did you intentionally ignore where I said I wasn't for going to Afghanistan?
and I'm all for reading, but I'm also for FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS!!(which I have...do you?)
GOP introduce bill to remove USA from United Nations
- Thread starter dondraper
- Start date
and I'm all for reading, but I'm also for FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS!!(which I have...do you?)
David_TheMan
Banned
Read the whole post, having problems with my laptop.
That said you wanting to go to AFghanistan or supporting it is irrelevant to jusstifying the the existance of NATO being there.
You have the account of a solider being there, I'm giving you account of Afghans who lived there. Completely different, especially when you try to claim they wanted people there or that they have benefitted from the US and NATO being there, which is a flat out lie.
Like you I've been to Afghanistan several times. Working with ISAF. It didn't matter when we pulled out bruh there's no fixing that on our end.
The US provides 22% of the total amount so no the UN doesn't neccessarily need the US as much as you'd like to believe, beside it still doesn't change my original point(that China will basically become stronger in power & financially if the US leave)
The US doesn't want to isolate itself from the rest of the world while china takes it over, and NATO main objection was keeping Russia at bay, but now since putin has trump kissing his ass, they too will eventually become even stronger
Again you are showing you don't understand everything.
don't conflate Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF as the same thing.
The US was involved with both(obviously) but ISAF and OEF were two different operations under completely separate commands. ISAF was NATO's input in to Afghanistan.
NATO commanded the United Nations-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from August 2003 to December 2014. Its mission was to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that it would never again be a safe haven for terrorists. ISAF helped build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces. As these forces grew stronger, they gradually took responsibility for security across the country before the completion of ISAF’s mission. A new NATO-led mission (called Resolute Support) to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions was launched in January 2015. NATO Allies and partners are also helping to sustain Afghan security forces and institutions financially, as part of a broader international commitment to Afghanistan. The NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership provides a framework for wider political dialogue and practical cooperation.
naw I disagree, if you want to make REAL change it has to be generational change.
I didn't agree going there, but since they committed to going there they should have stayed there for the duration to actually create positive change.
you are NOT change the minds of ppl that have been there for ever, and in fact just leaving just proves their own thoughts and feelings of the situation.
however, being there over time allows the kids to grow up and come in to those power positions under positive change and security.
it just opens your eyes to the bullshyt of foreign policy and government all around when they do this.
many of the soldiers, contractors, locals,etc. thought they were doing good(and they were) and starting to make real positive change.(Afghanistan was actually a decent country before the Taliban)
David_TheMan
Banned
I specifically wrote OEF and Afghanistan War, I even posted a link to you for the Afghanistan War showing the beliggerant being the ISAF. You are trying to make distinctions that don't have an ounce of actully making a distinction in my argument or why you support NATO being involved in an issue that has nothing to do with the defense of any member nations.
War in Afghanistan (2001–2014) - Wikipedia
In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda; bin Laden had already been wanted by the United Nations since 1999. The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks[40] and declined demands to extradite other terrorism suspects apart from bin Laden. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a delaying tactic, and on 7 October 2001 it launched Operation Enduring Freedom with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces, including the Northern Alliance which was fighting the Taliban in the prior Civil War from 1996 to 2001.[41][42] In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to assist the Afghan interim authorities with securing Kabul. At the Bonn Conference in December 2001, Hamid Karzai was selected to head the Afghan Interim Administration, which after a 2002 loya jirga in Kabul became the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the popular elections of 2004, Karzai was elected president of the country, now named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.[43]
NATO became involved as an alliance in August 2003, taking the helm of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and later that year assumed leadership of ISAF with troops from 43 countries. NATO members provided the core of the force.[44] One portion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan operated under NATO command; the rest remained under direct U.S. command.
No difference in OEF and Afghanistan War with ISAF being formed by UN and then handed off to NATO other than command.
the U.S. will be assessed more than 176 other member states combined for the regular budget and more than 185 countries combined for the peacekeeping budget.
So yes, the UN does NEED the US. If the US pulls out best believe other major countries will be pulling out as well. The only reason a lot of countries are still involved is because of the US.
Also, you don't seem to even know what NATO is....
David_TheMan
Banned
other than Command? their Roles were different......
actually,I'm done
OEF and ISAF mission creep | Talking Proud
The US named the war Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). It is most important to understand OEF’s objectives: The initial military objectives of OEF-A, as articulated by Former President George W. Bush in his September 20, 2001 address to a Joint Session of Congress and his October 7, 2001 address to the country, included the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al-Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.
===
=
Whatever the case, ISAF now became a NATO command operating under UN mandate, Lt. General David Richards, Britain (shown in the photo) in command. NATO said ISAF’s key priorities were as follows:
- Protect the Afghan people
• Build the capacity of Afghan forces to secure their own country
• Counter any insurgencies
• Enable the delivery of stronger governance and development.
So here again, you see that the mission went far beyond what the US had originally said it intended in OEF.
Incredibly, as time passed, the NATO ISAF expanded its reach, originally limited to Kabul, to cover all Afghanistan
--------------
So again a distinction without a difference since the missions overlapped entirely.
I'm only going to try to explain this one more time.
there were Americans there under OEF and there were Americans there under ISAF.
both there, at the same time, doing different things. can we agree with that??
their missions were different, and they were there to do different things. But your article that you posted showed that even the author didn't even understand fully what was going on.
During 2006 the US began pushing for a merger between ISAF and OEF. There was significant overlap and the two commands created confusion. ISAF had issues, however. You will recall that between 2002 and 2006, the tide of western strategy had moved a great deal. Decisions were made among the Allies to provide security and reconstruction support for all Afghanistan and help her build a democracy, known by the phrase “security and stabilization.” OEF was an unambiguous COIN operation and the ISAF group feared getting bogged down in such a combat effort, calling it “mission creep.”
It was technically mission creep for ISAF given what I have outlined as the missions it established when forming up years earlier. However from an American standpoint, the invasion of the Afghanistan that it led was designed to oust the Taliban government and destroy al Qaeda and its allies, which included the Taliban. As an American, it seems to me that ISAF created the mission creep, not the US. I suppose this is an arguable point of view so I’ll drop it there.
He's trying to create a separation between ISAF and the US, even though the US was apart of ISAF. And, the overlap between the missions is due to the mandate from each mission. the ISAF mandate was....
Protect the Afghan people
• Build the capacity of Afghan forces to secure their own country
• Counter any insurgencies
• Enable the delivery of stronger governance and development
so yes, there will be some similarities between the two however they are doing it for different reasons, and in different areas.
African Peasant
Veteran
People really think the UN will be the same without the United States ? 
If the US withdraw, the UN will die.
If the US withdraw, the UN will die.
thatrapsfan
Superstar
This dude submits this bill every year. It wont happen but its good fodder to get DailyCaller/Fox/Brietbart readers excited.
David_TheMan
Banned
You aren't explaning anything that isn't known and acknowledged. Again ISAF and OEF same shyt different commands.
There missions overlapped completely and this is sourced from US and NATO/UN command detailing individual missions.
The author is stating there was mission creep and that due to either one side or the other or both creeping, they were effectively doing the same missions.
Yes you repeated the mission I posted for ISF, it doesn't really counter the point that I was arguing though.
As I said OEF and ISAF did the same shyt under different command, when you tried to claim their missions were different. In actuality they werent/ Ono top of that you tried to claim ISAF wasn't involved in the Afghanistan war, this is false. On top of that you initially tried to claim Afghans wanted US invasion or benefited from invasion, which is wrong. All this to try to claim some how and some way that NATO is needed, and the fact that there was a OEF non NATO/UN coalition in the same country is a direct indictment against the need for NATO at all, and that a coalition was formed to go into Iraq which further proves there is no need for NATO to amount coalitions to act aggressively on other nations.
You tried to claim NATO kept the peace, you ignored NATO launching an invasion against Libya which had not threatened another country, and that NATO actually aided a domestic fight to put a leader out of power. You say NATO is for peace and defense, you ignore NATO being directly behind the Euro Madian Neo-Nazi protests that removed a democratically elected president because he was friendly to Russia.
You keep saying no one knows the mission, except you and people who support NATO, while folks like myself keep pointing out how 1) NATO had no reason to exist after the fall of the USSR because that was the only reason for it to exist and provide its mission and 2) How it acts in a manner that doesn't provide defense for its member states but actually acts in a militarily offensive manner with regards to Libya and Afghanistan.
When brought up that the very political objective of NATO is to be on Russia border and that this provokes military volatility and threatens the peace of security of the european members by making Russia act in response to such actions, since NATO leadership and the US promised Russia during the fall of the USSR that it would not expand from its early 90s nations, you ignore this.
So even using your own description of its mission, NATO fails totally.
You say but they help fight pirates, you ignore that the countries members of NATO actually caused the growth of the pirates in the first place.
The whole concept of national sovereignty also seems to be an issue you ignore, as if NATO is necessary for the various nations national defense.
As if NATO's sole purpose isn't to increase the US's military influence and presence in Europe, moreso than providing defense, which could occure without the US being involved and footing the bill.
Like I said earlier, we will simply have to agree to disagree, because there isn't a way in hell I can see any justification for the continued existence of NATO and most definitely continued US support and membership in NATO.
If the UN can't hold losing one member nation, even the US, it serves no purpose in existing, since it would mean the whole UN was nothing but a puppet organization for US hegemony.People really think the UN will be the same without the United States ?
If the US withdraw, the UN will die.
How long should we have to sacrifice. I've been retired for 2 years but my wife is still active duty. I was deployed on a JET tasking training the ANA. The shyt was eye opening to me. I asked my interpreter what do you think we can actually do to change things here. He told me absolutely nothing. The change you're talking about isn't coming in our life time had we been there or pulled out. You have to know when to chalk up your losses. The same interpreter I helped him get the hell up out of Afghanistan and currently lives in The bay area. Dealing with all those different folks from the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek bruh at some point you just have to empower them folks and let them figure it out.
this is exactly my point. that's why I say it has to go over generations.
what I'm saying is, don't tell us we are going there for change and to help build them up and to stop terrorism, only to give a half assed effort that will lead to creating more terrorist and dissent towards the West.
I wasn't for going there, but if we are going there, this half assed bullshyt ain't gonna cut it.
again....this is what showed me that our politicians ain't shyt, ain't ever been shyt and ain't ever gonna be shyt. Cuz they don't really care about doing good, it's all about the bottom line.