Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Obama's request for Afghanistan combat troops snubbed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 April 2009
BARACK Obama's Nato allies yesterday snubbed his request to send more combat troops to the battlefields of Afghanistan in a blow to his plans for a "surge" against al-Qaeda.
Up to 5,000 "trainers" and "police" from Nato forces were committed at a summit in Strasbourg yesterday, allowing the US president to claim he had won a "strong down-payment" from his allies.

But his hopes that Europe would commit combat-ready troops to take part in a new military offensive in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan were turned down.

Anti-war protesters outside the Nato summit yesterday set a hotel and a customs house on fire, prompting police to fire tear gas into the crowds and make 25 arrests.

The US will now press ahead with plans to commit an additional 21,000 troops to add to the 70,000 troops already operational in Afghanistan, mostly under Nato command.

Obama is in the middle of a nine-day European tour and had travelled to Strasbourg, on the eve of Nato's 60th anniversary, to tell his allies that the US could no longer "shoulder the burden alone".

The Europeans responded by agreeing to send in a first tranche of 3,000 personnel who will help police Afghanistan prior to its elections in August.

An additional 1,400 to 2,000 personnel, drawn primarily from the UK, Spain, Italy, Germany and France, will provide training for the Afghan army.

Obama told a news conference yesterday: "I am pleased that our Nato allies pledged their strong and unanimous support for our new strategy."

The strategy - first outlined by Obama on his campaign trail – is to divert more troops into Afghanistan to root out terrorists there and in neighbouring Pakistan.

"We've started to match real resources to achieve our goals," he said.

Outgoing Nato chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer added: "The bottom line is that when it comes to Afghanistan, this summit, and this alliance, have delivered."

But it was clear last night that Obama's hopes of a massive new combat surge of troops from across Europe were not going to follow, leaving the heavy lifting in US hands.

Only the UK has pledged to offer substantial help. Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed yesterday that the partial support of the other European nations was a significant success.

He said: "We are working to build a successful democratic Afghanistan and that will mean that our streets will be safer in Britain. With important presidential elections to come in the next few months, we must not allow the Taliban to disrupt the democratic process."

The appointment of Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the next Secretary General was endorsed by the Prime Minister, who said it had been a "unanimous" decision by all 28 Nato members, despite initial protests from Turkey.

But as the Nato leaders tried to project an image of harmony, violent protests marred the event as protesters attacked police and set a customs station ablaze at a bridge used as the backdrop for a walk by Nato leaders from Germany across the Rhine river to France.

Photographers saw other protesters storm a nearby Ibis hotel, setting fires and pilfering alcohol from its bar.

Stacks of old tyres were also set ablaze, unleashing thick plumes of black smoke that could be seen from across the river. Near the bonfire was a sign welcoming visitors to Strasbourg.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 April 2009 10:40 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Barack Obama
 
1

subrosa,

05/04/2009 00:05:49
Oh yes Gordon Brown will be there offering our troops as canon fodder as usual. Other European countries respect the lives of their military and have not committed them to this US pact.

This war won't be won by the US or anyone else, just like Iraq. But the Americans will say it was a success. Only history will tell the truth.

We shouldn't be sending any more of our troops to Afghanistan. They are not even properly equipped for that theatre of war.
2

Los Angeles,

05/04/2009 00:30:07

I think we need our troops for the UK, to surround Westminster and Whitehall until the Taliban fundamentalists in there give up their privileges and return full democracy to the electorate.
3

Trond,

Home of trolls 05/04/2009 00:47:22
The current problems in Afghanistan are caused by the Afghani's relatively expensive way to attain their afterlife in their Paradise.

www.freeafterlife.org
4

oder,

Scotland 05/04/2009 00:59:23
one should look to the long term! fail to defeat them in Afghanistan/Iraq and the only option will to defeat the fanatic`s on home soil,not a particular nice senario to look forward too! however any one who believes that after the troops come home from these conflicts the problem with the fanatic`s are over,are not living in the real world.The Americans are better organised and prepared than the Europeans and when this happens it will be interesting to see if the Euro`s can do this on their own, post war history shows that the Europeans have been unable to achieve very little in the international arena on the own! the Americans can get by without Europe the real question is can the Europeans do anything without the Americans?
doubtful at best!
5

,

05/04/2009 01:20:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 01:51:03
No one has ever conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the Great. Gordon Brown is not Alexander the Great. Neither is Obama.
7

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 01:51:53
9 I hope for your sake you are an escaped lunatic or out your head with drugs.
8

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 05/04/2009 03:58:12
A criminal organisation at war with fanatics that they armed, funded, stirred up in the first instance gives the flavour of the New World Order crowd. Smedley Butler ruefully remarked that his US Marines had never fought for freedom, justice, America, the Consitution but did it for the United Fruit Company. Then we had the United Fruitcakes.

It's always possible to subdue a territory if you have that in mind. Military is one option. Trade, commerce, negotiation, diplomacy often achieves more.
9

,

05/04/2009 04:21:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

TSW at the Cyber Shebeen,

05/04/2009 05:38:15
I agree with Postmark the terrorist supporter. We should never support the US, pull out all of our troops, and make al-Qaeda feel like they have won.

We should just look the other way when al-Qaeda kills 3,000 people by flying commecial planes into buildings, look the other way when they set off bombs in subway stations, and look the other way when they make plans to murder thousands of innocent people in the name of religion.
11

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 05/04/2009 05:54:05
From here it's hard to disern the diffence between chinese communism and chinese capitalism. Anyhow China runs trade fairs and banquets to get a measure on us white devils and what we're really up to. What China wants is KNOW HOW and resources. Useful scottish know how is some deep sea technologies and if you want a good hi-fi system.

It's known that many new energy technologies have been prototyped, tested and strictly classified or secretised as the UK does it. It's not obvious why multinationals can't make alot of profit out of this. They have the R and D departments and mining rights for exotic materials. So oil wars are about power and control rather than mere wealth aquisition.

Peripheralist. Here a new word, that won't get you banned, but used as an insult, you if are proliferating perpheralism. On this curved planet, it's possible to be quietly developing new technologies that can be rolled out once the big global players have allowed it.
12

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks 05/04/2009 06:01:54
# 4, you are absolutely corect that the USA can get things done. The world has been under the "stewardship" of the USA virtually since WW2, and look at the total mess we have! Very little the US has done has been good for anyone else! As for the Afghan build up, very few here who support Obama understand why he has locked himself into escalating military force, we fully expected he would reduce it. Thank goodness NATO balked,it might give him pause to rethink. . #14, if you add up the figures, our interference in the Middle East and South America has killed many more then 3000 and we are still doing it via our CIA- fondly referred to as Criminals In Authority.
13

,

05/04/2009 07:51:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 09:08:16
19 Precisely Colonel. The Afghani people are being collectively punished for giving house room to Al Quida. A collective punishment which is not being inflicted upon the Pakistanis, even although Al Quida are also given house room there. Every time the ''West'' inflicts collective punishment upon a people such as the Afghanis, the Gazans, and the Iraqis, because of the misdeeds of a handful of extremist nutters, and because they can, they only ensure that the extremist nutters become more strong.
15

Mcsnagpile,

05/04/2009 09:16:56
Winning the hearts and minds of men and women is what it is all about.
Defending a country whose government does not believe in human rites is futile.
The Talaban training camps were a joke having young men crawl under barbed wire with an AK47 could never be an effective force. The brain washing and radicalism was the threat.
A major problem is the West not facing up to the real perpetuators of these conflicts.
16

oder,

Scotland 05/04/2009 10:15:28
16 Billy Boy,Sherman Oaks

you seem to have missed the point Billy boy! not to put to fine a point on it! Northern Ireland ,Bosnia, Kosovo and a few other places have all benefited from US intervention all these places have for many years and in some cases centuries torn apart by internal divisions thanks to American involvement peace is now part of the daily lives! no European has had the ability to achieve such success! and it may be of interest to the skeptics of US policy there was no oil in any these countries,for the posters who will insist that this is a war of conquest, it isn't! this war has a limited political objective which is the destruction of the Taliban terror! not the destruction of Afghanistan! my original point was about European success and achievement without the US!
care to name any?
17

Nelson51,

Newcastle 05/04/2009 10:17:17
Where are the Kninja Knights Templars when you need them ?.
18

,

05/04/2009 10:44:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Boab,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 11:50:47
'We are working to build a successful democratic Afghanistan and that will mean that our streets will be safer in Britain.'

Here is the West's nonsensical 'war on terror' in a nutshell. It's a great shame Brown and Obama are espousing the same neo-Con cack espoused by Bush and Blair: it shows there has been no real change in policy.

The fact is, the UK and the USA are in Afghanistan to protect the oil pipeline from Central Asia. It's a nice idea, invading a country to kick out the bad guys in install democracy; but we did it for selfish reasons, same as Iraq.

This is an unwinnable conflict that has nothing to do with terrorism. Bin Laden is a Saudi, remember?
20

Boab,

05/04/2009 11:57:47
#18 Oder:

'Northern Ireland ,Bosnia, Kosovo and a few other places have all benefited from US intervention ... there was no oil in any these countries'

How you doing Oder? I'll give you NI, but actually the USA intervened in the former Yugoslavia for the same reasons as Iraq and Afghanistan. It was to protect oil supplies coming from Asia. The West armed and trained Islamic militants to fight the Bosnian Serbs. Some of these militants are now part of Al Qaeda and the Taleban. I got this all from the book 'The London Bombings' by Nafeez Ahmad. Worth reading!
21

Geraldine Firequeen,

Pits of Nelson 05/04/2009 12:26:05
#4 - if you think 'fanatic's' deserves an apostrophe, what did the European('s) and the American('s) do to deserve being left out? When handing out apostrophes, surely you could be even-handed? Talk to Linskaill, he know('s)
22

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 05/04/2009 13:14:11
I love how the BBC tries to wriggle around the Afghans passing a law that legalises raping women within marriage, flogging them and not allowing them to leave the house without their husband's permission. They also wriggle around fanatical Muslim calls for gays to be killed.

They just can't accept that some things are simply wrong - and all fanatical Muslims are simply wrong and must be stopped. Wake up silly little PC liberals.
23

Mìcheal a Eilean Rùim,

Richmond 05/04/2009 13:14:54
#6 Observer wrote: "No one has ever conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the Great."
In fact that is not accurate. In 1504 the great Babur took over Kabul as his home base and was probably one of Afghanistan's most successful conquerors. Descended from Timur (Tamerlane) on his father's side and Jenghis Khan on his mother's side, his grave, set amid gardens can still be visited on the outskirts of Kabul, although the site is in disrepair. Afghanistan has always had an evil reputation, and indeed about five miles south of Kabul there is a hill called Cain's Hill where Cain of the biblical Cain and Abel is allegedly buried, which is why Afghanistan was often called "The Land of Cain". Its reputation in later times was of a country ruled by weak kings as witness the near powerless Mohammad Zahir Shah whose rule was ended by a palace coup in 1973 and who died aged 92 in 2007.
24

Boab,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 13:32:29
#26 Micheal: It's certainly unlucky for people who live there. Its population fell by a third since the 1970s due to war and the lack of basic infrastructure. As for weak kings, the Taleban (scum that they were) ended the opium production and brought a kind of order to the place.

Sorry, I'm on my peacenik high-horse today!
25

Pilrig,

Livingston 05/04/2009 13:34:34
25 a law about to be passed by the lawful and democratically elected Afghan Parliament. Howd'ya stop that ?
26

zigzag,

Canada 05/04/2009 13:40:19
Fractured Europe indeed. You guys could not organise a breakfast party without squabbling as to who sits where and next to whom.

Obama did not start the Irak conflict and he is trying to go after the BinLaden & al Qaeda terrorists. Not the Taliban. The Taliban is Afganistan's internal problem.

Wait 'til the European countries gets hit with its own home grown terrorists who are trained by al Qaeda and then you will realize that you cannot fight them on your own either. "Who you gonna call"

Nato is a joke like the UN.

Question is who is capable of leading in the EU? Merkel? Sarkozy? Gordon gecko Brown? the Italian joker? Anyone? Someone please.

Would be nice to see all you pundits respond to the question of European leadership in the effort to fight al Qaeda.



27

,

05/04/2009 14:14:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 14:35:23
29 You are posting with the same assumption as so many on these threads. I think you misunderstand what Al Quida are about. They are portrayed as Islamist aggressors but they are in reality reactionaries. Everything they do or have ever done is in reaction to something that they percieve was done to them. Unless people understand that basic premise this needless slaughter will go on indefinitely.
29

,

05/04/2009 14:39:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 14:45:13
If you look at reality, the rise of the aggressive Islamist has co-incided exactly with Zionism. The two things are inextricably linked. So what we have to ask ourselves is do we support the principles of Zionism ?

Also Al Quida look at the presence of US troops in Saudi, the US influence on what they see as the deliberate westernisation of Arab countries, the injustice meted out to the Palestinians, and they say no. Is what the ''West'' is doing correct ? That is the motivator for their actions.

In my view we are trying to impose our lifestyles and our culture on a people who don't necessarily want it. And we are not doing it for any altruistic reason, we are doing it for oil. The ''crusades'' were about trade routes, now this modern day faux clash of religion (which has nothing to do with it, it's window dressing) is about oil routes. What's changed.

31

,

05/04/2009 15:06:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 05/04/2009 15:57:20
Postmark in #5 expresses what used to be the conventional wisdom in western civilization about war - that there are no real winners of war. everyone who participates loses. We used to take it for granted that we would only enter into a war if it was necessary to stop something worse from happening. But today the US seeks wars. and it arranges covert events such as terrorism to occur in order to justify those wars of choice.

here is an article about the Iraqi war experience since 2003.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/29682/42/

but with the entire mass media being owned by 6 corporations and the spirit of fascism being so strong in America there is little hope that America will not continue starting wars.

Here's a story about freedom in Amerika.

http://the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=10713

'Freedom Of Speech' in Amerika means that if you write the president a letter and tell him about the torture being done by the US government, then you go to jail for 6 months. That is what the Bush NAZIs brought to America.

33

,

05/04/2009 16:09:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

Mìcheal a Eilean Rùim,

Richmond 05/04/2009 17:17:18
#29 zigzag, Canada.
That's a good point and one that was made some years ago by a Hungarian professor (I forget his name) who asked why it was always "the Anglo-Saxon countries" who came to Europe's help and not other Europeans.

Indeed, the French resistance movement,(the Maquis) got so sick of people claiming to have fought with the Maquis against the Nazis that they created a register of those who had actually done so. A claimant could only be added to the list if vouched for by a known Maquis member. The figures were so embarrassingly low that a second more rigourous check intended to put the French public in a better light showed that 20% of the French population has actively collaborated with the Germans; another 20% did nothing except keep their mouths shut, while the Mayor of Paris at that time actually gave a police list of all known Jews in Paris to the Gestapo. (Source, his cousin, whom I met years later.)
The bottom line of the Maquis report was that less that one half of one percent of the population had actively fought against the Germans.

It used to annoy me listening to French people assuring me that de Gaulle had personally liberated Paris and that the credit for the successful Normandy invasion had been ripped off by the English trying to cover up for fleeing from the Germans at Dunkirk...
I was once the centre of an embarassing incident after a heated discussion one evening about Dunkirk, when the next day while practicing throwing hand grenades, to my horror one was thrown at me by the sergeant in charge. I sprinted for cover, but to my amazement the sergeant stood his ground, shouting, "Aha! Dunkirk again, eh?"!" while the rest of the squad fell about killing themselves with laughter. It was a setup - the grenade was a dummy! Talk about mortified! It took me a long time to live that down!
35

Carolyn 1,

05/04/2009 17:25:12
Wally @35
regardless of your loathing hatred for democracy and womens rights anywhere in the world, the least you can do is to lay blame for all the 'wretchedness' and conspiratory plots to take over the world at the correct feet.

The article you linked makes reference to a letter written to President OBAMA restricting free speech, not Bush.

As for your comment about the lack of "freedom in Amerika. "

If you ARE arrested or detained in the place you call Amerika, with a 'k'
I hope you drop down onto your anti-Semitic knees and thank God you're in America, because this country has the highest degree of freedom of speech any where in the world.
In China or Iran, my dear Wally, YOU WOULD BE DEAD.
36

Carolyn 1,

05/04/2009 17:32:45
here's a question Wally that you never answer-
Aside from your crazy fundamentalist religion, sadistic and masochist personality that you would impose on others, you have never explained why you believed the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq were acceptable under the brutal totalitarianism regime of Saddam Hussein; but the deaths of far less people who fought against tyranny in the hope of democracy and a better world for their children is an atrocity against all mankind.
I've been waiting for that rationalization from you for years.
Or is it a secret?
37

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 19:07:14
37 I am sure it will come as a huge surprise to the Soviet Union who did so much to defeat Hitler (where the war was on, on the eastern front) that they are anglo-saxons.
38

Los Angeles,

05/04/2009 19:24:33
Wally - you have never explained why you believed the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq were acceptable under the brutal totalitarianism regime of Saddam Hussein; (Carolyn)

Where do you get the idea anybody detesting the invasion of Iraq is somehow happy five thousand souls were gassed by Saddam's thugs?

Where is the line you draw?

Had he gassed one thousand would that justify the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents and the flattening of an ancient civilisation as retribution? Or is five hundred your maximum?


39

,

05/04/2009 19:27:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

oder,

Scotland 05/04/2009 19:43:51
20 Postmark 55 again,China,

peace in Northern Ireland was a direct result of American involvement and engagement in the process thats a fact! Britain failed to achieve peace or to eliminate the terrorists in over 30 years maybe they did come late but they won the game, and as they say its the end result that count.

22 Boab,05/04/2009

Hiya Boab
how the weather in Glasgow? haven't seen any of your posts for a wee while!

actually you cant blame the Americans for the disintegration of Yugoslavia it was their own internal problems that caused that,the Europeans stood by and watched the place go up in smoke (some neighbours huh!) it was left to the Americans to put out the fire that's what good neighbours do! No? maybe the did go in over oil (I personally don't believe they did.) but again the results are what counts and there is peace in these countries today, oil or no oil and that benefits everyone! now how is this bad or wrong?
will try to pick up a copy of the book.

24 Geraldine Firequeen,

heaven forbid that I would treat the American`s or the European`s in such "unjust" and clearly discriminative manner I most humbly apologise to all in the US and Europe! I will try to be more evenhanded!.... happy?


My question remains unanswered by posters as to the success and achievement of the Europeans without the US!
41

oder,

Scotland 05/04/2009 19:53:38
Oops! done it again sorry Geraldine! should read "How`s" the weather in Glasgow.
42

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 20:29:31
yes we could not send more troops to Aghanistan

of course we could just ignore Pakistan a nuclear capable country becomeing a failed state and ran by islamist extremeists.

of course we could all stick our heads in the sand and let events take its course.

but in the same train of thought we would be as well sticking our heads between our legs and kissing our AR***S GOODBYE
43

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 20:45:37
oder the peace in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with US invovlvement. Clinton was window dressing to help Adams and co save face.
44

Tobytoo,

Southington, U.S.A. 05/04/2009 20:52:31
#34 Postmark
I think that your comment @ #34 is the first one that I have ever agreed with 100%.
45

Displaced Scot,

Uk 05/04/2009 20:52:54
What do you expect, the Europeans are weak, they have no guts, they will leave it to us in the Anglosphere to do the real fighting.
46

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 20:56:23
47 you agree with that rubbish !!! by the way postmark how long have you worked for the chines goverment what department is it?
47

Carolyn 1,

05/04/2009 21:00:00
(Had he gassed one thousand would that justify the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents and the flattening of an ancient civilisation as retribution) <

?? There is no justification for gassing your own citizens and flattening a civilization.

Saddam Hussein flattening and bulldozing the villages of the Marsh Arabs completing eliminating the tribe, and his plan to remove the Kurds from civilization is a crime against humanity.

The Kurd Extermination:
At Halabja, 3,000 Kurds dead and another 10,000 who still suffer from the gas attack.
A Dutch businessman, not George Bush, not an American, was found guilty of supplying Saddam Hussein with the chemicals and gas used for the attack

The Anfal Genocide Campaign
180,000 Kurds dead - for the crime of being Kurds

Mass Graves
Barzani and the thousands of Kurds who supported him, were executed in mass graves, thousands still not accounted for

The statistics make it understandable why the UN was pushing Bush, even before he was in office, of the urgency to deal with Saddam Hussein. And that's a quote from the UN minutes of 2000.


As to why Wally never speaks out and says Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity, I have no idea- I think it's secret.
48

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 21:08:40
Carolyn 1 it isent fashionable to point out the realities of the world.

The tree huggers get all upset they prefer to live in there wee self rightouse bubble.
49

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 21:15:14
50 Of course the US knew about Halabja they knew about all of Saddam's atrocities but the writing was on the wall for the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, political opponents and trade unionists the minute that the Shah of Iran was overthrown. No way was anyone from the West going to reign Saddam in then - he was ''our man''. Saddam's worst atrocities were committed in the eighties he enjoyed the full support of the West as a secular bulwark against Islam. Iran was not invaded in 2003 because of Saddam's atrocities - they had nothing to do with it.
50

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/04/2009 21:16:08
53 ''Iran'' should of course be ''Iraq''
51

,

05/04/2009 21:22:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

oder,

Scotland 05/04/2009 21:43:04
46 Thistledhu,

I see! so there no peace in NI then? its all window dressing is it? still you acknowledge it was an American to do the window dressing? any reason you can think of why a European couldn't pull off the window dressing bit?

my question remains what are the success and achievement Europeans have manage to attain with out the US
53

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 22:09:27
55 peace in NI ? 2 soldiers and one police officer dead thats peace ?

Beyond that the peace procces started when the terrorist realised they were getting no where with there campaign

Clintons involvment was a few days shakeing hands nothing more
54

Thistledhu,

05/04/2009 22:11:16
in answer bosnia gaining peace was down largely to europe
55

Los Angeles,

05/04/2009 23:03:07
There is no justification for gassing your own citizens and flattening a civilization. (Carolyn)

And what do you think Bush did to withdraw rights from US citizens, condone torture, and flatten Iraq? Spread love and light?

I'm sorry, if you are going come on this website to portray Bush and his rich thugs as saints marching against the evildoers you deserve all the ridicule you get 0- but not my interest.



56

Los Angeles,

05/04/2009 23:11:00

Oh, by the way, Carolyn, your presidents sat back while Sadddam did those things because it suited them not to intefere. A mild condemnation here, plea for restraint there. He was their allay in the Middle-East. The USA even sent Rumsfeld to shake him by the hand and offer him more weapons.

It was only when he overestimated the USA's support for his activities by invading Kuwait did they get upset. There was oil there aplenty.

After Bush Senior defeated him and wiped out soldiers on the run, he left Saddam alone because he was the best of all evils for the USA's interests ... with some helicopters he could use to strafe his opponents ... which he duly did.

You have no idea of your own country's venal involvement in Iraq before Bush Junior decided to prove to his dad he was not a weakling, or a waster, or a loser.

Alas, he was all three, but also lethal.


57

,

05/04/2009 23:21:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

,

06/04/2009 00:25:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

,

06/04/2009 00:31:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 00:48:41
Observer @52
Exactly.
GWB is the first person to step up and stop the atrocities, for which he is eternally condemned. And he decided to overhaul the CIA.

"[Saddam] enjoyed the full support of the West as a secular bulwark"
The West? Include Condemning France, Germany and the UN for their violating sanctions and their involvement in the swindling of billions of dollars in the Oil for Food Scandal... it cannot be denied that they were in it for the Big Bucks!
61

oder,

Scotland 06/04/2009 01:03:41
"in answer Bosnia gaining peace was down largely to Europe are you sure? while the death of two soldiers and a policeman are regrettable there does not appear to be a call to arms by anyone in NI

The United States initially contributed close to 20,000 troops to IFOR, or about one third
of the total force. In 1995, President Clinton justified the U.S. contribution as an
appropriate response to the suffering and instability caused by the Bosnian war and as a
demonstration of U.S. leadership in NATO, although he pledged at the time that the
commitment would not exceed one year. The Bush Administration frequently invoked
the “in together, out together” policy with the European allies on maintaining transatlantic
unity on Balkan peacekeeping operations. As the smaller SFOR drew down over the
years, so did the U.S. contingent, and its share averaged about 15% of the total force in
the final years (for example, the U.S. contribution was about 1,000 out of a total of 7,000-
8,000 troops in SFOR in late 2004). Throughout SFOR’s existence, the United States
retained command over the NATO force in Bosnia; NATO’s residual headquarters
presence also remains under U.S. command. About 1,500 U.S. troops currently serve in Kosovo.

the largest member of NATO is the US it was Nato(the US) that lead the mission into Bosnia quite a bit more than a handshake!

my question is clear! what success and achievements has Europeans had without the US?

To That Scottish Woman at the Cyber Shebeen,
the only name I ever use is "oder" Los Angeles is some other poster, if you cant hack his or her argument stop claiming someone to be a troll all you do is reduce the quality of the debate.
62

oder,

Scotland 06/04/2009 01:09:43
that was for post 57
63

Silence of the Yams,

06/04/2009 01:10:35
What is the point of this organisation if so called member nations will not commit troops? It's a joke.
64

,

06/04/2009 01:27:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

06/04/2009 01:32:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 02:23:08
Well Said @67
Well, well, well
Is the name Rob Bennett banned?
I guess it would be 'Well Said' considering you google up your comments from places like Brown University as I recall. How's the shoot-out business with the Bandido Motorcycle gang? Are you a billionaire yet?

As for the sewer cesspool reference to me and where I live and work, in Buckminster Fuller's vision to do more with less for the good of mankind, we refer to it as living machines but recently we started using the term eco-machine. The first one was built a few miles from my office.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/06/living-machines-turning-wastewater-clean-with-plants/
http://www.ecosherpa.com/waste-management/eco-machines/
http://www.toddecological.com/
http://www.vsb.cape.com/~nature/greencenter/
67

,

06/04/2009 02:43:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

,

06/04/2009 02:43:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

Composed,

06/04/2009 04:06:32
#66 Silence of the yams
"What is the point of this organisation if so called member nations will not commit troops? It's a joke."

That's why Nato should be disbanded. It serves no purpose any longer.
70

oder,

Scotland 06/04/2009 08:03:24
72 Composed

"That's why NATO should be disbanded. It serves no purpose any longer."

well! if that is the case will the European leadership take the lead on this matter or shall that again be left to the US to assume that roll? don't see many Europeans leaders up to disband NATO as I understand the French President is in favour of rejoining NATO, seems rather strange that the(French)President thinks that joining would be a good thing if the organisation is now defunct.
71

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 11:46:16
(Oh, by the way, Carolyn,) Los Angeles @59

Oh by the way, your dim wit is out.

If every man is to be held accountable for the deeds of every man before him and after, you are as guilty as I.
72

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 11:48:29
(you deserve all the ridicule you get 0- but not my interest.) Los Angeles @ 58


Then why did you comment again at #59?
Did your wee mind forget, and so quickly?
73

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 11:52:04
( to portray Bush and his rich thugs as saints marching against the evildoers) Los Angeles @58


Hmmm.
And I said that where exactly?
74

Carolyn 1,

06/04/2009 12:08:57
Silence @ 66
"What is the point of this organisation if so called member nations will not commit troops? It's a joke. "


It's narrow sighted to not consider one of the reasons Europe has been stable for so long is because NATO serves to stabilize the region.

The more countries in the organization the more strength and resources, intellectual, material, and diplomatic it has to bring stability to more peoples.
"Troops" are not the only resource.
"Troops" are not the only answer.

Georgia and Ukraine need to be brought in, sooner rather than later.

Legalize poppy, nationalize the crop and let the thugs run the country until the farmers kick them out
75

,

06/04/2009 14:52:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

,

06/04/2009 16:47:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

,

07/04/2009 00:33:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.