Bruce_Shark Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Do you have a relative fighting in Afghanistan? I do. For many of the Afghan people, the Taliban are a better choice. ...Afghans fight each other, it's tribal, but if their country is invaded they place aside enmity and take up arms shoulder by shoulder. Really? Some interesting points in there (about the way you think). So how many non-Afghani's are fighting in the country against NATO/OTAN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Woah there cowboy! 1) I would hope that the U.S. has influence in NATO/OTAN, the same as every other member state. 2) So, because ONE British citizen disagrees with you, the UK should exit NATO/OTAN? I think you need to gain some perspective sharpish! I get the impression that spindrift thinks he speaks for more than himself. I'm sure a lot of British people would like to see the UK get out of the Afghan war just as many in the US would also like to see that happen myself included but it's a NATO operation and until a decision is made to withdraw by the NATO Commanders it's a war they are stuck with. Too bad spindrift is under the illusion that Big Bad Bush phoned Blair and verbally bullied him into joining in the war. This is a simplistic belief held by more than just spindrift who happens to have displayed his complete and utter lack of knowledge in regards to this matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No it is definitely not influenced by the US... NATO is a Supra-National organisation. The members have rights and commitments, but they can always opt out of a particular action/operation/tasking. And sometimes they do. The military commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) is ALWAYS an American General, but his boss - The overall boss of NATO, the Secretary-General, is NEVER an American. The Secretaries General of NATO are not renowned for favouring their own countries, either. (When Lord Robertson was Secretary General, he made some fairly scathing comments about 'tight-fisted British governments who were slow to pay their share of the running costs' .:hihi:) The member countries (and other countries) send ambassadors and military attachés to NATO. Those people do the usual diplomatic things - make requests, do a bit of horse-trading and try to get their own way. They don't always get it. America pays 80% of the running costs of NATO and provides the majority of the troops, but it doesn't get an 80% say in what happens. America is a member of NATO and it has the same vote as every other member. That's probably why NATO works. If the Americans - or any other group - tried to take it over, its days would be numbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I can sympathize with that sentiment to a degree. I would like to see the US withdraw somewhat in it's role as the [b]world's policeman[/b] which is costing too much money and which is sorely needed for domestic programs. I dont see giving asylum to refugees benefits a nation very much. These people would be better off staying in their own countries and making the sacrifices and efforts necessary to correct the injustices in their societies I think they'd be sorely missed. imagine If they took the police off your district or town and let the low lifes and thugs run it..Its happening now in cairo, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think they'd be sorely missed. I don't think they'd be missed. Their absence might well make matters worse, but even if it did a lot of countries would be glad to see the back of them anyway - better to rule in hell than serve in heaven? When the British Empire was imposing peace and civilization on a third of the globe, almost all of the countries in it objected to us doing so and didn't want to be ruled by foreigners. (The Yankees revolted against British rule, remember - don't want to be ruled from overseas!) Now that the USA is the leading superpower in the world, most countries resent the USA for no other reason than because it is the leading superpower in the world. And, certainly, in much of Asia and all of Africa, it's considered better to be ruled by a fellow tribesman, no matter how bad, than by a non-tribesman no matter how good. Intervention by Western countries (which, since it's by far the most powerful of us, is often more or less equivalent to "intervention by the USA") almost never achieves any useful long-term results, for this reason alone. Unfortunately, as with so many problems in the real world, it's very easy for me to identify the problem but I have no idea what the solution is. I only know that Western intervention isn't it. The USA tried to prop up a government in Iran, and Iran ended up the most vociferously extreme anti-American country in the world; it armed Saddam against the Iranians, and look where that got us. It armed the Mujahadeen against Soviet invasion, and ended up fighting against its own weaponry. It helpfully removed from Afghanistan a government that almost no Afghani citizen wanted; and the Afghanis have been fighting to get rid of them ever since. And yet, just ignoring them all and letting them rot, isn't going to solve the problems either. So what do we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't think they'd be missed. Their absence might well make matters worse, but even if it did a lot of countries would be glad to see the back of them anyway - better to rule in hell than serve in heaven? When the British Empire was imposing peace and civilization on a third of the globe, almost all of the countries in it objected to us doing so and didn't want to be ruled by foreigners. (The Yankees revolted against British rule, remember - don't want to be ruled from overseas!) Now that the USA is the leading superpower in the world, most countries resent the USA for no other reason than because it is the leading superpower in the world. And, certainly, in much of Asia and all of Africa, it's considered better to be ruled by a fellow tribesman, no matter how bad, than by a non-tribesman no matter how good. Intervention by Western countries (which, since it's by far the most powerful of us, is often more or less equivalent to "intervention by the USA") almost never achieves any useful long-term results, for this reason alone. Unfortunately, as with so many problems in the real world, it's very easy for me to identify the problem but I have no idea what the solution is. I only know that Western intervention isn't it. The USA tried to prop up a government in Iran, and Iran ended up the most vociferously extreme anti-American country in the world; it armed Saddam against the Iranians, and look where that got us. It armed the Mujahadeen against Soviet invasion, and ended up fighting against its own weaponry. It helpfully removed from Afghanistan a government that almost no Afghani citizen wanted; and the Afghanis have been fighting to get rid of them ever since. And yet, just ignoring them all and letting them rot, isn't going to solve the problems either. So what do we do? We ignore them and let them solve their own internal problems. The US gained very little from it's intervention in foreign affairs. The founding fathers warned against getting involved in foreigh conflicts. The country had very little choice after being attacked by Japan and very little choice at the end of WW2 when it was the only country that was strong enough to act as a bulwark against communism but these days there seems little reason to go on acting as the world's policeman or trying to bring democracy to countries. that dont want it. Politically US influence in the middle east is definitely on the wane also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 We ignore them and let them solve their own internal problems. If their solution is to develop a nuclear warhead and chuck it into Connecticut, that will have turned out to be a very bad decision, no? Of course you can retaliate and wipe the offending country off the face of the map, but that won't bring Connecticut back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 We ignore them and let them solve their own internal problems. The US gained very little from it's intervention in foreign affairs. The founding fathers warned against getting involved in foreigh conflicts. The country had very little choice after being attacked by Japan and very little choice at the end of WW2 when it was the only country that was strong enough to act as a bulwark against communism but these days there seems little reason to go on acting as the world's policeman or trying to bring democracy to countries. that dont want it. Politically US influence in the middle east is definitely on the wane also. I think thats the main problem . the west's obsession with democracy in countrys that 've got no concept or inclination to be democratic.it just won't work.triblalism and corruption are endemic in most of the countrys the us are involved with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think thats the main problem . the west's obsession with democracy in countrys that 've got no concept or inclination to be democratic.it just won't work.triblalism and corruption are endemic in most of the countrys the us are involved with That's a very good point. Tribalism has been a way of life in parts of the Middle East and Africa for hundreds if not thousands of years. Did we honestly think we could just turn up with a few election leaflets and ballot boxes and leave them to it? They didn't ask for us to give them democracy. And at the risk of getting flamed from both the left and right, I'm sure most people aren't too bothered about living under a dictatorship providing their basic needs are met - healthcare, education, employment etc. Finally, until we can perfect democracy here, and sort our own problems with corrupt politicians, I don't think we have to right to impose democracy on anybody else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Mod Note Some posts containing insults have been removed, please try to debate without getting personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.