26 Aug 09
1 edit
By the way, as a contrast, I point you to the UN's thumb twirling time-wasting inaction in the face of Kim Jung Il or whatever his name is in North Korea and point you to the UN's passivity towards both Iran and Iraq before the US took action.. not that I agree with the decision to "pre-empt" by starting a war of aggression, but rather that the UN is clearly not taking action.
In Iraq in 1991, the US knew who its allies were, and they did provide millitary support in kicking Sadam's forces out of Kuwait.
26 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusNATO didn't kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. You need to check the details.
There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq.
You are confusing Kuwait with Afghanistan.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFNo, you're wrong, even though the UN was involved, the actual countries doing the heavy fighting providing strong millitary support were NATO countries with some other help from UN nations that didn't do the bulk of the millitary contributions.
NATO didn't kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. You need to check the details.
You are confusing Kuwait with Afghanistan.
What are you bringing up Afghanistan for if not to try to equivocate and to obfuscate the debate?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusDesert Storm and all the other intelocking operations in 1991 were not NATO operations.
No, you're wrong, even though the UN was involved, the actual countries doing the heavy fighting providing strong millitary support were NATO countries with some other help from UN nations that didn't do the bulk of the millitary contributions.
What are you bringing up Afghanistan for if not to try to equivocate and to obfuscate the debate?
The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation (plus a separate parallel U.S operation too, additional to and independent of, NATO). This is where you are getting confused.
26 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo, you are still making a whole new strawman argument in order to try to make your original criticism stick, now we're agreed then that it was a UN operation AND finally you will give up and agree that it was NATO countries which contributed the millitary might and firepower?
Desert Storm and all the other intelocking operations in 1991 were not NATO operations.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation (plus a separate parallel U.S operation too, additional to and independent of, NATO). This is where you are getting confused.
Finally, I accept your apology and attempts to say "mm, technically, the "operation" was not called a NATO operation, it was called a UN oepration" ... and now you say: "so sorry to be so caught up in wasting people's time again, I'm FMF, I waste time"
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusWhat is it I have to "give up" on?
No, you are still making a whole new strawman argument in order to try to make your original criticism stick, now we're agreed then that it was a UN operation AND finally you will give up and agree that it was NATO countries which contributed the millitary might and firepower?
The 1991 invasion of Iraq wasn't a NATO operation. It seems you are hazy about how military alliances and their command structures - and their combined military operations in the field - actually work. Operation Desert Storm, Operation Granby, Operation Friction and all the rest simply were not NATO operations regardless of who contributed to the invasion or who are the consituent members of NATO.
So presumably you are thinking of NATO and Afghanistan and the Taliban.
What does NATO's invasion of Afghanistan (then) have to teach us about what is needed in Latin America? Why were the Taliban and Saddam Hussein not deterred by NATO - the "peace block" as you call them - and why would Venuzuela be deterred by a Latin American NATO?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFWhy are you going on and on about a made up argument that you're trying to use to put words in others' mouths? Your modus operandi again.
What is it I have to "give up" on?
The 1991 invasion of Iraq wasn't a NATO operation. It seems you are hazy about how military alliances and their command structures - and their combined military operations in the field - actually work. Operation Desert Storm, Operation Granby, Operation Friction and all the rest simply were not NATO operations regardless of ...[text shortened]... ce block" as you call them - and why would Venuzuela be deterred by a Latin American NATO?
You are the only one bring up Afghanistan time and again, and that is because you have some mental problems, but I have come to terms with that.
Still I will answer the troll to see if it can learn.
NATO countries had an alliance against the Soviet Union.
They quickly agreed to send troops to hot spots to defend each other, and they did so effectively in the (ahem, UN) operation of 1991 to remove (ahem, Iraq's) dictator Sadam from (ahem) Kuwait.
Sorry, is this something that doesn't throw you any curve ball, or do you want to go back in time again to dig up bull to waste time?
Anyway, NATO forces can quickly contribute to stability in a post-cold war world because they can quickly mobilize forces rather than deal with a UN - style security counsel veto from China or Russia.
Similarly, Latin America could have a NATO-like Union that does not wait for the UN to send troops to stop Chavez from invading Columbia. Russia, Chavez's often allied arms dealer, could veto UN action.
The ABC powers and Mexico could easily move forces in to prevent a war of aggression from Chavez.
capisce?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesustroll? idiot? false? distorter? mental problems? Who is name calling here?
Why are you going on and on about a made up argument that you're trying to use to put words in others' mouths? Your modus operandi again.
You are the only one bring up Afghanistan time and again, and that is because you have some mental problems, but I have come to terms with that.
Still I will answer the troll to see if it can learn.
NATO cou ...[text shortened]... Mexico could easily move forces in to prevent a war of aggression from Chavez.
capisce?
NATO did not operate in Kuwait. NATO did not operate in Iraq. You repeating these assertions will not change the facts.
The analogy of what you ahistorically claim "NATO" did to Saddam Hussein seems like a non-starter to me - not to mention unconvincing when you cannot even get basic facts about years, countries and other details right.
So. You propose a U.S. military alliance with several Latin American countries - like NATO in Europe - with U.S. troops - under NATO-like auspices - all over the continent, because you feel that Venuzuela is a Soviet Union-like threat? meaning U.S. would be committed to commit troops in the event of war in Latin America?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFNo, the ABC power and Mexico could come into a NATO like union and contribute troops quickly towards causes for peace in Latin America.
troll? idiot? false? distorter? mental problems? Who is name calling here?
NATO did not operate in Kuwait. NATO did not operate in Iraq. You repeating these assertions will not change the facts.
The analogy of what you ahistorically claim "NATO" did to Saddam Hussein seems like a non-starter to me - not to mention unconvincing when you cannot even get bas ...[text shortened]... threat? meaning U.S. would be committed to commit troops in the event of war in Latin America?
You can put your comment on US troops in the same field with your comment about Afghanistan and your refusal to acknowledge that NATO countries were the main contributors to forces removing Sadam's forces from Kuwait. You just refuse to acknowledge the argument itself, so you change it and attack that argument instead. Straw man arguments like always.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusCountries are only "NATO countries" in the context of NATO operations. If NATO is not involved it's just meaningless to refer to their NATOness.
No, the ABC power and Mexico could come into a NATO like union and contribute troops quickly towards causes for peace in Latin America.
You can put your comment on US troops in the same field with your comment about Afghanistan and your refusal to acknowledge that NATO countries were the main contributors to forces removing Sadam's forces from Kuwa ...[text shortened]... ent itself, so you change it and attack that argument instead. Straw man arguments like always.
If US troops were not stationed in Latin America and not committed to military action in the event of war, how exactly would it be NATO-like?
The indications that you do not understand NATO are abundant here, sorry.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFLOL, if you say so.
Countries are only "NATO countries" in the context of NATO operations. If NATO is not involved it's just meaningless to refer to their NATOness.
If US troops were not stationed in Latin America and not committed to military action in the event of war, how exactly would it be NATO-like?
The indications that you do not understand NATO are abundant here, sorry.
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusI do indeed.
LOL, if you say so.
The U.S. provided the military backbone, physical military presence in Europe, and more often than not the actual leadership - i.e. U.S. commanders controlling other countries' forces at times. (This was, of course, not the case in Iraq or Kuwait, while it is the case in Afghanistan).
That was what NATO was and is. It's not entirely clear that you understand this.
And you are suggesting a NATO like pact in Latin America? How can such a thing be done without U.S. troops on the ground there and with the command and control stuff?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFLOL... so that is the extent of your powers of comprehension? NATO is a treaty between many countries that include other significant millitary contributions, and you clearly fail to grasp this and other basic concepts. I find it amusing that you try to act like you know what you're talking about when you're filling in the gaps in your knowledge with talk that you hope will cover up your ignorance.
I do indeed.
The U.S. provided the military backbone, physical military presence in Europe, and more often than not the actual leadership - i.e. U.S. commanders controlling other countries' forces at times. (This was, of course, not the case in Iraq or Kuwait, while it is the case in Afghanistan).
That was what NATO was and is. It's not entirely clear that ...[text shortened]... thing be done without U.S. troops on the ground there and with the command and control stuff?
26 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusDo you have any reply other than this elaborate substance-free attempt to be condescending?
LOL... so that is the extent of your powers of comprehension? NATO is a treaty between many countries that include other significant millitary contributions, and you clearly fail to grasp this and other basic concepts. I find it amusing that you try to act like you know what you're talking about when you're filling in the gaps in your knowledge with talk that you hope will cover up your ignorance.
U.S. bases in Colombia - That's the topic. You are suggesting some kind of NATO for Latin America - involving U.S. troops stationed in the continent - as with NATO in Europe? You are suggesting a deeply involved role, in terms of command and control, for all intents and purposes a battlefield leadership role, for the U.S. military - as with NATO in Europe?
So you are proposing a binding military pact between the U.S. and various Latin American countries, that would drag the U.S. into a war in the region using troops already stationed there - as with NATO in Europe?
It's not clear what 'basic concepts' there are about NATO that you think I don't understand. Indeed, it seems apparent that your attempt to cite NATO as a model for countering the threat of future "aggressive wars" waged by Venuzuela, is in bits.
The stuff about you being "amused" and my alleged "ignorance" and "failure to grasp basic concepts" are just generic insults and not debating points.