Just curious about allies.. - Page 3




 
--
 
April 3rd, 2009  
Ted
 
 
Hmmm... so much for being remembered for done services. The Dutch have been in Iraq for quite a few years now and we are fighting alongside the Americans in Afghanistan for the past 2 or 3 years, and for what. We have lost more servicemen in the last 5 years than the past 50 years. We came when George called and what good has it done us? It certainly hasn't been anything good.
April 4th, 2009  
-- Dusty
 
 
AFAIC we should do a sticky with a list of what countries served when along with troop strength and lives lost.

They should all be honored. Romanian, Dutch, German- all of them.
April 6th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallabies
Operation Enduring Freedom. I think most nations have their own names for their operations in Afghanistan so saying the War in Afghanistan would be better. The Australian one is Op Slipper, we don't really go for the fanciful names that the Americans do.
Since the americans are heading up the OEF operations and since the OEF part (not the ISAF part) is their original operation to root out the Taliban I guess that name has stuck pretty firmly.
We obviously also have our own name on the operation, or at least the part performed by Swedish operators.

ISAF is obviously the collective name for the security forces since the UN are heading up that part of the mission in "The Stan".
The security forces however have a much tighter mandate to operate and are a neutral force to bring stability to the nation. How well it have worked is a discussion for someone else.
--
April 6th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmmm
AFAIC we should do a sticky with a list of what countries served when along with troop strength and lives lost.

They should all be honored. Romanian, Dutch, German- all of them.

OEF personel strength (actual) are in some cases classified information.

Cassualties and COD are listed in the link I already provided.

ISAF strength and cassualties are open information since it is a UN led mission.
April 6th, 2009  
ObjSRgtLw
 
 
Interesting no one names Germany, I always thought there was some kind of bond after the Americans helped strengthening the Federal republic Germany. But maybe that's only seen one way. When it comes to economy and social system America could learn a lot from Germany. But maybe we disqualified ourselves (wars). But naming Poland and not even once Germany... I'm confused...
I certainly would love to be a 'close' ally. Don't forget our Military has all of it's possible recources in foreign countries - meaning we couldn't sent much more soldiers out even if we wanted to.
April 6th, 2009  
AZ_Infantry
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObjSRgtLw
Interesting no one names Germany, I always thought there was some kind of bond after the Americans helped strengthening the Federal republic Germany. But maybe that's only seen one way. When it comes to economy and social system America could learn a lot from Germany. But maybe we disqualified ourselves (wars). But naming Poland and not even once Germany... I'm confused...
I certainly would love to be a 'close' ally. Don't forget our Military has all of it's possible recources in foreign countries - meaning we couldn't sent much more soldiers out even if we wanted to.

Well, IMHO, the thread has drifted from its premise. We could sit here all day and make 20 pages of those who have assisted US forces, but a much more accurate thread would discuss the merits of a true ally: someone who supports America so much that they would gear up for any mission we undertook, UN be damned.

In that regard, I would include Germany to a degree. You are without question our ally, but that you'd denounce the UN to secure our mission is doubtful. I believe North Korea will be that proving ground, for your reliance on China and their non-aggression pact with NK will most certainly put you all in a vicarious spot.

What I can say without hesitation is that I have trained with German soldiers, and I find them to be some of the best in the world. I have every respect for their military forces and capabilities.
April 6th, 2009  
AZ_Infantry
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
Hmmm... so much for being remembered for done services. The Dutch have been in Iraq for quite a few years now and we are fighting alongside the Americans in Afghanistan for the past 2 or 3 years, and for what. We have lost more servicemen in the last 5 years than the past 50 years. We came when George called and what good has it done us? It certainly hasn't been anything good.
That depends on your definition of "good." If freeing a people from a ruthless, vindictive, evil dictatorship is a "good" thing to do, then your contribution to Iraq's democracy is without question and appreciated. You should take a great deal of pride in your involvement.

If you're discussing troop losses, you have no room to whine: 4,000+ American dead and counting between the two theaters.

It is our logistics and information and technology that drives the mission forward. You all are nothing more than targets on the ground. Being Infantry, so would I be, so please don't take that as any insult. Every war needs someone to shoot at. The lower on the ladder you are, the more you represent a target. We're in the same boots.

If what good it has done YOU is the question, then the motives for being there are all wrong.

The question is what good it has done for the people in the theater of operations.

Anyone denying THAT success is off their rocker. And that was a collaborative effort of many, many nations - yours included. The victory belongs to us all. At the end of the day, the beers flow and the hands get shook and the brawls are begun and ended in friendly rivalry.
April 6th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Success of a mission is measured/found in the AOR, I agree.

But no western nation today can afford to perform an invasion not sanctioned by the UN.
And youd be very hard pressed to find allies for such a mission.

A UN backed mission however such as OEF/ISAF given the full attention of america and her allies will not only have a good military capability but also the full might of the western world behind it. Such a mission will have a good chance of success.

I wonder what would have happened with "The Stan" had the US not turned its attention elsewhere.
April 6th, 2009  
ObjSRgtLw
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry
Well, IMHO, the thread has drifted from its premise. We could sit here all day and make 20 pages of those who have assisted US forces, but a much more accurate thread would discuss the merits of a true ally: someone who supports America so much that they would gear up for any mission we undertook, UN be damned.
If that's the definition you could certainly not count us in.
Sad truth it that Bush has left most Germans with a bad attitude towards Americans and their "world policy function". Most people don't agree with the deployment in Afghanistan because they don't see the point in risking German soldiers there. Most Germans define logical action in terms of Defense only, meaning defending Germany or allied countries on their own territory.
This is the most common view I think. But to my mind history has taken any form of self- concious foreign policy away from us.
April 6th, 2009  
Fox
 
 
Are we talking about the allies by the military or government?
 


Similar Topics
Bush To Meet NATO Allies Divided Over Adding Troops In Afghanistan
Defense Chiefs Of NATO And Other Allies To Press For More Trainers For Afghan Forces
If Iraq Worsens, Allies See 'Nightmare' Case
To Contain Iran, U.S. Seeks Help From Arab Allies
Italian Allies in Iraq.