Have the US Allies Been A Major Let Down In the WOT?

superdude17* · #1 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:06 PM

Has the recent US Success in Iraq showed you how bad our allies are when it comes to troop strength and readiness? I was just thinking about this: we are doing better with our added 30,000 troops there than our total allies troop levels combined.

This brings to the forefront, are our traditional allies really up to the task when it comes to military and defense?

These traditional allies include:

1. Australia
2. Spain
3. Norway
4. Italy
5. Britain (somewhat)
6. Germany
7. France

I would say they are pathetic and have been relying on the US too long. It took a overhaul of getting rid of these crap soldiers in Iraq and instilling some real GI's.

Thoughts are appreciated

superdude17* · #2 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:10 PM

I would also like to bring up how the British were basically pushed out of Basra in southern Iraq, seeking refuge at their airport. That is pathetic. I appreciate the English and all their help, but they have not done that much.

I would also like to point out in Afghanistan, our allies are putting in more troops, yet we are losing more ground. This is not acceptable.

Its time we retrain all of the allies.

Or maybe we should change our allies?

Makedde · #3 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:12 PM

Our Aussies have helped the US as much as we were willing to at the time. We did a good job.

superdude17* · #4 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Our Aussies have helped the US as much as we were willing to at the time. We did a good job.

Yes. I agree. Prime Minister Howard was a vital asset to our WOT efforts and I am sorry that the new Prime Minister has been such a lame queer. I applaud the Aussies. I believe there troops did do well. However, Australia can do more. It should be in Iraq and also more troops should be in Afghanistan.

Everyone expects the US to do everything and that all the Allies should sit on their heels waiting for us to do the real work.

Makedde · #5 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

Yes. I agree. Prime Minister Howard was a vital asset to our WOT efforts and I am sorry that the new Prime Minister has been such a lame queer. I applaud the Aussies. I believe there troops did do well. However, Australia can do more. It should be in Iraq and also more troops should be in Afghanistan.

Everyone expects the US to do everything and that all the Allies should sit on their heels waiting for us to do the real work.

Don't forget that the US started this war. We can't be expected to run to war when the US decides to wage one.

Prime Minister Rudd is doing the right thing in bringing our troops home. We have been there long enough, it's time to come home now.

superdude17* · #6 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Don't forget that the US started this war. We can't be expected to run to war when the US decides to wage one.

Prime Minister Rudd is doing the right thing in bringing our troops home. We have been there long enough, it's time to come home now.

Wrong. The US did not start the War on Terror. That is a fundamental difference of view by Americans and Europeans. The US did not ask to be attacked. That is a ridiculous comment.

Makedde · #7 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

Wrong. The US did not start the War on Terror. That is a fundamental difference of view by Americans and Europeans. The US did not ask to be attacked. That is a ridiculous comment.

Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. America (Bush) decided to leave bin Laden in his hidey hold and go after Saddam instead.

America started the war on terror, because they started the war in Iraq.

superdude17* · #8 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. America (Bush) decided to leave bin Laden in his hidey hold and go after Saddam instead.

America started the war on terror, because they started the war in Iraq.

if you ask me, it is all coming into place right now. While Afghanistan does need work, it appears that al-Qaeda has been almost removed from the whole Sunni block of Arab states. I consider that a very good thing.

Makedde · #9 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

if you ask me, it is all coming into place right now. While Afghanistan does need work, it appears that al-Qaeda has been almost removed from the whole Sunni block of Arab states. I consider that a very good thing.

I consder that a good thing, too. Now if only we could find bin Laden...

paragon · #10 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

These traditional allies include:

1. Australia
2. Spain
3. Norway
4. Italy
5. Britain (somewhat)
6. Germany
7. France

You forgot Canada. They have 2500 troops in Afghanistan. And those troops are in Kandahar actively fighting the Taliban.
The British have 7700 troops in Helmand and are also actively fighting the Taliban.
Now, they are doing something and their help is appreciated immensely but they could definitely be helping more.

An important ally to remember in Iraq is the Kurdish Army. With around 175,000 soldiers they number more than the combined Coalition forces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

Iraq did not attack the US. Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. America (Bush) decided to leave bin Laden in his hidey hold and go after Saddam instead.

America started the war on terror, because they started the war in Iraq.

Osama bin Laden started the war in 1998 when he declared war on the United States and told Muslims that it was there duty to attack Americans whenever possible. The first strike in this war was the 1998 US embassy bombing in Africa. The US struck back by launching cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Then al Qaeda struck again when they blew a hole in the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Then they struck again on September 11th 2001. The US retaliated by supporting the United Islamic Front in their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring al Qaeda. Then the US invaded Iraq for reasons not entirely related to the War on Terror (although Saddam did pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $20,000 each between 2000 and 2003 when he was removed from power... so there's that). However, Iraq is at this time undeniably part of the War on Terror.

So no, the US did not start the war by starting the 7th major event in it. That is temporally impossible.

View Poll Results: Have the United States War On Terror Allies Been A Major Let Down?
Yes - Absolutely they have helped very little and sucked when they have helped	9	25.00%
Somewhat - They have performed acceptable, but way below expectanced standards	15	41.67%
No - The Allies have been very supportive and have offered more than what has been asked	12	33.33%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
should the allies have bombed the camps??	namvet	History & Past Politicians	2	04-28-2008 08:03 AM
Allies	Mack	Current Events	16	11-19-2007 12:33 PM
So much for allies	Ixtellor	Middle East	8	03-28-2007 06:21 PM
How to win friends and allies	Johnderondon	Latest World News	30	09-25-2006 08:24 AM
Allies of the United States	LINK398	United States	2	08-01-2006 02:42 PM