If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... George Z. Bush wrote: My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two countries. Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but... the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros. I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link you ought to take a look at: http://www.september11news.com/Inter...alReaction.htm George Z. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message .. . "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Brett" wrote in message .. . Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas around Kabul? Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part of their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far from "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?" The French were involved from the start long before peacekeeping was the mission. Keith |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... George Z. Bush wrote: My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two countries. Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but... the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros. Now these particular Euros were probably Leftist fringe types (relative to Europe) just as there were similar sentiments coming out of the US from Lefties, who say the only way to stop terrorism is to change foreign policies (stop supporting Israel I presume). Governments are more careful how they react, so any opposition to US response would be more measured. But there seemed to be a conviction amongst a sizable segment of Europeans that quietly felt a bit smug about what had happened. Maybe just bad reporting from this side of the pond, or perhaps my own developing biases against Europe coming to the fore. Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay deal became clear. THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans, even amongst those who supported military action. Keith |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Strang" wrote:
It's not a problem in NATO's eyes. Kabul is stable because of them. Kabul and the surrounding area would be stable without them being there. The rest of the country is insecure because the Americans and Canadians don't spend any time minimizing the power of the warlords. They play one against the other to keep the number of battles high, and get the higher body count. Stability doesn't get a good body count. "Brett" wrote Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part of their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far from "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message .. . "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Brett" wrote in message .. . Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas around Kabul? Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part of their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far from "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?" The French were involved from the start There were comments related to them "being there", but I've yet to see any comments about if they actually did anything while they were there. long before peacekeeping was the mission. Staying in stable areas doesn't support the idea that they did anything prior to that. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay deal became clear. THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans, even amongst those who supported military action. I really don't understand the Guantanamo policy. From what I recall, it was an attempt to be able to criminally prosecute detainees if information came to the fore about some individual's actions. But surely you can prosecute a POW if you find him guilty of some criminal action. ISTR Germans in WWII occasionally going after some escaped POW who might have stolen civies off a closeline or food from a house during the course of his escape attempt. Guantanamo "detainees" should be considered POWs if they were captured under arms in Afghanistan, or even Iraq. Since this is a new type of "war", they can sit in prison for life or until there is some means to determine the war is over. US citizens, or any individual captured under "uncertain" conditions *must* have a hearing in reasonable time. I really don't see what the complicating factors are in otherwise detaining "these people". SMH |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
George Z. Bush wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message George Z. Bush wrote: My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two countries. Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but... the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros. I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link you ought to take a look at: http://www.september11news.com/Inter...alReaction.htm Well I don't specifically recall *any* world leader cheering what had happened. But surely, you can't possibly believe that Iranian or Syrian leaders where shocked and saddened by the events of 9/11/01. Katahmi might be what we'd hope an Iranian leader would turn out to be, but he's powerless, with little say in the policies of the country. To hear an Iranian and Syrian and Libyan saying terrorism must be eradicated is a bit of a joke isn't it? Heck, even the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan was saying it was too bad; we had nothing to do with it; neither did Osama. I think there were more than a few crocodile tears being shed over 9/11, and not just limited to the Mideast. SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|