andythejock01wrx

It was announced on BBC News today that after a NATO meeting in Latvia, France and Germany had refused to commit more troops to the fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan.

Currently there are 6000 British troops there and 975 French. It seems the Germans are still caught up in their shame for WW2 and the French, well, are just being French !

Name a differnece between toast and a Frenchman ?

~ You can make "soldiers" out of the toast !!

Andy Mc

SJ_Skyline

Every word here originates from old Anglo-Saxon English except one which originates from French. See if you can guess what it is.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Oi, Andy,

aren't you forgetting the Auld Alliance between you Sweaties and the Garlic munchers

I think you should be sticking up for them

Rannoch

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I just wonder if we'd have been as willing to listen to that man's rhetoric in 1939-45, had we suffered the losses the French did, and had we seen OUR coutry laid to waste, twenty years previously?

It's dead easy to say what SHOULD have happened, with hindsight......

Alcazar

stilover

Maybe the French just think it's a pointless War that they want no part of. They've commited 975 Troops as a goodwill gesture.

Shame Blair/Brown didn't think the same

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

We'll since that passage doesn't contain the words 'cheese' or 'garlic' I'm going with 'surrender'

Ns04

andythejock01wrx

I think it's worth differentiating between Afghanistan and Iraq. It's certainly a difficult fight (ask the Russians) and can't be won unless the people support the elected Govt. Doesn't mean NATO was wrong to go in there in the first place.

The US rightly attacked Afghanistan because the Taleban fundmentalist government was protecting Al Queda, who had just attacked the US.

So you reckon the US should have simply sat on it's hands after 911 ??

OllyK

Ask the British, we got our asses kicked in Afghanistan long before the Russians had a go.

SJ_Skyline

The 1842 retreat from Kabul saw a British army of 15,000 all but wiped out.

stilover

Not at all no. However, why should any other country get involved if they weren't attacked?
Fair enough, terrorism has to be stamped out, and the French have given troops to fight the cause, but how many should they provide? There entire army? Half of it?

Can't remember the French, Germans, Americans etc offering Troops to go into Northern Ireland to fight the IRA

555Rob555

The French, Germans and Italians are more than happy to reap the benifits of NATO member status, but fail to commit a fair number of troops to any operation.

When brit forces are spread more thinly than ever before, and require a minimum of 6000 extra troops, just to fufill current ops, we can't afford these others to shirk their responsibilities.

tmo

Cheese eating surrender monkeys

Foreign legion survival kit,
1 – Bottle of wine
1 – Nice lump of brie
1 – White flag

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

You understand that the whole point of the French Foreign Legion is that most of the people in it aren't French, right?


As for not supporting NATO, NATO evolved to defend Europe. Did I miss the bit where Afghanistan invaded Europe?


Finally, given how many countries have failed to beat the Afghans (the British (twice - not including now), the Russians, etc, staying the Hell away sounds like a d*mn sensible strategy.


M

davegtt

As soft as the french are they sure know how to stand up for themselves.

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | M20 gridlock due to Calais strike

stilover

They wouldn't put up with half the s1te we put up with.

andythejock01wrx

NATO membership.

andythejock01wrx

NATO evolved to defend it's member states, which includes the country that protected Europe from communism, the United States.


Yep, as I said before there's no way we'll simply defeat the Afghans militarily. Our only chance is to convince the tribal elders that they are better off ruling themselves than being ruled by the Taleban again.
The point remains that the decision to act was right. Clearly we should attempt to hand over control to the Afghans themselves as soon as this becomes viable.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

The reason the Taliban took over was because the Tribal Elders (more accurately, warlords), spent the whole time fighting each other. Initially the Taliban were very poplular, both there and abroad because they seemed the only people who were bringing peace - and they were. If it wasn't for the fact that they're a bunch of crazed religious bigots they'd be ideal to run the country.

Brendan Hughes

The French pass a law banning headscarves, they seem to block the roads every week demanding pay rises, they refuse to allow a new law that supposedly disadvantages first-time jobseekers by rioting, and their inner cities get ripped apart for a week when the underclass has had enough.

The British log on to a car BBS and moan. Or they fly halfway round the world to shoot up a bunch of camel-********.

Who's afraid of fighting?

CrisPDuk

I can sure as hell remember the Americans sending money & weapons to Northern Ireland though and it wasn't to fund the troops

Why should we now put our troops in such peril helping the Americans fight a terrorism problem they created & funded. The French & Germans have got the right idea IMO

It's about time the our government started putting British interests first

CrisPDuk

Besides, the French have long memories & bear grudges. I'm sure they've not forgotten the problems the CIA's interference created when they tried to leave Indo-China!