or other countries; one possibility might be for all the
countries providing assistance to Iraq being represented on the CPA,
which needn't necessarily have an Americasn head, (4) a proper
timetable for a constitution and elections is drawn up, and adhered
to.

You're dreaming, and you're basically stating that Europe will make no
effort to create a legitimate government, and stabilize the country, until
the US departs.

When did I say that? Please quote my actual words where I did.

If that happens prematurely, Saddam is right back in power! Remember,
as defined by UN, Europe and multilateralism, this guy is the legitimate
leader of Iraq!

Cites? (I'm sure I won't get them)

and pushing for the premature removal of US
troops,

Europe is not pushing for this.

The French-German-Russian axis certainly is.

Again, provide a cite from a French, German or Russian govmt source
saying this.

--
"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 or about 26 Oct 2003 02:12:08 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

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%.

I'm not sure of the total force numbers (and a Google search didn't
give exact numbers), but in the UK AOR there's 3(UK) Div, plus an
Italian Brigade, and battalions from the Netherlands,
Denmark/Lithuania (joint Battalion), and Romania. Assuming similar
manning in the Polish AOR, then you've probably got over 10000 allied
troops from Europe. What percentage that is I won't guess, and I also
won't disagree that the US and the UK were hoping for more, but that
was never going to happen after all the diplomatic noses out of joint
back in the UNSC.

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.

Indeed.

On a completely unrelated note, I noticed that JASSM appears to have
been released for operations. When's the B-52 slated to get an
operational capability?

Cheers,

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about 26 Oct 2003 02:20:12 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

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.

Really? I had thought that FYROM was purely a Euro affair, and I
hadn't realised there were any troops in Croatia apart from loggies
operating at the port (rather than the peacekeepers next door in
Bosnia). Still, learn something new every day.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster