Why or Why not ?
"When our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries `We need additional help,' our NATO countries must provide it."
--G.W. Bush, Pres.
Critics say the Bush administration has let conditions in Afghanistan worsen while escalating the war in Iraq.
Bush tells NATO to reinforce Afghanistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
2007-02-15 15:09:31 · 7 answers · asked by Joe_Pardy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
one of the least reported stories of the year is how most of the coalition in iraq has withdrawn gradually...
2007-02-15 15:16:28 · answer #1 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Might have been possible, IF Bush hadn't spent five years alienating these other countries. Besides, you make it sound like NATO is under US command. NATO isn't Bush's personal toy box, you know.
We're lucky to have NATO in Afghanistan with us - that's where we should be escalating, anyway.
2007-02-15 15:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NATO has never been reliable for anything except being cowards. That is why we have had to stay in S. Korea and Europe. As far as I am concerned, we need to pull out of Europe and quit spending so much money there and wait and see how long before it falls to the muslim extremist invaders. As far as your anti Bush rantings, why don't you rant about the terrorists, or do you side with them? You sound like you don't want to stop the terrorist threat that is global.
2007-02-15 15:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by celticwarrior7758 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I surely love and admire this placed up. it rather is via the fact i believe no might desire to even furnish any "truthiness" here. It speaks loud and sparkling for itself. Plus i believe that any info i will produce to counter this argument will meet many brick partitions. Many have already provided suitable responses, so i will circulate away it at that. i'm a liberal and that i do no longer hate republicans, nor do I hate Bush. My fiance is a soldier who has been on 2 wrestle excursions in this "freedom spreading conflict on terrorism." yet, i think of it is so unhappy that his presidency has further this type of empty rhetoric out into the open guised as "patriotism." P.S. All politicians are liars - it is purely referred to as being a toddler-kisser.
2016-12-17 17:20:10 · answer #4 · answered by morrell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too soon to tell. If I had to guess, I would say yes they will send more troops, but no where near in the numbers needed. If your quote is accurate, I like how Bush says "Our" NATO countries "must" provide it. Our? Must? Imagine if The German PM came on TV and said "our United Staes must provide troops for Dafur". We'd go apeshit, and rightfully so.
--EDIT--
Regarding the below comment, please explain to me what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to do with South Korea.
2007-02-15 15:16:40 · answer #5 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The UN does not support the war. Bush has alienated many in the world community.
2007-02-15 15:17:24 · answer #6 · answered by Gerry S 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no they wont,l even thoguh they should, because right now it's not "popular" witht he global community to do anythign to help the U.S.
2007-02-15 15:15:29 · answer #7 · answered by f0876and1_2 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋