observer Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 NATO was set up as a defencive block to counter the Warsaw Pact throughout the cold war - whilst I've havn't read the terms of reference of the Treaty, I assume it's remit was restricted to the co-operative defence of it's member countries against a known and specific threat. In the case of Germany, it's constitution forbade it's use of military forces outside Germany. So why is NATO now operating "outside" of theatre in Afghanistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 You've got it back to front Obs. The Warsaw Pact was signed on May 1st 1955 in response to NATO which was set up in 1949. NATO describes itself as a forum for the USA, Canada and the Western European states to resolve security issues of mutual concern, not just in Europe but worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 asperity is correct on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I know the Warsaw Pact was formed in reponse to NATO, I just used the term as an alternative to USSR. As I said, I've not read the terms of the Treaty, but I doubt the legallity of a defencive organisation, acting offensively outside it's original theartre of operations - IE Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 The US, and NATO for that matter, may argue that the campaign in Afghanistan was started in self defence. I'm not about to argue for or against that position though  I don't know how you could confuse thw USSR with the Warsaw Pact though. It's like calling the USA NATO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 its his age Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not sure their is any confusion between NATO and the USA, the US says "jump" and NATO says, "how high". The use of NATO was a ruse by the US to rope France, Germany and others into the conflict, against their better judgement. fter the cold war, it became essentially redundant, and basically sought a role to sustain it in being - hence it's involvement in continued US Imperial foreign policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 No state is forced to remain a member France pulled out of NATO in the 60s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 True, but historically all States have sheltered behind the patronage of a super-power, and as client States, they tend to hang onto the coat tails of their Patron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Keep digging Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 merely historical reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 In your opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 You can look up "client States" and find they existed from the Athenian V Sparta period, through the Roman period, to the Napoleonic Empire - same principal of operation. IF WE were so independent of the US, I guess we could obtain nuclear release without the permission of the Yanks then?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I get a real sense of you not liking the US very much Obs. I wonder what they've done to you to make you feel like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I resent any over-riding of our national sovereignty and independence by any external influence, be it the USA or the EUSSR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 The USA didn't force us to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. That was down to the ego of a certain President in waiting Tony Bliar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Agreed: and I resent sycophantic PMs slip streaming the US in pursuit of global celebrity too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 All British Pms from any political party go over to the States to kiss ass, It's a fine British tradition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 More or less what I said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 asperity  I cannot be held responsible for your outbreak of common sense  yes you did say it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevofaz25 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 this website makes interesting reading www.icasualties.org  Not just us and Yanks out there losing troops it seems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevofaz25 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 this website makes interesting reading www.icasualties.org  Not just us and Yanks out there losing troops it seems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 this website makes interesting reading www.icasualties.org Not just us and Yanks out there losing troops it seems  But you see that the UK seems to lose more on average per year than the "others" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithR Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 No the total for IRAQ/AFGHAN is Britain 400, Others 500, which obviously gives a higher average per year to the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Think you need to look at the numbers employed per Nation to give an idea of the percentage - for some Countries it will appear a high percentage cos they have so few troops out there, and usually in the quieter sectors. btw. does it give the body count for the Taliban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.