[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The cleverness of Obama cannot hide that his interest in europe is minimal, and interest in Germany as well. Somebody should tell him that demanding more support from europe is one thing - but cloathing it into a comment that he recently made that if NATO would send more troops to Afghanistan, america could withdraw more soldiers form there, save money and turn it into tax reliefs for americans is a very stupid thing. that could make him a persona non grata in quick time over here.

Nor is McCain'S aid's recent offending of Germans in general in reaction to Obama's trip any helpful in making him a more respectable figure over here. If I would have said something like that about Americans, I would have had trouble with a mod now. And his respectability already scores very low over here, not even one in ten sympathises with him.

Not that it means something for american voters. But a next US president wanting something from europe better performs much better in diplomatic behavior than Bush did.

Obama was asked "Why bother to go to Europe during the American campaign for President? Don't you think that this whole trip will backfire as you are perceived as being EUROPE'S candidate? Shouldn't you be focusing on the issues important to Americans? What good comes from your trip? How does it help Americans?"

His answer was as honest as it was correct. While you appear to be narrowed in on just one aspect of his answer there was more to it. He mentioned energy, he mentioned reducing greenhouse emissions, he mentioned the continuing globalism of the worlds economy, he spoke on the importance of rebuilding the trust and working relationships between the U.S. and it's European Partners, etc~ and there is no doubt that Americans will be asked to do more than we have in some areas, and at a high cost- a cost that Bush was unwilling to pay.

HOWEVER as part of his answer, Barack Obama ALSO commented upon the following:

If the United States is truly supported in the War Against Terror then that means we would not have to shoulder the whole (or nearly so) burden associated with it. Our NATO Allies could SHARE the burdens, share the costs, share the fighting.

Was he wrong? Are the Germans now upset that his honesty extends that far?

Not like Obama is asking the European Countries to take on any more of a commitment than the U.S. has shouldered for years already.

As I recall, the question of AFGHANISTAN was never in doubt. When NATO released the following statement regarding the war on terror- maybe we misunderstood?

NATO pledges to support war beyond Afghanistan
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
12/06/2001

BRUSSELS — NATO foreign ministers pledged the alliance's full backing Thursday for carrying the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network beyond Afghanistan.

"We will continue our support for the U.S.-led operation against these terrorists until it has reached its objectives," ministers from the 19 NATO nations declared in a joint statement. "We reiterate our determination to combat the threat of terrorism for as long as necessary."

I don't have a problem with NATO not supporting Iraq- and I don't blame Germany and others for not wanting to rush in to save the day after Bushes stupidity got us into this dicey situation in Afghanistan as a direct result of his ignorance (on so many levels) regarding Iraq... BUT:

Obama is talking about Afghanistan and the terrorist links there have never been disputed. That was the right war, right place, right time. And it was supposedly the place where NATO agreed to take an active part.

Don't you think the time has come to step it up and finish the job. Is that an unreasonable request; that NATO shoulder it fair share? Or shall the U.S. continue to provide the lion's share of the resources and lion's share of the troops while Europe stands by and watches from what is generally a fairly safe distance from the fighting?

I hate the way Bush has conducted foriegn policy- I hate the way he has treated our allies and the way he has demonstarted a bullying form of diplomacy since he took office. HE has treated most Americans the same way! I hate all of that- but if change is to come and if the U.S. is expected to renew the traditional freindships that is based upon trust, then that emmisary of change must be allowed to show that it is worthwhile. He has chosen the War on Terror to demonstrate it is a worthy quest to undertake.

I understand that the quote below comes from the Bush Administration but as our troops are dying in Afghanistan- the American People are listening.

Allies' refusal to boost Afghanistan troops a threat to Nato, Gates says

· Europeans unwilling to fight and die, US says
· Campaign against Taliban 'vital for western security'

The US administration warned yesterday that Nato could be destroyed if European allied troops were not prepared to fight and die in Afghanistan and argued that, unlike the Americans, Europeans were failing to grasp how much was at stake for western security in Afghanistan. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, also pointed to the dangers of a western alliance divided between US forces who do the fighting and Europeans who follow later to conduct the civilian clean-up operations.

Following weeks of recrimination between Washington and European capitals, particularly Berlin, over troop contributions and fighting capacity in Nato's troubled Afghan mission, Gates told a conference of defence policy-makers and security experts in Munich that Nato's future was on the line in the war against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

"Some allies ought not to have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, thus forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying," said Gates.

Nato had no future as an "alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance."

Officials from Germany, whose troops are confined to non-combat duties in relatively stable northern Afghanistan, put up a robust defence of their policy despite pressure from Washington to send more forces and to help the British, Canadians, and Dutch on the frontlines in the south. They rejected Gates's "finger-pointing", saying the Bush administration failed to understand how unpopular the mission was and that the German parliament would not support sending more than the 3,500 troops currently deployed.

The European reluctance to get more involved no doubt lays at the feet of George W. Bush. But to the American People- we would rather not see any more bodies of our American soldiers piled there than is necessary. We do not wish for the Germans or others to do what they simply cannot do- but on the other hand, freinds do help freinds in time of need. We could use a hand.

If your government chooses to ignore Obama's request then so be it- we will succeed in the end. There is absolutely no doubt about that as American anger buids. The only question is whether the old alliances can truly survive what the American PEOPLE will no doubt veiw as a betrayal when we called and nobody answered.

A matter of trust, maybe?