Article

2007-01-08 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 NATO has been in danger of "ending" since CHARLES "When the People of France = All Europe made Me [AND ONLY ME]their leader..." "I am France ergo I am Europe" DE GAULLE + successors made French nuclear forces independent from NATO = French-read USA command. Iff my memory is correct, twas started after France formally dev its PLUTON nuke missle. NATO survived De Gaulle, the Brit-induced Euro Common Market/ECommunity, the Falklands War, and Clinton's Bosnian campaign, etc , hence can survive this.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-08 00:53|| 2007-01-08 00:53|| Front Page Top

#2 ...what on earth is NATO for?

Pish. That's an easy one: to stop Russian tanks from surging thru the Fulda Gap.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-08 00:57|| 2007-01-08 00:57|| Front Page Top

#3 He agreed that France and Germany were not pulling their weight and said the organisation was not working.

It simply wouldn't be cricket if the French and the bloody Krauts were not pissing on us, now would it your Lordship? Some things just never change you see.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-08 01:02|| 2007-01-08 01:02|| Front Page Top

#4 NATO is needed more now than ever - but it won't matter if the members in Western Europe continue to ignore the threat within. While Russia may be re-emerging as a threat, the larger concern should be that this time the Gates of Vienna may be attacked from within. Afghanistan IS a reasonable battleground for the defense of NATO against the common foe.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-01-08 07:08|| 2007-01-08 07:08|| Front Page Top

#5 The purpose of NATO was for Americans to die [once again] for Western Europe. The rest was all ritualistic dressing to cover that single fact. When the wall came down, there was no further reason to justify the cost and expense of American hostages being held by a bunch of military welfare queens. Bring the Troops Home Now[tm].

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-08 08:45|| 2007-01-08 08:45|| Front Page Top

#6 There is no longer a point to NATO. Carrington presupposes there is one. Afghanistan is just a demonstration of the situation.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-08 09:14|| 2007-01-08 09:14|| Front Page Top

#7 P2K,

The operative phrase was "NATO is there to keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out."

I agree that we should be rethinking ALL our alliances. We should work on getting out of Nato and the UN and building up relations with Japan, Austrailia & Japan.

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2007-01-08 12:35|| 2007-01-08 12:35|| Front Page Top

#8 What, no more accordion hunting? How are we going to bag us the bad-guys now?

Thanks for all whining and insults though; much appreciated.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-08 14:15|| 2007-01-08 14:15|| Front Page Top

#9 It's almost impossible to continue an alliance created for one purpose when that purpose no longer exists. NATO was created to protect the people of Europe from the Communist threat from Russia and the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. Today, most of the former members of the Warsaw Pact belong to NATO. Today, the people of Western Europe don't believe there's any threat to their continued existence, so they see no reason to fight. While we can (and do) castigate them for being fools, only a VERY hard knock from their islamic invaders will change their minds. In the meantime, the US could use all the help we can get in this fight, and should welcome even temporary alliances against a common foe. Once we bring the threat of militant islam to manageable proportions, we can say what we really think to our fair-weather friends in Europe (and elsewhere - can you say South Korea, Philippines, New Zealand?).

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-01-08 14:36|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-01-08 14:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Why wouldn't Germany and France want NATO to die and replaced by a European Union military alliance? There they would be kings, while in NATO, second rate powers. In addition, they don't want to take a chance that in the near future the Americans will veto military action when Paris is surrounded and under seige.

Posted by ed 2007-01-08 18:56|| 2007-01-08 18:56|| Front Page Top

#11 So, if NATO is to die due to lack of interest and equality, then what of the UN ?

Posted by wxjames 2007-01-08 19:39|| 2007-01-08 19:39|| Front Page Top

23:58 Free Radical
23:44 Lone Ranger
23:39 Snuting Glatch6729
23:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:20 twobyfour
23:13 ed
23:07 trailing wife
23:02 BA
23:01 ed
22:55 DarthVader
22:51 DarthVader
22:50 BA
22:50 Chuck Simmins
22:49 BA
22:49 Verlaine
22:43 Mike N.
22:43 RD
22:38 ed
22:36 Mike N.
22:33 tu3031
22:31 ed
22:31 Brett
22:28 Frank G
22:26 Frank G