Reliance on some NATO countries...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by stumpy, Jul 18, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Given the further news today that we can't rely on many NATO countries to take up their burden in Afghanistan... do we need to examine other areas where we are dependant?

    The Labour government has slashed our Frigate and Destroyer force because we, apparently, don't need many of them as we can rely on European NATO countries... Given the appaling situation in Afghanistan where, for instance, the Germans won't patrol at night (!!!) I think that we need to reverse the cuts in the fleet so we are no longer reliant on these countries for our defence.

    Co-operation is fine, but not to such a level where we can't operate properly.
     
  2. I'm getting a little cheesed off with the media and the politicians harping on about how other NATO countries aren't contributing. European NATO countries, yes, but the Canadians have lost more personnel in Afghanistan than we have, and with a lot less troops there. They're definitely making the sacrifice.
     
  3. It is not only to defence we have to look we also have to look at the farming issue.

    Our recently departed glorious leader :pukel: once stated he would make farmers caretakers of the land for us all to enjoy and buy our food from far away lands!

    Canada has lost more that its share of sons. Unlike another nation that pulled the plug at the first sign of trouble so they could go back home to watch the bullfights and the brave :pukel: matador!

    Canada has more backbone!

    O Canada!
    Our home and native land!
    True patriot love in all thy sons command.

    With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
    The True North strong and free!

    From far and wide,
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
     
  4. Remember the Neuesarbeit catchphrase of "joined up government"? Half these buggers complain like hell that the other European NATO Members don't pull their weight while the other half slashes defence capability on the grounds that any gaps will be plugged by the other EU Members. How joined up is that? The Boxheads don't want to be militarily effective in foreign lands, of course, because they got a bad press last time. Well, in those days, they were good at it and displayed backbone. Surely it must still be in there somewhere.

    I wonder if that arrogant t**t Blare has learned anything from this? If we wait for fat boy Gord to resolve the mess, I think we will wait a long time; unless he wants to negotiate away more sovereignty for greater European involvement!

    The Canuks, Ockers and Kiwis (and Fijians, indirectly) show us time and again that the Commonwealth Members are top types. Why do we waste our time, money and effort on these bloody Europeans?
     
  5. They're family aren't they? I would extend that to the majority of the Commonwealth - just look at the Gurkha's, the Sikh's etc.
     
  6. _____Po-L I would agree with most of what you say, however the Germans have the problem that whilst their forces are capable and willing to go they have very restrictive mandate and ROE in Afghanistan. Back home the political situation is comparable to a ship with 2 captains who want to sail in 2 very different directions.
     
  7. Hello Backpacker..
    If you are referring to Spain then that country has had a significant number of casualties in Afghanistan, not least six recently killed in a car bomb attack, and an entire aircraft full en route home after their spell of duty.
    I don't know the numbers but looking at the papers and news they appear to be on a par with other countries; not of course that it is some kind of race.
    I feel for Canada and its' deaths in Afghanistan (a relation was on the Dieppe raid and, until his death a few years ago, returned yearly to visit the town. We often went with him and the madness of it all is all to plain. An Ontario regiment - He came from Thunder Bay).
    However infighting amongst the NATO allies spurred on by jingoism and the press won't help those on the ground.
     
  8. Stumpy, I don't think a type 45 would get up the Helmand river. ^~
     
  9. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12883455.htm

    These are the latest casualty figures I could find. Admittedly, numbers do not correspond directly to commitment, due to areas of deployment, large-scale individual 'hits' etc, but take from them what you will. In my opinion, if a country supports a certain operation, then they should commit to it. Unless you're willing to 'put up', then shut up.
     
  10. Thanks. :thumright:

    I've been following the stories in Afghanistan, and it troubles me that the French/Germans can not and will not increase their commitments and re-arrange their rules to fall in line with the rest of the NATO forces who do contribute more then just token numbers. The argument that the Germans have may be valid, but what's the French excuse, we have allowed them for decades to participate in all NATO exercises yet they still do not want full membership, cake and eat it too I suppose.

    My fear now is this will be the excuse those in Canada will try to use to limit our contribution, and if that happens then all of those deaths will have been for nothing. Politicians know very well how the wind blows, and if they see a wind change they will act on it and to hell with the Military, we have seen this for decades on both coasts for the Navy and for those bases in the interior for the Army and Airforce, out of sight out of mind.... :rambo:
     
  11. Sorry Canada (and USA and Spain!)I was typing in haste before work and with a baby scrambling over me!! My step-father served in the Canadian Army and I am full of respect for the Canadians. My comment was for the many European countries who have benefited from NATO protection, but now don't want to pay their fees. (If your own country is not in that group then please don't take offense, we know which countries we are talking about...)

    PoL, once again I am in total agreement with you. The other danger is that the treasury could say "Well if you can rely on other countries for escorts then why do you need CVF, boats, etc etc..." :(

    I wish Brown(e) would announce the CVF, Type 45, Astutes, JSF orders asap and (hopefully) put our fears to rest.
     
  12. It would appear, that yet again, media hype is getting the better of us! Please guys (and gals) remember the poor sods in the field all stand the same risk (not like the old days when only the front line got hit now the whole sodding country is the frontline) and no matter whose army they belong to they are doing their best - they are just like you (and me once) doing their duty by following orders! It's the media we should be getting at not the various armies involved!
     

  13. I would agree somewhat with the media part, but it's not just them, it's opportunist politicians who see an excuse to try and curry favour with their constituents who are starting to demand answers as to why it's only the three major partners doing the work (US/UK and Canada), and not the rest of the NATO countries.

    Canada is a "big country" but we only have 31 Million citizens and it pains me to say this, but our politicians reliance on the US and the central Provinces apathy towards their own Military has seen us go from having the most Modern Navy (1950's to early 60's) to where we can barely man them.

    Our troops are stretched to the limit, as is yours, (should be interesting now though we just sent in the Vandoos a Quebec regiment, the Afghanis will be going WTF? Lol), but some of the other countries are going to have to pick up the slack if NATO feels we are going to be there long after 2009.

    Some info:

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/24/Rigatalks/index.html
     

Share This Page