CSMonitor: France may block NATO efforts in Darfur

I will be upset if Iran develops a nuclear bomb and uses it and we couldn't do anything (or perhaps more importantly, credibly threaten to do anything) because we were tied down in Iraq, etc, etc, etc. Wouldn't you be?

 

Yes I did show proof, see the article on the previous page - the Iraq deployment physically hinders the army's capablility - and that is in purely miltiary terms, not to mention the drain on political & economic capital that it caused. (see also the Bounding the War on Terror report)

But hey if you want a staging grounds for Iran, why not the one we already had - Afghanistan?

It's right next door, and undisputably had mass quantities of Taliban, AQ people are actually there and needed cleaning up even after we invaded - plus we were already in there.

I don't see a hell of a lot of marginal benefit there.

 

Besides France, GB, and Germany, none of the other European countries have a sizable amount to invade. We welcome any country sending troops to Iraq, but even with the full support of all Europe, it still wouldn't be enough to replace American presense. Most of it is symbolic and our government prefers funding rather than troops as a form of support.

Most European militaries are designed for border control and the occasional peacekeeping mission. The unofficial accepted position before Bush Jr. was for the Americans to kick out the offender and for the Europeans to send in the engineeers and peacekeepers, while other countries foot the bill.

They've gone complacent to NATO. Even France, who has its seperate military command structure, is reliant on nukes as a deterant. France and Germany are calling for a new European militar, but GB and the former bloc states are reluctant because of its threat to Atlantic relations. But that question is far into the future because presently the US still holds the keys to military matters.

 

Invisible Fan;

But I think we would agree that most European countries have enough troops and equipment to undertake a peace keeping mission in Darfur which this thread is about.

 

IIRC, most Euro members NATO have their individual militaries integrated with NATO command. It won't be easy to form a Euro military wing without any trappings of NATO.

 

Typical. Keep posting links with no relevance to the point at hand. Make an argument for crying out loud. But I'll take the leap for you.


North Korea - the idea that the Iraqi deployment would hinder a strike on NK is silly. You won't find any link anywhere that backs that up. The one above certainly doesn't. Aside from 37,000 troops permanently based there, and two US naval fleets in the area, B2 capabilities from the US, and tomahawk capabilities from subs - what exactly is missing? In fact, the only mention you'll find in the literature about NK is that in an open conflict with NK the US might have to fight to 'Hold' NK while wrapping up in Iraq (ie if NK invaded SK). No one suggests INVADING NK, you idiot. They can conventionally wipe out millions of people in Seoul before we got across their lines. They could lop nukes at SK and Japan already. Force deployment in Iraq has nothing to with it. But.......that's ok. I don't expect you to answer any conflict on point, rather make another snide post with no substance.

Iran - same story. what exactly is preventing us from striking Iran's nuclear capability? Uh, nothing. You post an article that comes no where CLOSE to supporting your claim (although it does mention Iran). How does a credibility gap hinder action by other internationals? Its DOES NOT because the EU and other powers are ALREADY sufficiently convinced on the issue (strange since you read the papers you'd think you'd already know this, lol).

 

I was waiting to post in this thread, thinking it might be wise to see who does what about Darfur before I did. From what I can tell, no one has done anything of significance, and the people are still dying.

What's with the b****-fest about the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Don't we have, oh, about 20 threads dealing with that already?

Why hasn't France done anything? Maybe they're still pissed at our buddies, the British, about the Fashoda Incident. (j/k!) Some here wish to blame the French for just about anything they can think of. Fine. At this point, perhaps we should be blaming everyone for the Darfur situation. Just a thought.


Keep D&D Civil!!