Posted on 05/02/2006 4:22:33 AM PDT by Kurt_Hectic
No, I don't.
Thanks, and the same to you!
LOL, no offence taken. My mom's side of the family is protestant :)
I can't read Norwegian, but here you go:
http://www.mil.no/fol/afg/start/
And yes, I too remember reading about the Norwegian mountain infantry receiving a presidential citation.
Too bad that we can't play hard ball with the President of Mexico.
Sorry, but this is just wishful thinking. SuziQ got it right - the really frightening threats for the European public are gone. The cold war is over and danger of terrorism is underestimated on the old continent. NATO is simply not needed anymore in their eyes, since wars like Iraq are for sure not seen as European business. Defense is something were money can be saved.
Besides - this way of thinking has its "justification" if we see it soley from the European point of view. There is indeed no direct classical millitary danger anymore. It is rather unlikely that the ChiComs or the Russians will do any attacks on Europe in the near future. Dangerous countries like Belarus could be overrunned easily with the rest of the cold-war armament if it should be nessecary. But this is also not probable. The only reason for a well equipped millitary are actions on the side of the Americans who engage themselves nearly everywhere.
People who think like that (and that are most of Europe) forget that i.e. guys like Hitler have to be eliminated. Yesterday, today and in the future. This makes NATO and millitary nessecary. Maybe the Americans did not find substancial amounts of WMDs, but they brought Saddam to justice and killed his evil sons. Only this was worth the effort.
We will see what the future brings, but I predict that the relation between America and Europe will loosen a bit. This does not have to be a disaster since both sides know that they are indeed depenent on each other. A strong connection will remain.
"What happens in 40-50 years when the North Sea oil reserves (and revenues) begin to run out? Will they want that strong alliance with America again?
What happens in 10-15 years when oil is not nearly the valuable commodity it is now and Mooslims are overrrunning their backboneless country? Sorry Bjorn, you blew it.
Take a look at what happens here. We have an ex-government official quoted indirectly, followed by the direct quote of a professor citing to unnamed sources. If this had been a Reuters article, it would have been carrion beside the road. For all we know, the press is trying to drive a wedge between their government and ours. Anybody see that happen before?
Instead, we must be reminded of WWII as if it has any bearing on this article . . . so who's the Quisling? The professor? The ex-official?
You must be the most stupid guy on the forum if you judge a whole country by the opinion of 2%. The Nazis were not well liked. I know histories from my home town. The son of the Postman was shot on the Bus. There were resistant elements all our.
So either you are completely stupid or you are misinformed.
The UN as most here on FR understand is worse than worthless in dealing with security threats such as terrorism and WMD proliferation to rogue nations.
An alliance of countries that are committed to the principles of freely-elected governments, a stable and peaceful world order, freedom of religion (or non-religion), etc. is desperately needed, now, to deal effectively with these threats.
In other words, NATO plus Japan, Australia, etc.
The major stumbling block to this is European public opinion, which flatters itself with selfish conceits about American "warmongering," rapacious "Anglo-Saxon" economies, the evils of American-led "globalism," etc., which are excuses used to allow the Europeans not to have to bear their share of the burden of global security.
For those interested in NATO who might have missed this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623994/posts
* * * * *
NATO debates giving special status to Pacific-rim countries(AUS,JPN,SK,NZ)
defensetalk.com ^
SOFIA: A US push to give special NATO partnerships to Australia and other Pacific-rim allies ran into trouble at a top-level meeting due to end Friday after European members voiced scepticism, diplomats said.
The proposal would see Australia, New Zealand and possibly Japan and South Korea extended privileged status with NATO that would reflect their active role in some Alliance missions while stopping short of offering membership.
Foreign ministers from the 26-nation Alliance discussed the issue, among other topics, at a conference in the Bulgarian capital Sofia that began Thursday.
But diplomats attending said several ministers from big European states were balking at the idea of NATO extending its influence into Asia.
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking after a first round of talks, tried to allay those fears.
"NATO does not aim to turn itself into a global policeman, but if you look at the threats we are faced with today, they are of a global nature," he said.
"There is a difference between a global alliance and an alliance with global partners," he insisted.
He and other NATO officials also emphasised that the ministers were just discussing possibilities and would not be making formal decisions in Sofia.
Nevertheless, some NATO members made it clear they were against the idea from the beginning.
"We're talking about what? The Pacific, Taiwan? ... That risks upsetting China and Russia," one diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.
"If it's about creating a global club meant to solve all the world's problems, the Europeans are wary," another said.
Their fields are already in rapid depletion, along with their income.
Hey Norway, what have you done for me lately?
I'm thinking the White House is really quite PO'ed with Norway at the moment.
Color me sceptical. Relations do ebb and flow, I'll admit. Witness Canada and Germany. Germany is an interesting example, however. Chancellor Merkel visited the WH, made a comment about Gitmo that the press spun into a disagreement, and the knee-jerk brigade here hit it hook, line and sinker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.