With Allies like this. . .

[TEA]

. . . who needs enemies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6195102.stm

I can't believe the French only have 975 troops in Afghanistan and the NATO countries, other than the UK and Canada, with the largest and most advanced militaries refuse to engage the enemy "except in emergencies"!!!!! :hot: Forum rules prohibit me from fully expressing my disdain these yellow belly goat fornicating sons of quivering dogs.

[Webmaster]

Forum rules prohibit me from fully expressing my disdain these yellow belly goat fornicating sons of quivering dogs.
:yourock: :thumbup1:

[stuart stratford]

Why do americans take the mik out of other coutries

[Webmaster]

Why do americans take the mik out of other coutries
Why does someone from England (which originated the English language) who is 15 years old seem to write at a third-grade level?

[stuart stratford]

Im dislexic got a problem with that!

[Webmaster]

Im dislexic got a problem with that!
So is my nephew, but he has learned to use spell check and he does not make excuses.

Try opening a word processing program (like MS Word), type your response there, run spell and grammar check, and then copy and paste your response in the text box when you post.

[stuart stratford]

yeah i can do that thanks for the advice. but can you tell me why do americans take the miky.

[Webmaster]

yeah i can do that thanks for the advice.
No problem Stuart. Just remember, life rewards those that work hard to overcome their issues, not those that have gotten comfortable with them.


but can you tell me why do americans take the miky.

Sorry, but I honestly do not know what you mean.

[stuart stratford]

Anyone from the uk would. is ther anyone from the uk hear please reply.

[Musubi Dojo]

I think he's asking why other countries are being slammed, insulted etc...

Stuart, spell check is your very best friend...

[jaberwoky123]

what the H.E. (double Hockey sticks) is a Miky?...I spent 3 years in Germany, traveled all over europe...never heard anyone use that term...can you phrase that in US English?

[Prince Loeffler]

Anyone from the uk would. is ther anyone from the uk hear please reply.

I just asked a friend who's from Great Britain and she has no intimation what you're trying to convey to this thread. Try again by using plain and simple english. By the way, I have dyslexia too. :D

[Jeff C.]

Anyone from the uk would. is ther anyone from the uk hear please reply.

Why are you asking Europeans why Americans do whatever it is you think we do? Don't you think you should go to the source and ask Americans?

Jeff Cook

[Prince Loeffler]

I think he's asking why other countries are being slammed, insulted etc...

Stuart, spell check is your very best friend...


In Budoseek world, its your only friend...:t2:

[Jeff C.]

From idioms.freedictionary.com:

mickey-taking (British & Australian, informal)
take the mick/mickey - to make people laugh at someone, usually by copying what they do or say in a way that seems funny. I had to put up with a bit of mickey-taking from some of the blokes when I first told them but they've calmed down now.
take the mick/mickey (British & Australian, informal)

to make people laugh at someone, usually by copying what they do or say in a way that seems funny. They used to take the mick out of him because of the way he walked. I thought you were being serious - I didn't realise you were taking the mickey.

No one understands what he is saying because he continues to spell incorrectly.

Jeff Cook

[stuart stratford]

my pc is ****ed and the spell check is not working dam it :laugh:

[Webmaster]

I think he's asking why other countries are being slammed, insulted etc...
If that is the case, then that is an easy question. As a general rule, American's do not slam, insult or otherwise put down other countries. There are however, certain countries that seem to go out of their way to be uncooperative, ungrateful, and poor allies. The French government in particular (and this is not an indictment of the French people BTW) has been a pain in the butt.

[Webmaster]

my pc is ****ed and the spell check is not working dam it :laugh:
Try downloading and installing OpenOffice. It is an excellent product, free and can be downloaded from the URL below.

http://www.openoffice.org/

[stuart stratford]

who dairs wins!

[Prince Loeffler]

who dairs wins!


sigh~ ..:o :o :o

[starkjudo]

http://www.sworddragon.com/passions/images/montoya4.jpg
People keep calling France an "ally." I do not think they know what the word means.

[Erik]

Back to the topic, I know that it is against Germany's post-WWII constitution to send fighting troops abroad. The Bundeswehr is only for defense. It was stretching it (though now more accepted) to send support and medical troops abroad.

France - they are deployed all over the world. They are still trying to be a world leader, an independant super power. They have their own ideas about foreign policy (and we can learn a lot from a country TRYING to be a colonial power in our modern era).

They, especially, want to distance themselves from Bush & Co.

They have 1st world aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, outstanding jet fighters (rafele), etc. In a way, it's good to have a countervailing force like them. They keep us balanced and in check (though the French gov't is... I lack the words and they'd be turned into the * symbol anyway). We can learn a lot from our critics even if they are a pain sometimes. They are a lot like what we will be once China and India take their places on the world stage and we're no longer as cool as we thought we were.

As for other countries, there may be something going on on the ground there that makes them hesitant to engage. Perhaps local military commanders aren't getting along. I don't know.

Also, I'm not quite sure if our fellow Budoseekers, like Joe (who started this thread), fully understand just how much the populations and gov'ts are against US foreign policy, Bush, his staff, and their plans. Consequently, getting ANY troops on the ground to fight one of "George's Wars" is a big deal.

I'm not trying to pick on Budoseekers (especially not Joe), so please don't take it that way. I do think there is a significant difference in perspective and that gap is the answer to Joe's original question.

The shame of this is that the mission in Afganistan is a good idea. Many European politicians want to distance themselves from Bush & Co. so much that they are hesitant to cooperate even on the good ideas.

[Musubi Dojo]

BAWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

One of my favorite movies of all time.

Inconceivable!!

Edit: I was replying to Rob's post, not Erik's in case it isn't self evident.

[TEA]

Erik, I understand certain European politicians desire to distance themselves from Dubyah, especially after Iraq. However, the mission in Afghanistan is a NATO mission, not a US mission, and the Europeans have at least as much, if not more, of an interest in seeing that it succeeds (more Afghani heroin winds up in Europe than in the US and Europe has suffered more, if not as individually destructive, attacks inspired or coordinated by Al Queda than the US has). The UK and Canada understand this. I guess its just convenient for the other NATO countries to let the English speakers bleed for them.

P.S. Stuart, your poor spelling and grammar make me weep.

[Bengel]

The UK and Canada understand this. I guess its just convenient for the other NATO countries to let the English speakers bleed for them.

Oi, read the article you posted a bit more carefully before you dismiss the smallest contributing country with that remark ;).


The US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands have borne the brunt of fierce fighting with Taleban militants in the south.

Sure, US, UK and Canada are in areas with higher risks than the Dutch but I still think that my cousin and my colleague's son are currently training for something more than a picknick. They're up next year.

[Cliff Hargrave]

...However, the mission in Afghanistan is a NATO mission, not a US mission, ...


I agree, I can understand them staying away from Iraq (though I may not agree with them) but they should be in Afganistan.

[TEA]

Oi, read the article you posted a bit more carefully before you dismiss the smallest contributing country with that remark ;).



Sure, US, UK and Canada are in areas with higher risks than the Dutch but I still think that my cousin and my colleague's son are currently training for something more than a picknick. They're up next year.

My apologies. The Dutch are doing more than their share. Best wishes to your cousin and colleague's sone. Plus, your government allows you to own sem-automatic only M14s, while mine doesn't and you have a longer history of being screwed by the French, Germans and the Spanish.

[Erik]

I think we should be honored.

Seems that our friend Stuart Stratford is actually Lindsay Lohan.

Read this: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2023859.ece

[Rasputin]

I think we should be honored.

Seems that our friend Stuart Stratford is actually Lindsay Lohan.

Read this: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2023859.ece

Is he the red-haired, buxom LL, or the Scrawny, underfed blond LL?

The former is allowed a little more leeway in my book.

[Flashlock]

We're the good guys--how come not everyone is just signing up to fight guerillas in the desert, it's a global war on terror, the whole world against the forces of darkness. Wake up, World, follow us! :sniper:

[Abbax8]

Some people refuse to learn the lesson of history. Their thinking is as long as the problem is far away and someone else is in trouble, why should I be concerned?

You either deal with it now in Afghanistan, or deal with it later in Paris. Your choice.

Peace

Dennis

[Mark Barlow]

Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts...:banghead:

[D. Palmer II]

In Texas, if you want to "take some mic" from someone, just use the word in a sentence. You'll be taking more mickeys than you know what to do with. :laugh:

[Patrick Hayes]

Is he the red-haired, buxom LL, or the Scrawny, underfed blond LL?


Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts...:banghead:
Mark, you must be hoping it's Lindsay #1 as well.

[Aikidog]

Going back to the topic at hand (btw, I understood exactly what the right honourable englishman meant, lol) I don't see why the french have to send anybody into Afghanistan. The war is over. Now its pretty much a police action. Considering that the Americans funded and trained the Taliban for years, its only fair that the Americans should take the responsibility for getting rid of them.

Al Qaeda was a small terrorist group that was harboured by the Taliban. Most of the fighting was against Taliban forces and is still against the remanents of the Taliban.

The French were never involved in that region anyway. Any involvement on their part is a gift.

What you guys should be doing is praising the Russians for supporting you. If I was an ex-Soviet officer, I'd be doing the "I told you so" dance right about now!

[jaberwoky123]

The French have their own terrorists to worry about right there on their home soil, let them stay home and make us Americans some pastry and wine, We'll deal with what needs to be dealt with they can keep their noses out of it.

[Maro]

Whilst France is a Member of NATO, it's not required to send troops.

Also, Whilst a NATO mission, Afghanistan is far from the remit of NATO. It was the subject of much scrutiny when the deployment of NATO troops was postulated - Afghanistan is not very close to the Northern Atlantic.

Calling the French Yellow just because they don't have the same foreign policy as you is a bit childish IMHO.

[stuart stratford]

Thank you for that finaly that needed to be said>:cool: :D :yourock:

[David Craik]

I think any support received from the French for any endeavour should always be considered a surprising bonus. The fact that they even sent 975 is amazing.

[AllanJGAnderson]

Calling the French Yellow just because they don't have the same foreign policy as you is a bit childish IMHO.
Shame on Americans for being disapointed in their ally for consistently being difficult and uncooperative. France to me is like a latent case of arthritis, no one realy cares until it starts acting up.

[TEA]

Going back to the topic at hand (btw, I understood exactly what the right honourable englishman meant, lol) I don't see why the french have to send anybody into Afghanistan. The war is over. Now its pretty much a police action. Considering that the Americans funded and trained the Taliban for years, its only fair that the Americans should take the responsibility for getting rid of them.

Thanks for playing, but survey says, "XXXXX!" The Taliban are not the same as the mujihadeem that the US supported against the Soviets. Those mujihadeem began fighting amongst each other as soon as the Soviets bugged out. The Taliban originated as a group that protected truckers in Southern Afghanistan during the ensuing civil war. They were trained by Pakistan's secret service and financed by Saudi Arabia, and soon were able to seize control of Southern Afghanistan. They were then able to eliminate most of the contending warlords in detail, until the remnants formed the Northern Alliance.

As for the "war being over" and it being a "police action," you obviously haven't been paying attention to what is going on in Afghanistan. The Taliban has once again seized large chunks of Southern Afghanistan and are giving the NATO forces a pretty good fight. The NATO general in charge has been pleading for more troops for months.

As for France, I'm not just picking on them. Spain, Italy and Germany all need to do more, too. They all have just as much to lose if Afghanistan falls back into the chaos of the post-Soviet invasion.

Stewart, get a clue. Do you think terrorist attacks in the UK will suddenly stop and Osama Bin Laden will send the Queen flowers if the UK throws in the towel and pulls out of Afghanistan?

Maro, true Afghanistan is far from the North Atlantic, but terrorist attacks against NATO countries were coordinated out of Afghanistan. These attacks were an act of war. The purpose of NATO is to provide for the common defense of all of its members, not just those on mainland Europe when it is convenient for them. If the Soviets had invaded West Germany when the US was having its crippling recession in the '70s and dealing with the hostage crisis in Iran, do you think we would have said "sorry, we're busy right now and coming to save Europe again would be really inconvenient"?

[R. Johnson]

. . . who needs enemies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6195102.stm

I can't believe the French only have 975 troops in Afghanistan and the NATO countries, other than the UK and Canada, with the largest and most advanced militaries refuse to engage the enemy "except in emergencies"!!!!! :hot: Forum rules prohibit me from fully expressing my disdain these yellow belly goat fornicating sons of quivering dogs.


Goat fornicators? I didn't know anyone from Oklahoma State used this board!

[Maro]

Shame on Americans for being disapointed in their ally for consistently being difficult and uncooperative. France to me is like a latent case of arthritis, no one realy cares until it starts acting up.

Gee, that's a well thought out argument! :eek:

Considering their history and previous issues with Colonisation gone bad, perhaps they think it's best to not get bogged down in a prolonged situation which has echoes of the Battle for Algiers.


;)

[Maro]

Maro, true Afghanistan is far from the North Atlantic, but terrorist attacks against NATO countries were coordinated out of Afghanistan. These attacks were an act of war. The purpose of NATO is to provide for the common defense of all of its members, not just those on mainland Europe when it is convenient for them. If the Soviets had invaded West Germany when the US was having its crippling recession in the '70s and dealing with the hostage crisis in Iran, do you think we would have said "sorry, we're busy right now and coming to save Europe again would be really inconvenient"?

I'm not getting into the "USA Saves Europe" debate again. Both of my Grandfathers served with honour during WWII long before the USA entered. Of course we were extremely greatful for your assistance.

As for Afghanistan, and the Taliban, if it was an act of war why are the internees at Gitmo not afforded POW status?


:rolleyes:

[GodofGamblers]

Thanks for playing, but survey says, "XXXXX!" The Taliban are not the same as the mujihadeem that the US supported against the Soviets. Those mujihadeem began fighting amongst each other as soon as the Soviets bugged out. The Taliban originated as a group that protected truckers in Southern Afghanistan during the ensuing civil war. They were trained by Pakistan's secret service and financed by Saudi Arabia, and soon were able to seize control of Southern Afghanistan. They were then able to eliminate most of the contending warlords in detail, until the remnants formed the Northern Alliance.

I'm afraid the US and the UK had a big part in the birth and nurturing of the Taliban. As you say, Pakistan and Saudi gave birth to it, but not without US participation. Saudi had to match US aid dollar for dollar and Pakistan did all the training.

The US and the UK also provided intelligence to the Taliban to help them consolidate their power in addition to financial aid.

But this is all beside the point.

The real problem is the culture of the whole area from Saudi to Pakistan. The Taliban hide in Pakistan when things get hot then move back into Afghan when things cool down.

It's much like Vietnam where the Vietnamese moved into Cambodia when convenient. The territory unfortunately is not the map...

Unfortunately, Pakistan and Saudi are classed as friends so it is hard to take any definitive action. NATO has little stomach for a fight outside of Europe as it is not really its mandate.

France cannot be blamed for not volunteering to be embroiled in a quagmire.

The British lost an entire army group in Afghan at one point: cut down to a man... they should have known better.

I don't see a clear solution on the horizon. A pull out at this point could be disastrous too.

The Taliban are a unique case; if you blokaded them, sealed off their borders, shunned them, censured them in every internatonal organization, boycotted them... would they even notice????

[Erik]

The British lost an entire army group in Afghan at one point: cut down to a man... they should have known better.
Is this recent? Or during The Great Game?

[GodofGamblers]

Yes, and it happened not once but twice, I think.

"On January 1, 1842 following some unusual thinking by Elphinstone an agreement was reached that provided for the safe exodus of the British garrison and its dependents from Afghanistan. Five days later, the retreat began, and as they struggled through the snowbound passes, the British were attacked by Ghilzai warriors. The British column of more than 16,000-strong (consisting of about 4,500 military personnel, both British and Indian, along with as many as 12,000 camp followers) was massacred in the 30 miles of treacherous gorges and passes lying between Kabul and Gandomak."


Some of the British officers had brought their families with them too and the Afghans slaughtered them all, men, women and children.

As one British officer put it, "Every stone in the Khaibar has been soaked in blood".

[stuart stratford]

i think the most people would agree that us brits shouldnot have gone in to the war but blair had to follow us brits are just trying to do realy now is finish the usa job in afganistan 2371