Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News1 min ago
Are the rest of NATO doing their share?
29 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=552913&in_page_i d=1770
In view of how much our troops are overstretched in Iraq (4,100) and Afghanistan (7,800), why do we need 22,500 of them sitting on their backsides in Germany?
It has also been announced that some NATO countries are not prepared to send troops into Afghanistan, but are willing to increase their support financially.
Considering our already long commitment and the number of our troops that have been killed or wounded, isn't it now time for us to withdraw our troops and make others do their share?
Or do other European countries think more of the safety of their troops than our politicians seem to think of our young lads and lasses?
In view of how much our troops are overstretched in Iraq (4,100) and Afghanistan (7,800), why do we need 22,500 of them sitting on their backsides in Germany?
It has also been announced that some NATO countries are not prepared to send troops into Afghanistan, but are willing to increase their support financially.
Considering our already long commitment and the number of our troops that have been killed or wounded, isn't it now time for us to withdraw our troops and make others do their share?
Or do other European countries think more of the safety of their troops than our politicians seem to think of our young lads and lasses?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think we might have to agree to differ.
When Bush senior made fundraising for the IRA illegal and made sure Adams and McGuinness were no longer feted in New York, they quickly were stopped from carrying out terrorist attacks on us. Stop AQ getting money for their weapons and activities, and attacks on us will cease. If that means embarrassing a few two faced Saudis, then so be it.
When Bush senior made fundraising for the IRA illegal and made sure Adams and McGuinness were no longer feted in New York, they quickly were stopped from carrying out terrorist attacks on us. Stop AQ getting money for their weapons and activities, and attacks on us will cease. If that means embarrassing a few two faced Saudis, then so be it.
But how do you go about it?
I agree the conduct of the Saudis is infuriating but at the time of 9/11 we couldn't have just said 'Right, the taliban's not giving us Bin Laden. Let's take on Saudi!'
Plus, as I say, they're one of quite a few financial contributors.
I think your example is a little flawed too. The IRA wasn't wholly reliant on funding in NY. Not by a long shot. Agreed, it harmed the movement, but it was hardly the death-blow.
I agree the conduct of the Saudis is infuriating but at the time of 9/11 we couldn't have just said 'Right, the taliban's not giving us Bin Laden. Let's take on Saudi!'
Plus, as I say, they're one of quite a few financial contributors.
I think your example is a little flawed too. The IRA wasn't wholly reliant on funding in NY. Not by a long shot. Agreed, it harmed the movement, but it was hardly the death-blow.
Financial support from Saudi is just one aspect. The Kingdom morally and spiritually support the jihad against us. The biggest recruiting ground for soldiers and martyrs of the Jihad is Saudi. They are feted by other Saudis.
A quarter of the detainees at Guantanamo were Saudis (about 160 of them).
Saudis released from Guantanamo
After pressure from the Saudis, nearly all have now been released. What fate is in store for these enemy combatants picked up in Afghanistan, when they return to Saudi. They are treated as heroes and VIPs.
Saudis prisoners become VIPs
So far, the two ongoing wars have cost the US $196.4bn. It has cost the UK �7bn so far (�80million a month). That is very costly on our side, and though the jihadist will not be spending that much, they will have spent many millions or even billions on their arms. Where is that money coming from? Starve them of money, and their ability to fight against us is diminished.
A quarter of the detainees at Guantanamo were Saudis (about 160 of them).
Saudis released from Guantanamo
After pressure from the Saudis, nearly all have now been released. What fate is in store for these enemy combatants picked up in Afghanistan, when they return to Saudi. They are treated as heroes and VIPs.
Saudis prisoners become VIPs
So far, the two ongoing wars have cost the US $196.4bn. It has cost the UK �7bn so far (�80million a month). That is very costly on our side, and though the jihadist will not be spending that much, they will have spent many millions or even billions on their arms. Where is that money coming from? Starve them of money, and their ability to fight against us is diminished.
Coming back to your question of 22,500 troops. I think you'll find that 22,500 is the established 'base' figure for all our troops 'home' based in Germany. Many of the 22,500 are in different operational theatres currently. Equally, because of poor recruitment the true figure is nowhere near the establishment figure.
If it were fully manned to establishment and there were no operational commitments outside the European Theatre (including the FI) then potentially there could be 22,500 troops stationed in Germany.
Why Germany I hear you ask? Well, Germany is one of the few places where our troops can exercise their tanks and fire live weapons on realistic training areas stretching many hundreds of miles. They are not allowed to do this within the UK. Why? Ask the Secretary of State for Defence!
If it were fully manned to establishment and there were no operational commitments outside the European Theatre (including the FI) then potentially there could be 22,500 troops stationed in Germany.
Why Germany I hear you ask? Well, Germany is one of the few places where our troops can exercise their tanks and fire live weapons on realistic training areas stretching many hundreds of miles. They are not allowed to do this within the UK. Why? Ask the Secretary of State for Defence!
Many apologies AOG, got carried awy.
A bit of info
"Germany has a special NATO caveat which in effective prohibits its troops from going on the offensive unless they are first attacked."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/germa ny-rejects-us-demand-to-increase-afghan-deploy ment-777239.html
The figures of who is there and how many are deployed is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sec urity_Assistance_Force
My earlier comment stands. We invaded that is why we have a large deployment. The rest of Europe are there reluctantly after NATO were persuaded to 'help out' with the post invasion reconstruction.
A bit of info
"Germany has a special NATO caveat which in effective prohibits its troops from going on the offensive unless they are first attacked."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/germa ny-rejects-us-demand-to-increase-afghan-deploy ment-777239.html
The figures of who is there and how many are deployed is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sec urity_Assistance_Force
My earlier comment stands. We invaded that is why we have a large deployment. The rest of Europe are there reluctantly after NATO were persuaded to 'help out' with the post invasion reconstruction.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.