Germany Sending Troops

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
German Soldiers Bound for Kuwait to Protect Americans

German soldiers head to Kuwait to reinforce the NBC battalion.



Germany has sent further soldiers to Kuwait to protect American and Kuwaiti installations from chemical and biological attacks. The government has stressed that they will have nothing to do with the ongoing war in Iraq.

About 110 German soldiers, among them four women, trained in detecting NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons got their marching orders from the German Defense Minister on Friday.

Together with paramedics and communications experts, they left the H?xter base in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and boarded a plane in Cologne bound for the Gulf emirate of Kuwait. There they are to strengthen a German NBC Battalion of 90 soldiers manning six Fox armored reconnaissance vehicles (photo) equipped to detect nuclear, biological and chemical contamination.


The 90-strong German unit was deployed in Kuwait last year together with American and Czech soldiers as part of the anti-terror operation, "Enduring Freedom", the U.S.-led fight against al Qaeda. Stationed in the Kuwaiti base of Doha, the multinational contingent is responsible for providing protection to American and Kuwaiti installations against attacks with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Additional soldiers needed to reinforce contingent

German Defense Minster Peter Struck said on Thursday that the move was made to plug "a gap" in the multinational contingent with the withdrawal of several American soldiers now engaged in the military campaign against Iraq.


Struck also said that Czech soldiers could also eventually pull out of the contingent. He said the additional soldiers were required to strengthen the self-defense capacity of the contingent.

Schr?der says troops not involved in war

The issue of sending German soldiers to Kuwait at a time when a U.S.-led war against neighboring Iraq is in full swing, remains a sensitive one in Germany.

Chancellor Schr?der, who has been a consistent opponent of any kind of U.S.-led military strike against Iraq, has already run into opposition for providing military help to the Americans in the form of flyover rights and transit rights to U.S. forces and allowing German troops on NATO AWACS flights in Turkey.

In regards to the present matter of sending German soldiers to Kuwait, however, Schr?der has assured that the soldiers will not be deployed in Iraq. A government spokesman, Thomas Steg, said on Friday, that the soldiers had "no function as far as the Iraq war goes."

Soldiers face real danger in Kuwait

But despite government assurances, there is little doubt that the German soldiers face a dangerous assignment in Kuwait.


That fact was underscored on Thursday, the first day of the U.S.-led military strikes against Iraq, when Iraqi troops fired SCUD missiles into the Kuwaiti desert and prompted coalition troops to don gas masks and protective gear in case the missiles were armed with chemical or biological weapons.

But Lieutenant Colonel Conrad Flachsbarth said German soldiers were well-prepared for the fact that they are stationed within range of Iraqi rockets.

"One is aware that there is a specific threat. And so the normal drills take note of that," he said.

Germany's army, the Bundeswehr, has been participating in "Operation Enduring Freedom" since November 2001. Last December, the German parliament extended its mandate by a year.

A total of 1,000 German soldiers are involved in the operation. That includes four ships of the German Navy that monitors sea traffic at the Horn of Africa and 140 Naval aircraft stationed in the Kenyan port of Mombassa.

Troops well-prepared for chemical attacks

Several soldiers from the 110-strong team being sent to Kuwait, are already familiar with Camp Doha and conditions in Kuwait because the NBC battalion has a regular exchange of soldiers and other personnel. The new team will now stay in Kuwait until July, before they are replaced by another NBC defense battalion from another base in Germany.

One of the soldiers belonging to the German unit told DW-RADIO that he was well-equipped for any attack.

"I?m prepared in the sense that I was already planned in the contingent last year, which was the first contingent beginning of last year," he said. "And we?ve now intensified the training that we received there, which means we?ve improved our NBC capabilities and that?s why I think we?re well-prepared."
 
No one finds this surprising that a country opposed to the war is sending troops to help in Kuwait?
 
I do, and I find it extremely disappointing. At least the French government can say that they have stood by their convictions.

Ant.
 
Dreadsox said:
No one finds this surprising that a country opposed to the war is sending troops to help in Kuwait?

This German soldiers are only there to protect Kuwait civilians and not the Allied soldiers. They are forbidden to go into Iraq themself.

Now it seems that Turkey went into Iraq ,the Goverment has plans to redraw thier soldiers in the south of Turkey ( Patriot missels ) and the personal that are in the awacs airplains .
 
It is a bit disappointing really, but I suppose if they arent involved in fighting then its not really such a big issue is it?

I am puzzled as to why exactly the Americans need protection though. Seems these are experts performing a task the Americans dont have personnel to perform
 
Anthony said:
I do, and I find it extremely disappointing. At least the French government can say that they have stood by their convictions.

Ant.

Yeah it's great that French have stood by Saddam.... I mean stood by their lucrative oil field production contracts with Saddam.... I mean their convictions.:hmm:
 
Americans cant really talk, they were rather pally with Mr Hussein at one stage weren't they? Its fine when it suits them.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that France are actually listening to what its citizens are saying to them and have genuine concerns about war?

Anyway I think you'll find the German troops arent joining the invasion force. They are there because of their expertise and to protect Kuwait against any possible fallout of the US agressions.
 
cloudimani said:
Americans cant really talk, they were rather pally with Mr Hussein at one stage weren't they? Its fine when it suits them.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that France are actually listening to what its citizens are saying to them and have genuine concerns about war?

Anyway I think you'll find the German troops arent joining the invasion force. They are there because of their expertise and to protect Kuwait against any possible fallout of the US agressions.

Actually they weren't ever "pally" with Saddam. They slightly leaned toward Iraq during a conflict with Iran. i pity anyone who has to make a choice between those two countries.

And yes it is beyond the realm of possibility that France is listening to it's citizens. If you took an objective look, and see that the largest trading nation with Iraq is France (number 2 and 4 are Russia and China) And that they also have high money stakes in oil field production contracts with Iraq, especially if sanctions are dropped. And I also don't believe that a LEADER, who undoubtedly is much more informed than the general public, should follow what the public is saying. Unless you like someone for a leader that follows every popular public whim in order to win the next election.

As for German troops going in for any purpose, I applaud it. It shows that it has some concern for the safety of the Kuwaiti people.
 
Anthony said:
womanfish; I did not say their convictions were noble.

Ant.

True. I didn't mean for it to sound like anything against you said, so much as my frustration with why I think France has tried to stop anything from disturbing Iraq's current practices.
 
womanfish said:


Actually they weren't ever "pally" with Saddam. They slightly leaned toward Iraq during a conflict with Iran. i pity anyone who has to make a choice between those two countries.

And yes it is beyond the realm of possibility that France is listening to it's citizens. If you took an objective look, and see that the largest trading nation with Iraq is France (number 2 and 4 are Russia and China) And that they also have high money stakes in oil field production contracts with Iraq, especially if sanctions are dropped. And I also don't believe that a LEADER, who undoubtedly is much more informed than the general public, should follow what the public is saying. Unless you like someone for a leader that follows every popular public whim in order to win the next election.

As for German troops going in for any purpose, I applaud it. It shows that it has some concern for the safety of the Kuwaiti people.

I believe France's reasons for opposing war are at least as honourable as the US' reason for fighting it.

You seem to have a strange idea of what the leader in a democractic country does! They are elected by the majority (in most cases anyway) to represent the people. They are not elected to make decisions on their own personal views. Unfortunately that is what is happening. At least public opinion could be sampled in each constituency by the representitive so that. A society in which its people have no voice is a dictatorship, I was under the impression that that was what this war was trying to remove.

Also this is one aim of this war, to topple Saddam's regime. And as honourable as this sounds its just not legal. You cant just go around imposing your will on whoever you choose. If there are no WoMD in Iraq, you can be sure the US will "find" some anyway, just to justify the pretext for their aggression
 
cloudimani said:


I believe France's reasons for opposing war are at least as honourable as the US' reason for fighting it.

You seem to have a strange idea of what the leader in a democractic country does! They are elected by the majority (in most cases anyway) to represent the people. They are not elected to make decisions on their own personal views. Unfortunately that is what is happening. At least public opinion could be sampled in each constituency by the representitive so that. A society in which its people have no voice is a dictatorship, I was under the impression that that was what this war was trying to remove.

Also this is one aim of this war, to topple Saddam's regime. And as honourable as this sounds its just not legal. You cant just go around imposing your will on whoever you choose. If there are no WoMD in Iraq, you can be sure the US will "find" some anyway, just to justify the pretext for their aggression

My problem is this: The public opposition to the use of force came AFTER the leadership of France opposed it. If Chirac would have been totally on board, believe me, the public sentiment would be entirely different. He actually triggered the whole worldwide opposition in my opinion.

AND - maybe you should say that France's opposition is as DIShonorable as the U.S.'s, I think they both have their own political reasons, but I believe that getting rid of Saddam will finally bring to a hault the horrible death of 5,000 Iraqi's a week because of Saddam's brutal regime. I think that's a good thing. If you feel ok with Iraqi's dying at that shocking pace, then that's your opinion.

And you say that it's not legal. This is just not true. It's the opinion of some. The truth is that is an argueable issue. If you study 1441. my opinion is that it is legal. Iraq again was in breach of this resolution that called for "serious consequenses. This resolution was written by the U.S., so the U.S. - and let's be honest - everybody else knows that serious consequences means military action. France, Russia and China who signed the resolution, backed out of their commitment.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I believe cloudimani has a valid point.

Yes, womanfish, it is true that the government of France is not particularly noble in trying to oppose the US's effort for war, but one can not escape the fact that France, from the very beginning of the Iraq 'manouvers', and I am talking about ever since Bush came to power, they have been against outright. France the population, not France the government.

Governments do what is in their best interest of doing, not necessarily what is in the people's best interest - but what is happening in France that can not be legitimately criticised is how the government is, by default and not by intention, actually reflecting public opinion. And it has. It has consulted the public, it has followed the public, and now it has represented the public. The very reason why Chirac was against the war was because it was such a popular policy back at home. He has done what very few governments in Europe have done, and that is to actually represent the people, which I am sorry, is the ideal of a democracy.

You can argue that if Chirac had agreed to the whole thing, the people would have eventually - that is simply not how it works, or, more precisely, how it SHOULD work. We do not know yet how Blair's obstinacy in not listening to the majority has affected him politically, and we wont until his next election.


Tony Blair has not represented his people. He has represented what he thinks is in the best interest of the people. Both are commendable, but the former is how a democracy works, the latter is not.

Ant.
 
womanfish said:


My problem is this: The public opposition to the use of force came AFTER the leadership of France opposed it. If Chirac would have been totally on board, believe me, the public sentiment would be entirely different. He actually triggered the whole worldwide opposition in my opinion.

AND - maybe you should say that France's opposition is as DIShonorable as the U.S.'s, I think they both have their own political reasons, but I believe that getting rid of Saddam will finally bring to a hault the horrible death of 5,000 Iraqi's a week because of Saddam's brutal regime. I think that's a good thing. If you feel ok with Iraqi's dying at that shocking pace, then that's your opinion.

And you say that it's not legal. This is just not true. It's the opinion of some. The truth is that is an argueable issue. If you study 1441. my opinion is that it is legal. Iraq again was in breach of this resolution that called for "serious consequenses. This resolution was written by the U.S., so the U.S. - and let's be honest - everybody else knows that serious consequences means military action. France, Russia and China who signed the resolution, backed out of their commitment.

Actually no 1441 doesn't allow for military intervention, and that I think you'll find is the only reason it was passed. "Serious consequences" is diplomatic speak for all action SHORT OF war. It was clear that another resolution would be required for a UN-backed war to take place, containing a phrase such as "All necessary steps...". In order to fudge legality they had to resort to a resolution passed in 1991, which is questionnable as to whether it applies in this case. Kofi Annan certainly felt another resolution was necessary.

I really resent being burdened with the consequences of Saddam's regime just because I'm anti-war. I have never once said that I support Saddam, I dont. Toppling regimes is not a legitimate cause for invasion though.

And your claim that Chirac conspired to turn the whole world against the war is frankly ridiculous and leaves you with very little credibility.
 
womanfish said:
And I also don't believe that a LEADER, who undoubtedly is much more informed than the general public, should follow what the public is saying.

Interesting concept for a democracy.

Unfortunately, those principles point in the direction of a dictatorship more than a democracy.

I think a leader (without big caps) should inform the general public, too, if he is more informed.

I agree with cloudimani that "serious consequences" have nothing to do with war, diplomatically speaking. If the UN meant war, they would have passed another kind of resolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom