I don't accept the premise, that terrorism is a threat to be dealt with militarily. I don't want to bomb our Government. After 9/11 people were afraid to fly and therefore were driving more. Alone due to this extra driving ca. 1600 people died from traffic accidents. Steadily new rules are implemented, which usually do nothing than scaring people, e.g. the rule, that one can take only 100ml in a single bottle with you on plane. Terror is the latin word for fear. Terrorist are impotent people, who try to scare people irrationally. Instead of calming poeple down the Governments are hyping the threat, so they are the real terrorists.
The biggest real threat to the world today is the "Cheney doctrine" to treat a 1% risk as a 100% risk, which consequently carried out leads to the end of the world. The person who has invented this doctrine is not hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan or even in Iraq, but in Washington. Can NATO protect me from this threat? Despite that I'm for keeping the NATO, because there may come around major threats in the new future. But your original post pretty much focused on Afghanistan.
The reason European nations want to keep there own military is, because they want to be in control (and because they are stupid nationalists). NATO is a defense organisation and it is easy to accept the need for solidarity in case of defense. The strategic use of NATO undermines exactly that control for which nations are willing to waste so much money to not have a EU army.
if the UN and other global organisations want to use military forces for security operations and peacekeeping Usually not "the UN", but the UN sec council is deciding. So I would say those who have the right to vote should bear the consequences. My country (Germany) has asked for a seat and did not get one, so why should we (and the more than 20 other NATO countries without a vote) be the servants to the masters who rule?
happens that the world's richest nations I didn't know that Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE were in the NATO.
pick up the bill as they see it as being in their interest As I said, that is the problem with the NATO: Not only "they", but quite a number of non-"they"s helping a potentially immoral mission. Why not making a "coalition of the willing" for each of such cases.
Europeans truly think that their respective nations should not be involved in ISAF in Afghanistan [...] leave the Afghans to their fate What I want is a strategy change, which will not happen. The way you formulate it, it sounds as if Europeans do not care for Afghans. The reality is, that the US Gov is blackmailing Europeans, either to follow the flawed strategy or "leave the Afghans to their fate". Much more people die every year from hunger and easy-to-cure illnesses. If used non-military in terms of humanitarian success much more could be done without the expansive military than with it. Why are we responsible for Afghanistan, but not for hungry children if Africa, who are not in a strategically important country. Should they import some "terrorist", so they are recognised and they get help? Are we nowadays rewarding countries for habouring AlQaida? Is O. BinLaden the greatest hero of humanitarian aid of all times?
there is an underlying need for a new military organisation to support the UN's international security measures and manage peacekeeping all round the world They can hire blackwater or whomever. Those who think it is a need will pay. I don't know one case in the past 10 years, where military had a terrific effect/effort ratio. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Remember, NATO intervention in Afghanistan is UN backed -- the Afghan govt sought UN backing; it has become legitimate for NATO to step in whereas the war on the Iraqis was illegal -- world of difference. Iraq DID NOT ATTACK America. There's absolutely not an iota of evidence that 9/11 was planned and launched by Al Qaeda from Iraq. However, there was evidence that Al Qaeda was going to launch 9/11 from Afghanistan -- the Lion of Peshwar (Northern Alliance chief) prior to his assasination went to the Americans to inform them of the plan but Bush sidestepped that, well because I suppose he is an indomitble fool...
In my view, until the Americans leave, nothing good could be achieved in Iraq -- that war is producing more fundamentalists and more extremists every single day while Americans stay.
My opinion of the UN is very low. I don't know if anybody in Iraq or Afghanistan cares if some current and former "superpowers" have agreed if it is legal to kill them. However, the "Governments" of these countries are not representative, not more than the commi gov of Afghanistan in the 80s, which took over Afghanistan against the will of the Soviet Union. Here I have already described my view on the situation of the Christians (people I called hundreds of times brothers and sisters) in Iraq and similar will be true for the Iraqi Turkmen. Do you really believe the Iraqi Gov will ask for help to prevent the ongoing genocide on these people? What even about the Sunnis? On what do you base your believe, that people will become less extremist and fundamentalist when the US leaves, former Yugoslavia doesn't seem to be a good example?
If the Iraq war was illegal and will in the end probably have cost more than 2 maybe more million lives, how credible is an alliance including the country which started this war anyhow to bring justice to others?
I can accept to stay in Afghanistan and go out of Iraq, but then I want to see justice for the killed in Iraq. A vast majority of US citizens supported the war in Iraq. The congress knew all important things which Bush knew, who never said Iraq had 9/11 involvement. So lifelong prison for all important members of the US Gov and all senators/representatives which ever voted to enable or finance the war (so about all but Ron Paul) would be the minimum. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Re 9/11: Intel reports alleged that the 9/11 were hatched from Afghanistan/Pakistan; the beef of Bush was really the super 'Talibanisation' of Afghanistan whom he believed to had been harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists, etc.
Re: "but then I want to see justice for the killed in Iraq." I think we all do.
(OK gotta hit the sack -- just realised it's almost 2AM here, will get back to this tomorrow. Meanwhile, thanks for the input! Good night folks;)
And well, Afghanistan harboured planners of 9/11. I never denied that. But that doesn't justify ten thousend of killings.
Re: "but then I want to see justice for the killed in Iraq." I think we all do. Sure? Maybe you and maybe a majority of the people at eurotrib, but surely not the Americans, who voted for senators in the current primaries. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Leaving Iraq now would give the neocons in the US the possebility to create a "Dolchstoßlegende", as they have already tried with Vietnam - and in case of Iraq they would have more chances to be successful.
Seeing as the Surge does not consist of a large enough force to be truely successful. I've thought that this was its main purpose. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
The success of a creation of a legend could even work without that there would have been a real alternative, but would allow the neocons to go into another war in some years elsewhere. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Very sad. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Despite Germany had to accept conditionless surrender, in WW I there was never a fight on German soil. Basically after the US entered the war directly, Germany had no chance any more and all military historicans agree on that. But the groups who first surrendered were poitically very left. The Weimarer Republic was essentially founded by the SPD, the major German left wing party. As there was no war in Germany, the monarchists could keep the myth of the "Dolchstoßlegende" alive, that Germany could have won WW I, if the left groups would not have betrayed the country. This was a major burden for the new democracy and the SPD, which later lost a lot of voters to the Nazis who were allowed to reverse most of the burdens, which the SPD Gov accepted in the Versailler treaty. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
f I understand the 'doctrine' "Dolchstoßlegende" correctly, I believe that it will be used indeed by Bush and his neo-con supporters. There have been high-profile indications from Patraeus demand for more troops in Iraq to Gates' recent attacks on US NATO and EU allies.
