to take their share of the burden in the war in Afghanistan.... if you were NATO, would you tell him to go and fcuk himself? .... this is his and Bush's war not the rest of the worlds!!!!
2006-09-13 03:55:37 · 17 answers · asked by Ellie29uk 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Oh and Condoleezza Rice said that Afghanistan was in danger for becoming a "Failed state"... really Condi? Dy'a think?
2006-09-13 04:03:23 · update #1
A war on terrorism... do you honestly think you can eradicate it? You are all dreaming.... this will go on... for every one you kill, they are recruiting another 10 to take their place.....
2006-09-13 04:19:52 · update #2
You don't need me to answer your question, as it looks like your mind is already made up on this matter.
But I think you will find that many countries were threatened by the terrorist organisation that the Taliban were harbouring there so it seems fair that everyone should take a share of the burden of helping the country to become more stable. Unless of course you think that bombing the twin towers, or killing people in Saudi, or destroying sacred Buddist shrines, or blowing up people in Bali, Spain etc etc is a good idea..... Do you?
2006-09-13 04:14:00 · answer #1 · answered by Nick C 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, they should help. They love the protection they get from the US and Britain, but don't want to do anything to help ensure it. If they can't do their share to get a hold on these terrorist groups, then the next time they need something, we should sit by and watch as they have done. We already know who they turn to when things go bad. Yet, they have no support for the same. It's time to start backing it up.
This is NOT Bush's (or Blair's) war. This IS a war on terrorism. Major al qaeda groups have been caught and captured in Iraq. We also know that Afghanistan is where Bin Laden is headquartered and hiding. If NATO doesn't support getting these terrorist factions out of these countries, then they shouldn't look to us any longer for assistance when they need it....period!!
EDIT: Why did you even bother to post this question on here?? You dispute anything that's said, IF it doesn't agree with you. You obviously know all the answers, therefore, there is no question. Unless you're willing to hear/see both sides, don't waste peoples time. All you want is agreement for YOUR opinion.
2006-09-13 11:16:01 · answer #2 · answered by HEartstrinGs 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The war in Afghanistan was based on sound intelligence unlike the war on Iraq. The reason Afghanistan was attacked was because the Taliban regime actively supported Al Queda and provided them a safe haven from which to carry out their terrorist acts. Therefore the country was a threat to every Western state, and in my opinion, quite rightly invaded. A similar request for help in Iraq would be a more problematical issue, as that has been pretty much proven to have been a complete farce based on extremely dodgy premises, but NATO should help out in Afghanistan, due to their idealogy of collective protectionism
2006-09-13 11:11:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A shamful call to answer. It was declared by Mr Bush that the war in Afghanistan was won, wo why calling for support? No need. Mighty NATO should handle it with well equiped 20,000 soldiers fighting just a small number of Taleban millitants. This war could/must be won. Right!
2006-09-13 11:55:21 · answer #4 · answered by muzyne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a disgusting situation and Bush has the gaul to say that the safety of western civilisation will be won on the streets of Bagdad. Sorry everyone, but the twin towers was just an excuse to invade Afghanistan to keep the pipeline going!
Plus now, Blair is trying to make a commitment to rebuild the Lebanon! Bectel and Haliburton must be rubbing their hands in anticipation of the contracts.
Makes me sick!
2006-09-13 11:10:51 · answer #5 · answered by voodoobluesman 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually I see Iraq and Bush's war not Afghanistan.
Afganistan is the war on terror and all of NATO's countries should help
2006-09-13 10:59:39 · answer #6 · answered by RX 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO...Nato comprises of several countries in europe.
to defeat Terrorist now is better than having them grow stronger in the future. The War of Terror should be everyone's war but many countries are like the democrats, afraid..
2006-09-13 11:04:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair is right. Everyone wants to be part of NATO for the protection and income generating bases, but most do not want to participate when needed.
2006-09-13 11:03:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Nato and the UN should be involved if only to regulate the actions of the US & UK to ensure that the people of afganistan's rights and national interests are preserved.
2006-09-13 11:18:37 · answer #9 · answered by pcg2645 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NATO's answer is clearly that they feel the war in Afghanistan is their war, too.
2006-09-13 11:04:00 · answer #10 · answered by kearneyconsulting 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋