Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEurope Ignores Obama's Demands for More Troops in Afghanistan
LONDON - Washington had hoped to persuade European allies to contribute more in the wake of the President Barack Obama's election and the announcement this week of the deployment of 17,00 extra American soldiers.
![[Robert Gates has condemned Nato allies for failing to send more troops to Afghanistan Photo: AP ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/gates-2.jpg "gates-2.jpg")
American defense secretary Robert Gates condemned their failure to do so far as "disappointing" with European states promising to deploy no more than just a few hundred extra troops.
Speaking before a meeting of NATO defense ministers in the Polish city of Kraków, Mr Gates said member states must send reinforcements in preparation for the Afghan presidential elections in August.
However in a sign commanders had resigned themselves to receiving few extra combat troops, the NATO chief stressed the need for help in less controversial and safer police training missions.
Jaap de Hopp Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, refrained from calling for more combat troops, explaining that the organization should play a greater role in nation building.
He said: "NATO should give the Afghan authorities an army and police that allow them to take on their responsibilities. The sooner we can finish training the army and police, the sooner the Afghan authorities can take over running their own country."
A resigned Mr Gates conceded that this could be the best America could get from its allies."I guess it will make life easier for those member states that have problems about committing combat troops," he said.
Such a deal would allow European governments to say they are committed to the struggle in Afghanistan but without upsetting public opinion.
Washington has long been frustrated at Europe's lackluster response to repeated American calls for greater assistance.
With public opposition to the Afghan war hardening across Europe, and disquiet in many European capitals over a command structure in Afghanistan that keeps the vast bulk of the 55,000-strong American force separate from NATO, few expect any member to commit significant additional forces.
Poland, which has over 1,000 troops on combat operations in Afghanistan and been a vocal supporter of deployment, also lent its support.
John Hutton, the Defense Secretary, said the UK was considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but insisted Britain was "playing above our weight" and the onus was on European NATO members to increase their presence. Britain has 8,300 troops in Afghanistan, more than any other European country.
"Our view has always been very clear that Nato needs to do more, the European members of NATO need to do more," he said.
"There needs to be a fairer burden-sharing of responsibilities, particularly in those really hard areas where what we need are combat forces."
He also echoed growing US criticism of Hamid Karzai's government, demanding "change and improvement in Kabul".
"There's no doubt at all that the government in Kabul needs to do more," Mr Hutton said.
"It needs to tackle the problem about corruption, it needs to deal with the problem about drugs which is a poison in Afghan society and making it very difficult for good governance to take hold across the country."
The summit got under way as the Kyrgyzstan parliament voted to close the last remaining US airbase in central Asia.
Some 15,000 American troops and 500 tons of supplies pass through the Manas base each month on the way to and from Afghanistan.
But officials in Kyrgyzstan backed a presidential decree which means the Americans will have to leave within 180 days - after which Russia will take over. Russia recently agreed to give the government more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in aid and loans.
Mr Gates said America would consider paying more rent to continue using a strategic airbase in Kyrgyzstan which is key to its operations.
77 Comments so far
Show AllGates should start looking for a place to hide his filthy carcass because hisa time is running out.
As for Obama, Halloween is over, he should show his true face and quit carrying water for those neocon fops....
Following is a short and interesting little article about Unocal of the U.S. and the Bridas corporation of Argentina vying over the which will get the pipeline deal with the Taliban and for piping the oil in Turkmenistan to Pakistan passing through Afghanistan. I just came across this piece while doing a little Web searching based on the post by Dead GI providing a timeline. A U.S. govt, DOE, link in that timeline is no longer valid, so I started a Web search to see if a copy of the page could be found; and I didn't find that yet, but found some interesting resources, including the 1997 BBC piece linked further below. The other resources I looked at, though haven't yet read, only seeing that the topics are of interest, are:
"Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline", Part 1 of 2,
by Larry Chin, OnlineJournal.com, Mar 6 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html
I didn't see a Part 2 link for that piece by Larry Chin, but both parts are available in separate PDF's in the OJ archive under the Special Reports column of links, which has links to apparently plenty of articles on interesting and related topics; if not all specifically related, then nevertheless related in an overall, perhaps, or general sense.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive
"Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline", Dec 4 1997
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
The BBC piece doesn't say a whole lot, but it's a msm news media reporting on the pipeline negotiations happening in ... Texas and with a "senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan". This and other historical information about specifically related efforts on the part of Unocal during the 1990's is something to always keep in mind and I made a couple of posts for (some) more on all of this two or three days ago. Links to the two posts are in my prior post in this page.
Actually, I just tried to load a BBC article linked in the Timeline page Dead GI (since when do dead people communicate with us?) linked to and the article isn't found. Perhaps it's the same as the above one, because the topic is similar, about Unocal inviting the Taliban to meet in Texas, while both articles are additionaly about the meeting place being in Sugarland (weird name for a town unless a lot of sugar is grown or produced there), Texas. (Perhaps it was a drugged up, doped out CIA operative nutcase, maybe GHW Bush (?), who named that town in Texas Sugarland; after consuming a little too much of their special "sugar". Or maybe it's a place where the CIA operatives see to trafficking "sugar" through on its way into the U.S. (?))
I am sure everyone is familiar with the picture of baby bush shaking hands with the Taleban at that time in Crawford.
"Sugarland (weird name for a town unless a lot of sugar is grown or produced there),"
That is exactly where the name came from.
Here's an excellent timeline to all the events that are leading the US into Afghanistan and links to the bush family and the pipeline development.
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
And today, press secretary Gibbs, calls Iran's nuclear development an urgent problem. And also tonight, Israel shells Lebanon. Looks like the neocons are back in the saddle.
This is pure dereliction on the part of Gates. At least the Poles and Checks could have been bribed in to supporting the "NATO initiative".
A couple of my posts with links to informational resource articles on the war on Afghanistan and what everyone should understand about it are the following, both in the same CD page.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/19-14#comment-1142910
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/19-14#comment-1142950
The second, latter post is the continuation of my first one in that same page.
Europeans and Canadians are right to be against their govts continuing in the war (of aggression) in (against) Afghanistan, and I very recently read that 70% or more of both Ca and Eu. countries' populations are of this view. As for the U.S., I've seen little evidence of such consciousness or conscience, althoug hthere are some people who've made it clear that they are also very against the continuation and ever more against escalation, which Obama has pledged to provide (escalation).
I'm not sure, but would be curious to know what the civilian Afghan death toll is compared to the toll for the Taliban and other militias, for I have an impression that the toll may possibly be higher among the civilians, non-combatants.
But the war was never justifiable. My second post, above, provides for an example of supporting information along with the associated essay link.
A few years ago, a reporter for the Hartford Advocate wrote a story and had
a map showing the real reason we are in Afghanistan. The underground Pipe lines.
Ask the Hartford Courant to run the story again. The reporter was removed or
fired, the story was to hot.
It's time to fold up our empire and bring it home.
Let our "national interests" be the interests of the people, not the interests of the multi-national corporations.
Why won't the petty-eurozillas help put a smiley face on super-godzilla's imperial misadventures?
"Such a deal would allow European governments to say they are committed to the struggle in Afghanistan but without upsetting public opinion."
This is a classic media frame-trap. We're supposed to accept governments having a mind of their own. By extension, any large powerful organization should rampage on this earth with a singular goal to perpetuate itself, at the expense of all.
Kaka on that! No government, no corporation no organization of any type that elites may cook up is allowed to attack the public interests. The people rule!
MR. GATES GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN HAS BEEN STARTED BY NO OTHER COUNTRY BUT THE USA, TO BE SPECIFIC BY W BUSH AND HIS FATHER, FOR NO REASON BUT OUT OF LUST FOR HUMAN BLOOD [BUSH FAMILY MODERN VAMPIRES.}? UNLAWFULL WAR BY W BUSH [USA] TO REVENGE THE WAR OF HIS FATHER IN AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW SADAM. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR THIS KIND OF REBELS. W BUSH SHOULD BE HANGED NEXT TO SADAM BUT ON A MUCH HIGHER POLE.
The EUROPEAN members of NATO outspend the Russians 5 to 1 on their miltary. Russias and Europes economies are so entwined a war would be suicidal for either.
Just as The United States economy is so entwined with that of Chinas neither side could AFFORD an armed conflict without facing internal collapse.
So no. the US Military serves absolutely no purpose scattered around the Globe "defending Asia or Europe".
Its sole purpose is to generate monies for the arms industry and to impose the WILL of the United States on third world nations in order to control their resources.
"Russias and Europes economies are so entwined a war would be suicidal for either."
That exact argument was used before WW1 and WW2. Never made a difference before.
"The United States economy is so entwined with that of Chinas neither side could AFFORD an armed conflict without facing internal collapse.
See above.
So no. the US Military serves absolutely no purpose scattered around the Globe "defending Asia or Europe"."
I agree, let them pay for their own defense, but don't mistake the fact that from WW2 till now the US has guaranteed the peace and protected all these areas.
>>That exact argument was used before WW1 and WW2. Never made a difference before.
Who said this prior to WW1 and when?
Please detail me the amount of Oil and Natural gas coming into Europe from Russia pre WW1.
Please detail to me the amount of manufactured goods Russia was producing for Germany or Vice versa. Please detail where Germany was reliant on Britain to produce Goods or provide raw materials in 1938. Describe the extent of Globalization. Please tell me how much Money the Kaiser owed to Great Britain.
WW1 was EXPECTED. The reason they formed those alliances was because war between the blocs was expected.
They were going to war FOR IMPERIAL reasons, namely which Imperial powers would control the resources of Africa, and the Oil that was under the control of the waning ottoman Empire.
>>I agree, let them pay for their own defense, but don't mistake the fact that from WW2 till now the US has guaranteed the peace and protected all these areas.
False. It a clever lie the deluded like to tell themselves because it gives them a elevated sense of self Importance.
They did not "Guarantee the peace". Indeed they went around provoking wars. As the very designer of your "Containmnet theroy" stated when he resigned in disgust. The USSR had no intention of going to war with the West and his Governmnet was merely trying to extend the Cold war .
Darn! Excuse me.....I meant that the argument that was the same before WW1, it was said all over Europe, mosly and I believe originated in Britain about Germany, England, France, etc. That they couldn't afford to go to war because it would bankrupt all the countries involved. Typing is a lot harder than talking. You lose any nuance.
Pretty much the same argument was used by our isolationists during the thirties in the US before WW2.
"war FOR IMPERIAL reasons" A real war is usually fought for two reasons as far as I know, control of resources or population pressure. So I'd say you were right without a doubt and the Empires that were involved in WW1 would certainly fit "Imperial reasons" Best explanation I ever saw was "Fall of Eagles" a Brit mininseries that was very historically accaurate.
The fact that the US has guaranteed the peace since WW2 is fairly well known and acknowledged by almost any political expert I've ever spoken too or read. You tend to discount the importance of the US for whatever reason which is OK, but not true in many cases. Some yes.
We still provide Europes military defense today which any military expert or anyone with the slightest military knowledge can tell you.
I'd love to bring our troops home from all over. Suit me just fine, wouldn't you like to see us withdraw our military from around the world?
A fair bit of double speak here.
"US has guaranteed the peace since WW2" Peace for who? When? A lot of people have died thanks to American policy, unless your are suggesting this is a failed guarantee, but then doesn't every country with imperial desires claim to be making the world a better place.
"We still provide Europes military defense today", defense against who or what? I think France would argue (reasonably so) that they look after their own defense.
Before I took the word of any "expert" I would look to see who is paying their salary.
Yup. For all the posturing, both the EU and Russia need each other. And they know this.
I FULLY AGREE. TO GwNorth.
Barack Obama has the same delusions that his predecessor had. He want's s to fix the same problems that Bush wanted to fix, only in a slightly different way. Afghanistan is not a problem because it breeds terrorists. The United States has that distinction because of our imperial attitude reflection in our foreign policy. Afghanistan is a problem because its economy is based on the growth and sale of opium poppies. I say we leave Afghanistan, but first give all our guns and munitions to the countries women so they can defend themselves against their men. That might solve another problem.
I think this article shows just how out of touch the U.S. political class is with the reality of the world. They just can't fathom that other countries, such as the Europeans, might not accept the premise that the West should dictate policy and order around the world. They are deaf and dumb. I recall an article I read, I believe, just a few months after 9/11, in which an Irish diplomat was talking about trying to converse on policy with some American Democrats (i.e., anti-Bush, but pro-Afghan war). The Irishman said that the Americans did not engage in debate, but simply continued to follow their prior train of thought regardless of what their interlocutors said, especially if it contradicted their position in any way. It was as if they couldn't hear, he said.
"The Irishman said that the Americans did not engage in debate, but simply continued to follow their prior train of thought regardless of what their interlocutors said, especially if it contradicted their position in any way. It was as if they couldn't hear, he said."
Well my friend, it sounds like that is the only way Washington hears anything. It looks as if the States will reassert their rights before its over.
Why is the U S so gung-ho to attack Afghanistan?
When the Russians were attacking Afghan, The U S was supporting the Afghans.
Who makes the decisions in the U S ?
Which side of the fence are they on anyway?
Who makes the decisions in the U S ?
We're beginning to wonder ourselves!
Answer - the people controlling Obama
Our glorious greedy corporate oligarchy that is getting rich off the war and grinding down the serfs of the USA.
I predicted 3rd world conditions to be prevalent in the US - just not this soon.
99; i thought it would also take longer. the powers that be are now on steroids. they manufactured this global re-depression. we are now becoming a HAMBURGER HELPER REPUBLIC. the oil crash helped put oil producing economies in the toilet. this is their way of saying [we are the boss]. the clue will still come from china.
"...officials in Kyrgyzstan backed a presidential decree which means the Americans will have to leave within 180 days - after which Russia will take over. Russia recently agreed to give the government more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in aid and loans. Mr. Gates said America would consider paying more rent to continue using a strategic airbase in Kyrgyzstan which is key to its operations. "
2 billion $USD? More rent? Sound more like an auction than a war. It would be cheaper to buy a country than to spend hundreds of billions on a war with the same end result; Empire gets a new addition. How many trillion spent in Iraq so far? They could have bought Saddam out, kept the infrastructure intact and not killed hundreds of thousands of people. O'bomb'em should drop dollars, not bombs.
glenn ford
wonderful news if a truce and diplomacy can substitute for military confrontation.
To refer to the religious developments in the Muslim world as "radical Islam" is not to demonize the fundamentalist Muslims. Religious mania spreads like a virus, just as fundamentalist Christianity has spread in this country, culminating in the presidency of Bushboy, and possibly the end of civilized secular society if Obama can't turn things around. There may be more polite ways to speak of these cultural developments, but I am not into political correctness.
Demonization of radical Islam is claiming that it was responsible for 911 when it is clear to anyone who has taken the time to examine the evidence that extremist ideologues in this country were the perpetrators.
Fanaticism of any sort is abhorrent, but religious fanaticism is the true demon that haunts our world, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu. If you defer to it and won't call it by its true name, you're a fool.
The fanaticism of Israel is a far worse threat to world peace than women-hating Muslims. Repellent as Muslim fanatics may be they are far less likely to nuke their neighbors, IMHO.
Re Afghanistan:
Why exactly have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Holbrooke decided to forget all of their history classes?
When did they become hysterical?
When, like George W. Bush and John McCain, did they opt for phantoms over reality?
Why don't such people have faith that if they lessened tensions rather than increased them, the chances of major attack upon us would diminish?
Have the Algerian terrorists totally destroyed France? No. Has France totally destroyed Algeria? No.
BOTTLE; when one has zbig and albright as foolreign policy advisers. then this type of manner should be expected. it is still the usual suspects behind the curtain. gates, shillary, holbrooke, and probably dennis ross, and others are part of the package. they just forgot to tell the sheep that before the election. perhaps they will even bring khalilzad back to be the new viceroy of kabul.
Currently, in reality:
Russia secured Kyrgyzstan, brokered accord between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and navigates the Bosporus, and impacts fuel delivery to Europe. Iran and Russia begin long term goals of energy and trade routes through Caucasus Region. America and Obama democracy shape Afghanistan via El Salvador/Iraq Model.
10 months into the future, Obama Nation declares Afghanistan stable, but warns far from western democratic standards. He uses the bully pulpit to lure young, ambitious, soft policy recruits into Kabul as part of a wide sweeping beautification-democratization program. Builds “America Houses” to foster good tidings. Liberal Academics, for the first time in decades, declare in large numbers what a wonderful idea! Recruitment centers pop up at the most prestigious universities.
In the meantime, Russian brokerd meeting between Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan finalizes negotiations, borders officially open and trade routes flow for the first time since 1993. Russia finalizes contracts on Baku-Bosporus pipeline. SE Europe reduces US influence as Russian resources flow in. Russian technocrats rebound, building fifty year alliance. European fuel needs are met. US continue to foster democratization, unity programs in Afghanistan. By now, Obama is re-elected, but US is no closer to a Green Energy revolution. Carbon credits are used by military to justify expeditions. Peace Corps doubles in size and becomes dominate political tool for US nation building. US continue to build Afghanistan as it is accused of interfering with Central Asian politics. Nothing comes of it.
Ten years later, Kabul is a stable, but corrupt, semi-autocratic county.
Great News ------- Gates says a Pakistan style truce may be acceptable in Afghanistan. Pressure Obama NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!
Lots of the suggestions above suggest we should go isolationist. I started wondering if that was what everyone was suggesting or perhaps I'm reading too much or not enough into comments?
It seems to me that everyone suggests or agrees with.....
Withdrawing from NATO
Withdrawing all our military protection from Europe
Close most of our European bases
Close most of our Asian and Middle Eastern bases
Withdraw our military protection from Asia
Refuse to send any of our troops into any other nation at any time unless we are at war (declared war) with them
I also assume we should withdraw our naval protection from any shipping other than our own or cargo's assigned to the United States
Whats the real thinking about this?
I would generally go along with much of your list, Thomas. It certainly would free up a lot of revenue to patch things up on the home front, like infrastructure, schools, aid to the new poor hoodwinked by the system and the old poor who have always been there. And why shouldn't the U.S. return to the policies that led it to become the most prosperous nation on earth?
clovis
"And why shouldn't the U.S. return to the policies that led it to become the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Why not indeed? But so far the look of the new administration looks little different. Democratic looting rather than Republican looting.
I agree. It just confirms the old leftist paradigm whereby there is only one party in the U.S., the corporate party, with a right wing, the Repugs, and a "left" wing, the rollover Dems. All that seems to me to have changed is the rhetoric. Let's now see how Obomber deals with Bibi Netanyahu, who, when asked his opinion of the 9/11 attacks on American TV, mere hours after they happened, said: "It's good... Well, it's not good, but it will certainly generate sympathy for Israel."
You know I could say a lot about that Thomas but on this day I have chosen to avoid the wrath of the multitude. I am just not in the mood to duck the rocks that would certainly start flying....However,I certainly would not be in any great hurry at this time to make any sudden changes as suggested by the list you posted. For each item in your list all I can say at this time is....go slowly my friends.... Perhaps adjustments but certainly nothing radical. To answer why would require more typing on a topic than I am willing to do this evening.lol
Dante
I'd be very interested to see what you opinion is on this. So when you are refreshed.....put on your rock helmet and fire away.....
Heck, I just suggested on another strig that perhaps Obama was a bad choice after all and answering a young lady that perhaps she was right that McCain would have been easier to castigate...a little coward called me a traitor to my country, so you are right, the nuts are loose today....perhaps tomorrow. You piqued my curiosity.
LOL Tomorrow indeed. Tonight a couple of cold beers and a good night sleep. My wife is visiting her "kin" folks in Alabama so there will be no beer count.........
".a little coward called me a traitor to my country, so you are right, the nuts are loose today....perhaps tomorrow. You piqued my curiosity."
You just can't win Thomas. Everybody is here)))))))))))))))))))
More 12:54 ----- I believe one Trident Class submarine can destroy all the major cities in the world.
Any drastic change from world hegemony may look like isolationism to some.
I think around 90% less in military spending would still be plenty to defend the USA.
Where does protection end and domination begin?
And who are we protecting all these countries from?
Russia? Our new ally in Afghanistan?
China who has no desire for territorial expansion except Tibet which we have failed to protect?
I seriously doubt the USA protects anything except the interests of it's plutocracy.
" China who has no desire for territorial expansion except Tibet which we have failed to protect?"
Talk to any Taiwanese recently?
When you say Taiwanese, do you mean the original residents of this island, or the Chinese warlords and their followers who invaded the island when they were driven out of mainland China?
I abhor what China did in Tibet, and what Chiang Kai-shek did in Taiwan. The Chinese are very territorial when it comes to their illusions about the Chinese 'sphere of influence'. It is the arrogance of empire, and the Chinese are old hands at empire.
I believe China and Taiwan are on fairly peaceful terms. I understand China policy is to use economic expansion as in Africa, not territorial( maybe they looked at the failed USA model). Where is everybody getting the claims that it territorily wants to expand here and there?
I'm not saying that China wants to expand here and there territorially. I agree with you that they are trying to expand their economic influence in various parts of the world, not just Africa.
But, the relationship with Taiwan isn't really peaceful. They block Taiwan internationally at every opportunity they get. Any, no matter how small, recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation, that is an independent nation called Taiwan, is blocked by China. China insists that Taiwan is not Taiwan, but rather "Chinese Taipeh". They have repeatedly threatened to go to war and attack if Taiwan formally declares themselves as separate from mainland China, ie independent.
That is hardly peaceful.
Pardon? When was there any attempt by the US for territorial gain in Africa? Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement.
You have the idea. Also note that China has locked up a long time supply of oil and is currently buying up minerals to support their major expansion of their military.
glenn ford
Be glad you are not in the Urals when China decides she needs that land. Who exactly do you think China is building her military at breakneck speed for?
Europe is safe and peaceful right? Sounds familiar.
You see the world as much more civilized and good willed than I do I guess.
China wants land. But not in the Urals. In Asia.
As for whether Europe is safe and peaceful, that should be for Europeans to decide for themselves.
China's next expansion is into Russia. There is no other area available.
I agree....let the Europeans pay for and organize their own defense. Really works for me.
What China is doing right now, instead of simple territorial expansion, is something (much) more sophisticated. It is taking advantage of the economic crash to buy up various corporations, natural resources corporations for example, in various countries. It is expanding or trying to expand it's economic influence in Africa and the Caribbean too.
There are many more options than simple territorial expansion into Russia.
Right exactly. I cringe when I hear about OUR interests being protected abroad when referring to the interests of corporate America.
I wouldn't trust Europe yet. Like the Democrats, they'll cave in when you least expect it.
NATO . . . Never Allow Total Obedience. Glad to see there's someone around telling Uncle Sam to umphhhh off.
Yeah, it hopefully is another nail that will prove the rest of the world is sick and tired of the perpetual wars that america loves so much as that is the only way to support the only manufacturing base we have anymore. And by the EU sending a 'token' amount of troops hopefully one day they will just tell america to go screw itself even though our new president wants to not just stay but to escalate the afghan war maybe he will be enough of his own man that one day he will order all troops home. It is insane to think with the economy tanking like it is that we can continue our imperial asperations.
One point, I would hope that if we brought all our troops home that if say that vast afghan army, military or war lords, loaded up all their naval ship and planes and came over here that they might, just might find us a little hard to defeat just as we cannot defeat them. But that could be because in no war since I guess WWII the congressional/military/industrial complex have never intended to win but just sustain and stay. Boy what a great military strategy that is. Is it any wonder that the region of the world that produced the original book on the 'Art of War' is theoretically impossible for the US to beat, especially without carpet bombing the whole of asia with nukes?
So you agree we should withdraw our protection from Europe and let them defend themselves? Close all our European bases?
What is wrong with europe defending themselves? If they rely on the US to defend them from all enemies then the US & EU will most likely be fighting Russia as that would be largest threat there is to the EU. Show me where the muslim countries have the logistics to invade the EU. And the EU, because they have been hit by violent attacks, most of note the UK, Spain and others, but they have taken steps to reduce the chances of attacks. Hell, here we are here in america experiencing the worst terrorist attack of all time and it is committed by our very own home grown financial terrorists. Do I rememeber w declaring it and even someone in the last few weeks saying that the security of the economy is of utmost importance and yet we see the on going effects of the very threat to our economy all around us and it is getting worse but these financial terrorists just keep getting the pass from obama that they got from w & dick. Now it is reported that obama will NOT nationalize banks. He better watch it because he is almost becoming a threat to our country if he doesn't do something about these free wheelling economic terrorists that are destroying the country.
We need to get our country back in order and just like I firmly believe that we can defend our country from our shores I would think the EU can do the same.
I think we should realistically define if there are any threats and if so what they may be. Then, in concert with the countries involved, provide appropriate security if requested.
Who is threatening Europe to the extent they might need our help? (This is a serious question). In the past the European oligarchies fought against each other in an endlessly shifting series of alliances. I do not see anyone ready to attack England, Germany or France. It looks to me like threats to European leadership may be coming from their own immigrant or working class populations. In that case, let it be.
Joe
Actually the only real threat to Europe right now is Russia and they aren't much. But that could change quickly. People believe that the period since WW2 is the norm and it has been as long as we have guaranteed it.
What most people don't seem to realize is that though they all have their own armed services, it is our military that protects them. We guarantee their safety.
Personally, I'm more than willing to withdraw it and let them carry their own economic burden for a while.
"It looks to me like threats to European leadership may be coming from their own immigrant or working class populations. In that case, let it be."
I'd say you are correct and a lot faster than they would like.
The real issue of Afghanistan & the Taliban, brought to you through CIA meddling in other nation's affairs, is the status of Pakistan.
The influence of radical Islam is spreading like a virus and has been for many years. 911 was undertaken to provide a pretext for intervention in the Muslim world in a vain effort to stop the spread of this virus against which Israel has no immunity.
The world at large also has no immunity to nuclear weapons developed by Pakistan, which is being gradually overtaken by radicalism. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto starkly illustrates the fragile condition of Pakistan's pro-western government.
Bush screwed up big time. Confronting a grass roots cultural development with military force was truly stupid.
But now, Obama has to act to secure the Pakistan nuclear arsenal and that can only be done by neutralizing the Taliban, or so he believes. Western failure in Afghanistan is the failure of the effort to stop the rising political influence of radical Islam. A political problem cannot be solved by military means.
Europe will not help.
The real threat is Israel. It will react violently to the growing influence of the Islamic uprising. It is probably too late to prevent the nightmare of a nuclear holocaust in the ME. This will be Israel's solution.
Crux 11:45 ------ Please do not demonize Islam radical or not. No culture or person is without deffects or positive attributes.
The USA just survived (or almost survived) being ruled by certifiably insane politicians.
Within the USA are extremely radical christian, rascist,and fiscal policy groups.
Iraq was one of the most prosperous, gender equal, secular Muslim nations in the world before the sanctions and the USA's countless attacks.
Every country has immunity from enemies, it is called national integrity. Things like obeying international law and treaties and not being an aggressor.
Please do not demonize Pakistan, I believe the USA has it's share of power seizing assassinations within the USA.
Pakistan has a large educated, active, vocal and passionately democratic electorial base. Proportionately much larger than the USA's activists.
Please do not demonize in general it is the rational for attacks.
The USA, Israel, and North Korea are three countries who have many more nukes than Pakistan and present just as great a danger of use.
Also please do not demonize Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion it was a peaceful,tolerant nation.
Glenn, i would agree that we not demonize anyone. That is what radical fundamentalism of all kinds does and it is just a perpetuation of primitive and reductionist labeling that does not serve the purpose of enlightened thought and decision making.
HAA HA!
Get rid of Nato. Once an alliance built to counter the Warsaw pact, it serves NO purpose today.
There is NO reason NATO should be in Afghanistan. It becomes a tool of Imperialism.
GW
"It becomes a tool of Imperialism"
Other than that we are in complete agreement.
The members of the soon-to-crumble EU will be needing their troops elsewhere very soon.
With the economic 'perfect storm' growing to apocalyptic proportions, they will need their gun-toting minions to 'keep the peace' in their own streets.
Most of the banks in Europe are just marking time until they have their own Lehman Brothers/Bear Stearns implosion.
Then the party really starts...
I wonder if that's why Bibi Netanyahu is so eager to start a war with Iran?...
Walk in peace.
Good for you Europe. You trusted us on economic policy and we were instrumental in bringing down the entire world economy. Do not follow us down this insane path of military escalation in Afghanistan. We have not controlled, cast out nor punished those lawless US powers who lead us to destruction based on lies and an unquenchable thirst for power and money. They remain active, still taking every chance to deceive and pillage.
Perhaps if nobody follows the swaggering bully he will look around, find himself alone and back off.
Joe
jclientelle
I would like to suggest to you that Europe and Asia were deeply involved in the economic shenanigans that brought about this disaster. They were hardly led by us into it and the collapse could just as easily started in either place.
The evidence is quite clear that the blame is shared equally by the global economic community.
I'm for leaving Europe to their own devices. I believe its time we stop taking care of them while they insult us and blame us for any thing that goes wrong.
Hi Thomas - Correction accepted, mostly. In Europe there are stronger regulations that prevent lending money above the ability of the recipient to pay it back. Most of the irresponsible lending originated here, but Europeans merrily went along buying into the bad paper and participating in other forms of closing their eyes when quik profit is involved.
Most of the bleeding of resources on military contracting and invasions are centered here. But the Europeans increasingly elected rightist leaders who snuggled up on the lap of George Bush on foreign policy matters, trade and financial matters.
Sometimes their annoying sense of superiority does blind them to their own weaknesses. For instance while France looked down on our racism and adopted a few of our very talented expatriate African-Americans as their own, they were in denial about how their own attitudes contributed to problems brewing with unemployed and poor second and third generation Algerians, Moroccans and Africans in the suburbs.
But let's be straight about this - we are the source of more than our share of political strongarming, gratuitous violence and armed robbery in order to get and keep control of valuable resources around the world.
Joe
Cannot disagree. I can certainly buy "more than our share", thats a fact, its the America is responsible for the disappearance of Dinosaurs bunch that annoy me...(no You are not one)
I frankly wouldn't trade with France when it comes to any racist problems (Europe per se for that matter), they are going to come a cropper as the Brits say.
Not "Correction", just the suggestion that there was plenty of bad paper originated around the world. Lets see if I can get away with this.....once more America leads the way and the world follows!
A pleasant day to you!
".once more America leads the way and the world follows!"
Thomas they just couldn't help but to jump on the band wagon. Monkey see monkey do..lol
Always!
Thomas,
I agree with you that greedy criminals the world over took part in the economic shenanigans you describe in your above comment. Plenty of blame to spread around. But, I am sure you would agree with me that the baby was born in the USA. I believe that was the point Joe was making in his comment.
Good afternoon Mr. Dante
Yep....we gave birth to the little B.....the sub primes, there are a lot of other little goodies from all over the place. Every country seems to have been quite creative.
Good Afternoon to you also Thomas
As I've said before, here and at other sites where I can comment, it's time to beat feet -- to come home, and end this foolish nonsense about dominating the world. Neither we nor anyone else can do it, and the longer we try, the sooner imperial collapse will be not the wolf at the door, but the wolf pack bursting through the door.
Wasnt Robert(Brzezinski)Gates INDICTED for the Iran Contra/REX-84/continuity of government(CoG) affair? Why isnt he in prison next to Oliver Scumbag North?
The look on Mr. Gates' face is an unhappy neo-con who won't get to kill as many poor brown people this year as he'd hoped for.
What's a neo-con supposed to do for employment if the world puts the brakes on war?
Cy 9:50 Domestic suppression?