Europe as joke

How many americans in the Balkans?

Just a guess, but including support forces, between 5,000 and 7,500.

How many in Iraq?

Around 100,000

It is not indispensable for you to stay in the Balkans,military or
economically.

Tell that to European nations involved there. When Presidential hopeful George
W. Bush suggested removing those forces, Europe went nuts. In my opinion, his
suggestion to remove US forces from KFOR and SFOR was the reason he so quickly
got a bad name in Europe.

We could perfectly remplace you there

Then why such an outcry when US withdrawl is suggested?

and we are already more numerous.

More numerous and more effective do not always equate.



You stay in the Balkans because you want it

Wrong. Everyone from the President on down to Army company commanders would
prefer to leave the Balkans. We stay because European nations ask that we
stay.

because in fact it is not US
staying in the Balkans but Nato.

So there has been a constant deployment of Belgians in the Balkans since 1995?
Dutch? Just because NATO is there, doesn't mean all 19 nations need to keep
forces there *permenantly*.

You want to leave Nato???!!!

Me personally? Yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a congressman, senator or President
and able to impact that call.


BUFDRVR

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

But we did NOT agree with you in Iraq.

Great, don't send forces, but stop interfering with the ability of other
nations to send forces.

Is it really completely impossible for
an american to accept other peoples not to agree with them?

Not only are we good at accepting it, we've come to expect it from Germans,
Belgians, French and Russians. I'm certain if Bush announced the sky was blue,
Schroeder would immediately issue a statement refuting the "US Blue sky theory"
and claim it was indeed pink.

you don't need us,we are weak

Never said that.

we are stupid

Never said that.

we are useless

Never said that.

we are unable

You were unable to handle the Balkan problem without dragging the US into it.
This is fact.

But now that you're asking for assistance

In general, yes, however we do not expect help from several countries and all
we ask of them is to stop obstructing us. If you don't want to help, fine, but
don't interfere.

Nevertheless,we let your resolution be accepted in th UN a few weeks
ago

An extremely "neutered" resolution, made so because of the French, Germans and
Russians.

even if we did not agree with it,in order not to create you more
difficulties that you have.

If that were true, your diplomats would not have informed Sec. Powell that the
original proposal was going to be vetoed.

Still,why do you need assistance from people like us?

We don't, just step out of the way.

You only agre with people that agree with you,and
obey,even when you're wrong!

Sigh That's global politics, every nation in the world acts like that, France
certainly. You don't agree, fine don't send money or troops, but don't stop
others from helping.


BUFDRVR

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

On 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

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.

However, European nations seldom (if ever) speak with a unified voice.
Abandoning unanimity would prevent France, Germany and Belgium (the three
biggest obstructions to concise and decisive action) from stopping action that
16 other nations may feel is in their best interest to do. Yeah, yeah, those 16
other nations can still act,

Which negate your earlier point, that France, Germany and Belgium
can stop them -- make up your mind which you are trying to say.

but if they're going to, what's the point of
having the NATO alliance?

The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.

--
"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 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

, what's the point of having the NATO alliance?


BUFDRVR

That, Sir, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

Al Minyard

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:24:27 -0600, Alan Minyard wrote:
On 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

, what's the point of having the NATO alliance?

BUFDRVR

That, Sir, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

Since the fall of the USSR, NATO's been looking for a new purpose.

--
"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).

The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.


Agreed, but in todays asymetrical warfare enviornment, the attack may come from
well outside NATO's area of responsibility in the form of terrorists, which
would require a decidedly offensive type counter attack. NATO knows this to be
true as the prepare for "NATO out of area operations", the title in and of
itself explains that military force will be applied outside of Europe. If a
certain country, with a single vote can veto any such operation, NATO becomes
useless except in the nearly impossible event that Russian forces try to
advance into western Europe through the Fulda Gap.


BUFDRVR

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

On 30 Oct 2003 23:07:54 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.


Agreed, but in todays asymetrical warfare enviornment, the attack may come from
well outside NATO's area of responsibility in the form of terrorists, which
would require a decidedly offensive type counter attack. NATO knows this to be
true as the prepare for "NATO out of area operations", the title in and of
itself explains that military force will be applied outside of Europe. If a
certain country, with a single vote can veto any such operation, NATO becomes
useless except in the nearly impossible event that Russian forces try to
advance into western Europe through the Fulda Gap.

Then the USA set up a new international organisation, with the
criteria it wants. Dunno if anyone'll join it, mind.

--
"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).

The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.

After 9/11, Nato countries proposed their help against Afghanisthan
and were rebutted. In fact, yougoslavia and the attempt for Nato show
than Nato's chapter were perverted from their charter.

No more a coalition of defense but a foreign legion for colonial
adventures.

In article ,
David D. wrote:

The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.

After 9/11, Nato countries proposed their help against Afghanisthan
and were rebutted.

Well, that explains the non-U.S. troopies on the ground in Afghanistan...

Then the USA set up a new international organisation, with the
criteria it wants. Dunno if anyone'll join it, mind.

Depending on what happens with the EU Defense alliance, this may be exactly
what happens.


BUFDRVR

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