# Will the War in Afghanistan bring down NATO?



## Jammer (1 Nov 2009)

CTV is running an intersting piece on it's website.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Nov 2009)

Kind of hard for any of us to comment on this one...not exactly in our arcs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> CTV is running an intersting piece on it's website.



Great. Now we're all happy.

How about a link and discussion. Or were you posting to let people know you were visiting the CTV website?

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Kind of hard for any of us to comment on this one...not exactly in our arcs.



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091031/nato_afghanistan_091101/20091101?hub=TopStoriesV2

Why is that?

Having visited the HQ in Kabul, I witnessed the total disconnect of relations between our allies, the tourist mentality of some of our European co-worker that refused to do anything more than hand out pencils and scribblers. There is a definite grudge between the war fighters and the tourists that I believe goes all the way to the top of their respective governments. All pointing to a big 'Fuck you' to the same allies that pulled their asses out of two world wars and helped keep that big old bear out of their backyards. It's time to pay the piper, and they don't want to shinny up to the bar. Perhaps, next time they're in crisis, and their pleas for help are met by cricket chirps they'll understand the meaning of 'alliance'.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why is that?



Because unless the CDS or MND posts regularly on this board, it's kind of hard for regular pongos like us to comment on international relations policy or NATO activities.


----------



## Flap Jack (1 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Because unless the CDS or MND posts regularly on this board, it's kind of hard for regular pongos like us to comment on international relations policy or NATO activities.



But we still have our opinions and can express how we feel about this particular subject.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Nov 2009)

Flap Jack said:
			
		

> But we still have our opinions and can express how we feel about this particular subject.



Sure, if you're a civilian viewing this board.  If not, feel free to roll the dice and hope that your superiors don't post here.

No, we're not robots, and I'm not going to say anything like "the QM didn't issue me an opinion".  However, the old adage of "You can comment if you've led it, fired it, or used it" is a good guide.

It ends up hurting those we work for if every Corporal and Captain spouts off about what we think of NATO or why we should / should not be in Iraq.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> It ends up hurting those we work for if every Corporal and Captain spouts off about what we think of NATO or why we should / should not be in Iraq.


 Something to definitely keep in mind....next time we're sent to Iraq   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Sure, if you're a civilian viewing this board.  If not, feel free to roll the dice and hope that your superiors don't post here.
> 
> No, we're not robots, and I'm not going to say anything like "the QM didn't issue me an opinion".  However, the old adage of "You can comment if you've led it, fired it, or used it" is a good guide.
> 
> It ends up hurting those we work for if every Corporal and Captain spouts off about what we think of NATO or why we should / should not be in Iraq.



I suggest you go way back and research the history of this board. People of all services and ranks have posted personal opinion of international political bearing and have not been taken to task. The key is staying in your lanes. In this case, many have experiences that they can draw and comment on. Personal opinion is valued here, providing you can back it up. 

Please don't come here and try stifle discussion by raising the 'I'll deal with you at work on Monday' boogeyman. Otherwise, if you have something to offer, please do. If not, don't waste space by making comments to make yourself heard or try to moderate discussion without the owners approval.

A good place for you to start would be the Site Guidelines.

Milnet. ca Staff


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Nov 2009)

NATO was all about saving Europes backside.  I'm sure the Europeans never intended that they would ever be called on to support the US.  I suspect NATO is morphing into the UN in whiteface.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> NATO was all about saving Europes backside.  I'm sure the Europeans never intended that they would ever be called on to support the US.


For years, Canada did less than the bare minimum for NATO, between an underfunded military and an undersized commitment to the Central Front.  In the first Gulf War, Canada sent less than the bare minimum, providing very little to the fight.  "We aren't equipped to fight that kind of war" said Joe Clark at the time, when responding to criticism of our meagre and paltry forces sent there.  (I think that he forgot that the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies had bigger armies that were much more capable than Saddam Hussein's).  I think it's a bit early for us to criticise others for their less than bare minimum contribution in Afghanistan.

The intent of NATO was to counter Soviet expansionism, not so much as to save Europe, but for the US to protect its own interests, along with those of the UK and other major players.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I suggest you go way back and research the history of this board...The key is staying in your lanes... If not, don't waste space by making comments to make yourself heard or try to moderate discussion without the owners approval...



Well obviously we're on the same page because you yourself said "The key is staying in your lanes".  How in the heck can you do that as a soldier giving personal opinion on Canada's national policy?

Believe me, the last thing I am is a discussion stifler; I just think that if one is to give his opinion, it should be informed using the guidelines of "Have I led it, used it, been there, fired it, etc".

I'm not trying to be any sort of boogeyman, I just think it's strange that bending regulations (the military's, not this site's) would be encouraged.


----------



## Jammer (1 Nov 2009)

Everyone here regardless of rank, personal status, blah blah has a right to voice an opinion on anything they wish here.
The notion of "led it, used it, been there...etc doesn't apply to everyone who posts here.
I really take exception to your comment that my boss or your boss may not like what you write. 
Clicking my heels and saying "Yes Sir. harumph, harumph...well said" is not what it's about here, perhaps in the Mess it is. 
If you (collectively), are worried about what your boss might think...don't post...simple. 
It's still a free country for now and I don't need the PAFFO's or IMOs permission.
My opinion.


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Well obviously we're on the same page because you yourself said "The key is staying in your lanes".  How in the heck can you do that as a soldier giving personal opinion on Canada's national policy?
> 
> Believe me, the last thing I am is a discussion stifler; I just think that if one is to give his opinion, it should be informed using the guidelines of "Have I led it, used it, been there, fired it, etc".
> 
> I'm not trying to be any sort of boogeyman, I just think it's strange that bending regulations (the military's, not this site's) would be encouraged.



Bullshit!! 
as Jammer said "Everyone here regardless of rank, personal status, blah blah has a right to voice an opinion on anything they wish here.
The notion of "led it, used it, been there...etc doesn't apply to everyone who posts here.
I really take exception to your comment that my boss or your boss may not like what you write.
Clicking my heels and saying "Yes Sir. harumph, harumph...well said" is not what it's about here, perhaps in the Mess it is.
If you (collectively), are worried about what your boss might think...don't post...simple.
It's still a free country for now and I don't need the PAFFO's or IMOs permission.."


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2009)

I suspect that NATO will doddle along, just like the UN (as apparently useless as it is) continues to bungle along, year after year.  IMO, NATO is more politics than teeth.  
Lets all wait and see who jumps on the Darfur train!   ;D


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Lets all wait and see who jumps on the Darfur train!   ;D



Don't even joke.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Don't even joke.



Oh, it'll be a joke.  Just not a very funny one.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> It's still a free country for now and I don't need the PAFFO's or IMOs permission.
> 
> My opinion.



What I said has nothing to do with rank or the PAO's opinion, either.  It's about being a professional soldier who follows rules.  

For you that may end at 1600hrs, but for others you are setting a bad example.

Why would you write that you agree that staying in your lanes is a guideline and then write that anyone can write whatever they want?

You shouldn't be concerned with the "your boss" part of my original post, because it has more to do with personal integrity than worrying about getting caught.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2009)

Is this thread actually going to go somewhere?

Petamocto, we work very hard to be the "standard" for internet conversation on things militaria and, though we appreciate and share your concern, I think we have delved into topics a lot more controversial than this over the years. 

If you see something that shouldn't be discussed than use the "report" button that is located on every post and our crack team of fall downs Moderators will discuss and remove if necessary.


Now, about that NATO thing...........


EDIT: fixed those darn comma's


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Nov 2009)

I suspect NATO will lumber on for a number of years, gradually sinking into irrelevance in the eyes of North Americans (unless there is a real rise in Russian posturing about restoring its place in the sun) and in the eyes of old NATO Europe, which will increasingly move towards an European Union. The closer one is to the eastern frontier, I suspect, the more relevant is an effective NATO.

Having said all that, being a bureaucracy par excellence, NATO could stagger on for centuries of meetings, panels, working groups and the rest, even if Russia became Switzerland on the steppes.


----------

