An American idol in Germany

[Tchocky]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/why-didnt-mccai.html

But it's pretty ridiculous for McCain to be making this absurd, hypocritical attack on Barack Obama. They've both visited wounded troops in the past. And as commanders-in-chief, they would both work for the best interests of the nation, even if they would take it in different directions.
McCain is desperate now, in full-fledged panic mode. If this is how he'd handle a crisis as president, it's all the more important that Barack Obama win this election.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

The Republican Party enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate- along with the office of the President for 6 years. Six years when they had their way and ran roughshod over any who stood in their way. They had the means and they had the will to impose their wishes upon America, her economy, and her people. And that is just what they did.

Look at where we are today because of it. Americans losing their homes at a rate not seen since the great depression, financial institutions driven by greed and now about to collapse under the weight of that greed, unemployment at higher rates than we have seen in two decades, good paying jobs lost and replaced with service sector jobs that do not pay a living wage, an attack on the middle class that has been as unrelenting as it has been unheralded, undeserved and unfair. An attack upon our very Constitution and our rights such as I had never believed possible in the United States. The PATRIOT act was closer to an act of treason and it had absolutely nothing to do with patriotism!

The war in Iraq was the wrong war, wrong place, and for the wrong reasons. The "War Against Terror" has been on the back burner for too long. The War Against Terror was the right war, right place, for the right reasons but today our soldiers in Afghanistan fight for their lives and are told that no support is available. No reinforcements are forthcoming. You are on your own. That in itself is evidence enough for me just how misguided and inept George Bush and company have been- how vulnerable they have left our nation.

In debt to our gills and unable to sustain the war on terror with the resources needed. For Heaven's Sake, what did they spent the trillions of dollars on and what have we gotten in return?? War, poverty, disillusionment and hopelessness???

Barack Obama does represent change and that is what I believe he will deliver. He offers hope to a country in need and he offers us an opportunity to fix what is broken in our country. BUT, in order to make that change possible, we must do for him what we did for George Bush- give him the means to accomplish the task.

Today, the only people who trust America less than our traditional allies around the world, are her own citizens. The Republicans and George Bush have behaved as if they would never have to pay for their foolishness, but the time has come at last.

Give Barack Obama a strong majority in both the House and the Senate and let him impose the will of the PEOPLE around here for a change.

For a change we can believe in.



I believe in Barack Obama and I approved this message.

God, do you work for his campaign or something? Sounds like something copied off his website. :p

"Kazakstan supports George Bush's war of terror" Borat

That was a hilarious movie. Watched it when it first came out and got the DVD.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Wow, this has generated quite a bit of interest. I don't agree with all of the points put forth but a lot of them seem to be quite thought out.

Nonetheless, as far as U.S.-German and U.S. European relations are concerned, don't hold out for any major improvements.

Essentially, the two presidential candidates we have are just two sides of the same party. Expect roughly the same results from either of them. And, as August had the prudence to point out, Congress holds the real power. The prez is just a convenient scapegoat, as most people here don't even know their congressional representatives' names.

In my opinion, most of Bush's unpopularity is due to the media. He really hasn't done anything different than most of our administrations have in the past half-century; defecit spending? Check. Unneccesary war? Check. Completely failed social programs which we then throw money at instead of abandoning? Check.
Protectionist trade policies? Check. Pissing off at least one major sector of the world? Check.
Of course, his poor speaking ability doesn't help.

This pattern in turn affects European relations. Someone pointed out that America is like an anti-Europe. Well, that's true, and look how quickly it catapulted us to the forefront of the modern world. Why do other nations emulate us so much and then despise us simultaneously? No worries though, day by day we make the same mistakes Europe's great nations did and eventually we'll be where they are.

I'm also a little miffed that Europe should be so resentful of the War in Iraq, especially Germany, for two reasons; 1) Did we all forget about the Holocaust? Genocide? "Never Again"? If memory serves, the Kurds were being slaughtered in a remarkably genocide-like fashion. Nobody cares about that?
2) For all the grief Europe has caused with two World Wars, and that's all of Europe's leading powers, not just Germany, especially considering WW1, we should be able to have a hundred Iraq Wars. Remember back when we were isolationists? Everyone hated us then for minding our own buisness. After WW1, and even moreso after WW2, we got involved and now everyone hates us for being meddlers.
"Help us help us help us, okay leave us alone"?

I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect or even good in general but we have done a lot more to promote ( or at least a lot less harm) free trade and global stability(without assuming control of other people's nations) than Europe ever has.

If it sounds like I'm saying the U.S. is the good nation and the rest of you are bad, that's not my point. I'm just saying "please have a little patience with us, we're trying to help. Sure we don't always do it right, but at least we try."

In addition, despite all the "helping" the U.S. has tried to do, I would much rather we mind our own affairs and leave the rest of the world alone. "Free Trade with all nations, alliances with none" as Jefferson put it. Luckily for the rest of the world, we don't and eventually will forfeit our position as the the world's leader because we do the same things you did to lose your empires. Namely; war, uncontrollable spending, and too much power in the hands of government.

All that aside, don't look for a significant change with the coming presidential election. Both candidates offer the same-old same-old, and as our financial situation becomes more desperate, we will probably do things to piss you off even more as our leaders grasp at straws to preserve some semblance of U.S. power or at least distract the U.S. public long enough for the next administration to take the fall. You can look forward to; wars and/or condemnation of other countries, borrowing money from you and not paying it back, and blaming Europe or whomever else seems fitting at the time for all our problems. Of course, most European nations should know this, they've done it before.

All I'm saying is we're all in the same boat. At least we can look forward to hating some other nation (probably China) until their government ruins them too. Eventually some European country/countries/coalition of countries will rise to power and we can begin the fun all over again.

Enjoy your repeat of history.

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

God, do you work for his campaign or something? Sounds like something copied off his website. :p

Nah, I don't work for the Obama Campaign- but I took your perhaps unintended advice, and have since created a member blog on his official website.

You'll find it here.

I will be a regular contributer there in the future and will continue to share my views in other forums where I am already a member. Really, I cannot deny that the more I learn about Obama, the more I take the time to really pay attention to the choices in this campaign- the stronger a supporter I become.

[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.

[Frame57]

A win win situation first is that we amend that foreign born citizens can become president. Then we vote in Schwartzenegger. Arnie can then also become king of Austria too then preside uber the EU. We will all no longer be girlie men and will get along. All men under thirty will have to be able to bench press 350 pounds though and will have to marry women that look like skeletor from the He man cartoon, but that is not bad. Then he will lift the Cuban embargo so we can smoke a proper cigar. Hell yes, I say Arnie for world president. Terminator uber alles!

[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?

[Schroeder]

Well Germany has recently taken over the "Quick Reaction Force" (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

Maybe you aren't familiar of the strength of the German forces. We can't send conscripts on missions in foreign countries. Our constitution forbids that (safety measure after WWII that should make sure that Germany will never start a big war again). So the only guys we can send are volunteers and professional soldiers. There aren't that many of them (our army is based on the draft of people) and since we are already involved in KFOR, SFOR and Enduring Freedom I don't see much capacity left to raise the number of our troops in Afghanistan significantly.
Besides, Germany is way smaller than the US. How much more are we supposed to do?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

Those Tornado aircraft are pretty capable planes I never got a chance to work on one but always wanted to.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Well Germany has recently taken over the "Quick Reaction Force" (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

don't make me laugh. Now they have six helicopters. Usually, two of them are operational, but not on rare opportunities all six of them due to their age needed maintenance and where not able when the norwegians (the former rapid reaction force) called them in for quick reaction. you need a lucky day to have the german quick reaciton force reacting quick, really. Better expect them to arrive on the scene of the crime in Marders, many hours or even one or two days later. This is not just my talking, but feedback I get from two friends I have in the BW, two officers who have had tours in Afghanistan.

when the german tornadoes shoot pictures, these are shot without digital live uplink. the data is not available until the planes returned to base, the film was processed and analysed, and then the communication and planning gets doen to react to what citical thing you see on the film.

Reaction time: 4-6 hours. after four hours, the column of men they photographs, is long since gone.

current tropps in Afghanistan are around 54.000. Military experts and the last commander of forces said that 350.000 to 400.000 troops would be needed to gain upper hand in the war and control the enemy. 1.000 mo0re or less - it does not make a decisive difference.



Joe,

Obama gets quoted in practically all major newspapers here to have said, after his return from europe, that if NATO sends more troops to Afghanistan, America could withdraw troops there, save the money for the operation and turn it into tax savings for Americans at home. to this context and quote I refer. and diplomatically seen, it was stupoid to put it this bluntly. As stupid as the general offense by MacCain's apeman, offending Germans for having applauded Obama's adress.

Regarding NATO and Afghanistan, I always was against making this a NATO operation, and have said and argued on many occasions why I think so. That the war for years was led incompetently, was forgotten in favour of Iraq, did not make it better. Regarding Germany, the German govenment still lies to the people about the real nature of this war, and tries to hide it and gloss it over. As a result the german mission is run by false assumptions, is underfunded financially and logistically, and leave the troops in an extremely vulnerable position where they depend on the mercy of their possible enemy whom they cannot escape since they totally lack the needed autark mobility for that. Every cop on German streets is allowed to use more force than german soldiers in Afghanistan, and you better take that statement literally, because it is like that exactly.

the role of NATO in it is a description of how messed up the internal order of the alliancen is, how far america and europe already are apart in the understanding of ehat NATO is, and how limited the will of unity in it really is. German assumptions regarding Obama are - wrongly - that he pould accept to subscrbe to the european position to endlessly blablabla things and swear of methods of war. that si why m,any people here will have a rough awakening with Obama if hw would get elected, and the hype about him could turn into the oppsotie within one day - parts of the leading politicans already voiced their anger regarding careful remarks Oabma made that could be interpreted that he wants to wage a tougher stringer war in afghanistan by use of more european troops. No honeymoon is forever, and for europeans and especially germans it could become a tough awakening.

the war on Afghanistan I have very complex views on, and on the role of the germans and NATO in it. Almost two years ago I wrote along essay about it and linked it, "Trapped in the Afghan maze." It close to thirty pages, and is a thorough description of how I saw things 24-48 months ago. the old link is no longer active, but I could send you the text, if you want. I see both the Us and Europe failing in Afghanistan, but for very different reasons, and for reasons of deceiving themselves and even working against each other, partially. the Germany position about Afghanistan is one of self-deception, and overestimation of the european attractiveness. the american position is one of self-justifying for the past 30 years, and simplifying the present. the enemy had been allowed to regroup and has been prematurely written off the table, Pakistan is leftf untouched, and more than half of the financial aids have dissappeared in dark channels. Just a question of differing opinions within NATO? If it only would be as easy as that. Truth is the reality on the ground is many times more complex and difficult.

since years I see the afghanistan war as a war lost, and it was lost without need, what is happening now is buying time to evade needing to admit that. One could say that pragmatism should take over and NATO should send more troops there, but one can also rightfully point at that the mess was self-made, and that NATO was brought into it by playing tricks, intimidation, and even cheating. My position is thta as long as I see prctically all european goverments taking nonsens about Afghanistan and designing their non-working policies on the basis of decpetions, lies and a total inabulity to form a reaistic assessement of the country and the ideological drive behind this conflict, I must refuse to send troops - including american troops! - there on the basis of lies and telling them to risk their lifes for anti-intellectual BS, dreams, follies and illusions. Because you do not have any justification to give to your men when sending them there that would allow you to escape needing to lower your eyes when telling them. insteasd of looking straight.

at least if you are not a trained and experienced liar.

Afghanistan is a mess, and it is a maze, and everybody is running around blind and meaningless. I recommend the reading of these books:

Youssaf, M. (General from Pakistan)
The bear trap

Rothstein, H.S. (Colonel from USA)
Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare

Obama and MacCain are politicians, and that means: don't trust them. They drive their own selfish agenda, and for that both talk their propaganda. they pour right that honey into your ear that is serving best to make you listening to them.But the reality is so much more complex, and uneasy.

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Well Germany has recently taken over the "Quick Reaction Force" (I think that's the English name for it) for the entire north of Afghanistan.
Our Tornado reconnaissance planes are flying missions over the whole of Afghanistan and German forces are in charge for a good part of the north and Kabul.

Maybe you aren't familiar of the strength of the German forces. We can't send conscripts on missions in foreign countries. Our constitution forbids that (safety measure after WWII that should make sure that Germany will never start a big war again). So the only guys we can send are volunteers and professional soldiers. There aren't that many of them (our army is based on the draft of people) and since we are already involved in KFOR, SFOR and Enduring Freedom I don't see much capacity left to raise the number of our troops in Afghanistan significantly.
Besides, Germany is way smaller than the US. How much more are we supposed to do?

I think that Germany is doing pretty much all that it can at the moment given the political situation among other things. Obama's staements probably were not intended to insinuate otherwise. "People of Berlin, People of the WORLD" - Namely the nations of NATO (and of the world) in this particular regard.

I believe his statements were intended more as a recognition that the German Government is fulfilling in large part it's legitimate committments and not simply dabbling in the art of war ('they need our troops, they need your troops') while others are coming up short and could do much more than they seem willing. The U.S. is taking up much of that slack. As is Germany. We can all do more. We MUST do more.

Germany already has the largest number of troops inside Afghanistan besides the United States and she is sending additional troops and expanding their role at the same time. As an American Citizen I am thankful for her assistance- and keenly aware of her concerns as well as her sacrifices. COMBAT missions are what is needed. Taking photo's is great, but that doesn't eliminate the threats you may be able to see- for that bullets are needed.

Under pressure from NATO, Germany announced Tuesday that it would increase the number of soldiers available for duty in Afghanistan by almost one-third to 4,500, but that it would maintain its policy of keeping the bulk of them away from the relatively violent southern provinces.

On July 1 the German army took command of a NATO strike force in the north of Afghanistan, providing a combat force in the region for the first time.

The Quick Reaction Force (QRF), consisting of 200 well-armed German soldiers, is stationed in Mazar-e-Sharif and will be deployed mainly for combat missions in northern Afghanistan. Deployments in the war-torn south of the country are also possible, and there is no time limit for the QRF mission, although military planners estimate that troops will be needed in the country for between 10 and 15 years. Until now, the role of the QRF was filled by a Norwegian unit, which has been operating in the region under German responsibility since 2006.


Defence Secretary Franz Josef Jung, (Christian Democratic Union—CDU) stressed that the German population should be clear there was a high risk of casualties with the deployment of the new force.

At the same time, the German army wants to supplement its troop strength in Afghanistan by an additional 1,000 soldiers. This was announced by the German defence secretary last week. In future, an extra 1,000 German soldiers will join the current force of 3,500, “in order to be able to react more flexibly to challenges”, according to Jung. The planned increase to 4,500 soldiers effectively quadruples the number of German troops in the country since the German army commenced its mission seven years ago.


The Bundestag will vote on whether to increase troops deployments this autumn, but it is already clear that there exists a broad majority, both in the ruling coalition (Social Democratic Party-CDU-Christian Social Union), and among the opposition Greens and pro-business Free Democratic Party. The only party to reject the deployment is the Left Party. There are already indications, however, that the Left Party is willing to use the issue of deployment in Afghanistan as a bargaining chip in order to secure its participation in the near future in a federal coalition government.


The current mandate for German operations in Afghanistan runs out on October 13, 2008, and Jung plans to push for its extension until December 2009. The two months extension to the yearly renewal is clearly intended to prevent the German deployment becoming a theme in the parliamentary elections due in autumn of next year.

Barack Obama will be meeting with Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani today or tomorrow and Obama will be voicing the same message of doing more along the Afghan-Pakistan Border.

Obama also has stated that the United States must do more. The message is not limited Germany or the nations of Europe. Other countries who have enjoyed the benefits of strong alliances in the past must also step up to the plate and do what they reasonably can to assist. Germany is doing her part troop wise- MISSION wise, it could do much better.

NATO as a "group" is not and others around the world are not. I am certain that the "people of the world" will eventually take a closer look at Germany and hopefully realize their own responsibilities in the fight against this "global" terrorist threat.

I hope that sheds a little more light on the subject.

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Joe,

Obama gets quoted in practically all major newspapers here to have said, after his return from europe, that if NATO sends more troops to Afghanistan, America could withdraw troops there, save the money for the operation and turn it into tax savings for Americans at home. to this context and quote I refer. and diplomatically seen, it was stupoid to put it this bluntly. As stupid as the general offense by MacCain's apeman, offending Germans for having applauded Obama's adress.

Regarding NATO and Afghanistan, I always was against making this a NATO operation, and have said and argued on many occasions why I think so. That the war for years was led incompetently, was forgotten in favour of Iraq, did not make it better.

Regarding Germany, the German govenment still lies to the people about the real nature of this war, and tries to hide it and gloss it over. As a result the german mission is run by false assumptions, is underfunded financially and logistically, and leave the troops in an extremely vulnerable position where they depend on the mercy of their possible enemy whom they cannot escape since they totally lack the needed autark mobility for that. Every cop on German streets is allowed to use more force than german soldiers in Afghanistan, and you better take that statement literally, because it is like that exactly.

the role of NATO in it is a description of how messed up the internal order of the alliancen is, how far america and europe already are apart in the understanding of ehat NATO is, and how limited the will of unity in it really is. German assumptions regarding Obama are - wrongly - that he pould accept to subscrbe to the european position to endlessly blablabla things and swear of methods of war. that si why m,any people here will have a rough awakening with Obama if hw would get elected, and the hype about him could turn into the oppsotie within one day - parts of the leading politicans already voiced their anger regarding careful remarks Oabma made that could be interpreted that he wants to wage a tougher stringer war in afghanistan by use of more european troops. No honeymoon is forever, and for europeans and especially germans it could become a tough awakening.

the war on Afghanistan I have very complex views on, and on the role of the germans and NATO in it. Almost two years ago I wrote along essay about it and linked it, "Trapped in the Afghan maze." It close to thirty pages, and is a thorough description of how I saw things 24-48 months ago. the old link is no longer active, but I could send you the text, if you want. I see both the Us and Europe failing in Afghanistan, but for very different reasons, and for reasons of deceiving themselves and even working against each other, partially. the Germany position about Afghanistan is one of self-deception, and overestimation of the european attractiveness. the american position is one of self-justifying for the past 30 years, and simplifying the present. the enemy had been allowed to regroup and has been prematurely written off the table, Pakistan is leftf untouched, and more than half of the financial aids have dissappeared in dark channels. Just a question of differing opinions within NATO? If it only would be as easy as that. Truth is the reality on the ground is many times more complex and difficult.

since years I see the afghanistan war as a war lost, and it was lost without need, what is happening now is buying time to evade needing to admit that. One could say that pragmatism should take over and NATO should send more troops there, but one can also rightfully point at that the mess was self-made, and that NATO was brought into it by playing tricks, intimidation, and even cheating. My position is thta as long as I see prctically all european goverments taking nonsens about Afghanistan and designing their non-working policies on the basis of decpetions, lies and a total inabulity to form a reaistic assessement of the country and the ideological drive behind this conflict, I must refuse to send troops - including american troops! - there on the basis of lies and telling them to risk their lifes for anti-intellectual BS, dreams, follies and illusions. Because you do not have any justification to give to your men when sending them there that would allow you to escape needing to lower your eyes when telling them. insteasd of looking straight.

at least if you are not a trained and experienced liar.

Afghanistan is a mess, and it is a maze, and everybody is running around blind and meaningless. I recommend the reading of these books:

Youssaf, M. (General from Pakistan)
The bear trap

Rothstein, H.S. (Colonel from USA)
Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare

Obama and MacCain are politicians, and that means: don't trust them. They drive their own selfish agenda, and for that both talk their propaganda. they pour right that honey into your ear that is serving best to make you listening to them.But the reality is so much more complex, and uneasy.

Item 1. If others do not step up and participate in a more meaningful way in Afghanistan the the U.S. WILL go it alone. Have no doubt about that. And that going it alone will cost the Americans dearly. THAT is what he meant- we can do it alone if we must, but it would be easier and far less expensive for many nations to participate instead of the one. And that would be good for America. Maybe it was just lost in the translation?

Item 2. Of course Obama agrees with you. The war in Afghanistan was where we should have stayed focus and done the job there as we needed to. He was against the war in Iraq from the start.

Item 3. Yes, Germany has more troops on the ground in Afghanistan than anybody else besides the United States. The problem is that they are not allowed to take part in combat missions for the most part. A soldier who cannot perform the duties of a soldier is not all that much help.

Item 4. Please do send me the text. I look forward to reading it!

Item 5. Obama has stated that the United States sent Pakistan some $10 billion and wonders just where it was spent. Clearly no additional aid is warranted unless it will go towards the intended purpose.

Item 6. Most wars are more complicated close up than they are from far away. This one is no different and no less messy.

Item 7. George Bush and much of his administration have been dishonorable, misleading, lying, bullying, and generally all around bad guys since they took office. Their abuse of trust has only been exceeded by their abuse of power.

Having said that- what happened on 9-11-2001 was not a fairy tale. It did happen and we know who, we know where, and we know how- and we also know our duty. When it comes to Afghanistan all Americans stand united.

We WILL track them down, we will kill them and we WILL do it, with or without anybody elses help. THAT choice, is yours.

[Skybird]

Hope this works:

http://rapidshare.com/files/13319201...istan.pdf.html

Please note the date: Nov. 2006. But all in all I do not see it different today.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7528112.stm

Close ally...? Dream on. Pakistan is an active war faction, and ally, protector and supporter of the Taleban that it had created itself. Has China been an ally of the US in the Vietnam war?

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hope this works:

http://rapidshare.com/files/13319201...istan.pdf.html

Please note the date: Nov. 2006. But all in all I do not see it different today.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7528112.stm

Close ally...? Dream on. Pakistan is an active war faction, and ally, protector and supporter of the Taleban that it had created itself. Has China been an ally of the US in the Vietnam war?

Got it, thanks.

I imagine it made Pakistan a little uncomfortable to say the least- a U.S. violation of it's sovereignty just hours before their Prime Minister landed in Washington. Hmmm, what to do, what to do. :rotfl: