With the UK supplying the vast amount of troops 'on the ground' in Afganistan, Far more pressure from NATO should be applied. Too many NATO countries send a 'token offer'. These countries throughout europe are happy to stand for NATO's values but very reluctant to follow through with the support needed on the ground.
2007-01-02 08:51:55 · 7 answers · asked by David R 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Oh well done you for asking this fabulous question.
The answer is DEFINATELY YES !! YES!!! YES !!
Sadly some NATO countries' political status is too sensitive, and they don't want to be targetted by such terrorists !!
Also, as I understood the mandate for USA asking UK/NATO troops for thier help in dealing with the terrorists allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attrocities, was that they would be needed to assist US troops in Afghanistan - the source of where the terrorists were being trained and hiding out..? I may be so wrong in my assumption here, if so I am sure someone will be quick to put me right !)
What I cannot understand is, once USA got UK/NATO troops deployed to the theatre in Afghanistan, why did they then withdraw 77% of their troops, and leave our UK/NATO troops grossly under-manned and under-resourced because many NATO countries have refused to allow thier troops to assist in a "war fighting role"; and Tony Bliar has not fullfilled his promises made on air on Oct 6th 2006 ("whatever our troops need they will get !)?
The media seems to be all about Iraq, which has taken the spotlight away from the real reason for our troops being involved in this conflict in the first place aka the reason Tony Bliar sent our troops in to help out his mate George W Bush !
If NATO refuse to commit thier troops into a war fighting role, at the very least they should PAY for UK troops to be given the equipment and resources they NEED to get the job completed properly, such as flak jackets for every serving men and women that will stop a small arms bullet... or another 50,000+ UK troops and reduce the number of UK troops returning home in body bags !
2007-01-02 09:12:31 · answer #1 · answered by Hello 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before we send more troops, we have to figure out what we are fighting for. The Russians were there and they pulled out.
Is it to keep the Taliban out of the country? Maybe we are there to find Osama?
I know. It is to make the Afgans a better life?
We have had over 40 Canadians die there and I don't know why. We don't know what the mission is there? It is widely believed that we are there because we didn't go to Iraq as the Americans insisted.
If you are in NATO, we must ALL share the burden. If we shouldn't be there, let's get out before more kids are killed.
2007-01-02 10:05:23 · answer #2 · answered by Dave 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is not only an insult to the countries that are contibuting to the war effort, it is the biggest scam that NATO countries have ever pulled on one another. Hopefully one day soon, the deadbeat country's of France, Spain, Germany, and Italy will need to put out the call for NATO help, and the other members country's tell them to go to hell.
It appears that the deadbeats are hell bent to destroy NATO, which is the last vestige of unity left in the western world. Their biggest problem is not one of them has the stones to defend themselves, if they were attacked!
2007-01-02 09:10:58 · answer #3 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My take on this is that Nato Forces should not be sent to a hostile area with their hands tied.
If it gets to the point where arm intervention is necessary. That means that the people assign to go there should get the necessary leeway to use force to do the job they were sent there for.
I think most of the countrys that balk at sending troops to hot areas do so not because they disagree but because they do not want to justify why their young men were sent to an area just to be killed without being able to defend themselves.
2007-01-02 09:02:12 · answer #4 · answered by esteli 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
was the invasion of afghnistan a NATO decision? UK should have the most troops in any ME conflict. their past policies have created most of the problems. with the US now being a close second.
2007-01-02 08:55:42 · answer #5 · answered by kissmy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nato should not be in Afghanistan because that is an American war.
2007-01-02 10:41:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its all sh-t if you go to war you go to win not come second
2007-01-02 08:54:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋