A present for Hobbes

[Jimmywax]

I just found this was definatly intrigued. I did not know that the Canadians had any special forces. This is definatly the first I had heard of the JTF2. I think they could have thought up a better name for them though. Congrats, you guys finally have a team to cheer for.
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/kosovo2/jtf2.html

I also found some other cools links that will be a help for anyone making a modern age scenario or a Afghan war scenario.:tank: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/strategy/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/military_fact_files/default.stm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/interactive/weapons/frameset.exclude.html

 

[Case]

Does any western country not have special forces in Afganistan now? I've read that even New Zealand has sent troops (50 odd members of their SAS).

 

[Jimmywax]

Does Mexico count. or are they considered third world? How about Norway and Sweeden I don't think any of their guys are there.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I think Norway even could have forces there, as it's in the NATO. Sweden isn't.

...

Iceland will most definately have no forces there, as it has no army...

 

[Hobbesmaphone]

Awesome!
No one ever expects the Canadians... he he he....

 

[Jimmywax]

Originally posted by Hobbesmaphone
Awesome!
No one ever expects the Canadians... he he he....

Yes, much like the Spanish inquisition and their big comfy chairs!

 

[H Tower]

does any western country not have special forces in afghanistan?

i don't think Germany does, only because they're under treaty restiction or something. it dates back to their surrender after world war 2, nobody wanted another spain type problem or something like that. i remeber there was something in the news during the gulf war about how germany couldn't send troops.

 

[Rhodry]

yep, also, Japan's constitution forbids any military action

 

[Jimmywax]

I think they can send peacekeeping troops though, unlike the Japanese who can only send laundry washing troops. I believe that german troops were used in post-Milosovic Yugoslavia. I am not certain on this though.

 

[BeBro]

Originally posted by H Tower


i don't think Germany does, only because they're under treaty restiction or something. it dates back to their surrender after world war 2, nobody wanted another spain type problem or something like that. i remeber there was something in the news during the gulf war about how germany couldn't send troops.

This policy has changed in the last years, especially since the Kosovo mission. German special forces, the KSK, were active there.

Theoretically, every participation of Bundeswehr troops outside the NATO area needs a special permission from our parlament, but under certain circumstances it is possible to make operations without asking the parlament. There were many rumours here about an involvement of KSK units in Afghanistan, because some of the aid workers from "Shelter Now" who were hold as hostages by the Taliban where Germans. However, our government never acknowledged anything...

 

[H Tower]

Originally posted by BeBro

Theoretically, every participation of Bundeswehr troops outside the NATO area needs a special permission from our parlament,

what is defined as the "NATO area"?

 

[Case]

Originally posted by H Tower


what is defined as the "NATO area"?

There's an exact geographical definition in the NATO Treaty itself, but basically it's Europe, the North Atlantic and North America (I *think*). Essentially the treaty binds the NATO members to co-ordinated action in only that area (for example the 1991 Gulf War wasn't a NATO operation as it was conducted outside the NATO area, but the 1999 air campaign against Serbia came under NATO authority.)

 

[H Tower]

you'd live up to your self appointed title of geek better if you gave the exact boundaries Case

i was just wondering if they had changed since the eastern european nations started joining NATO.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by H Tower
you'd live up to your self appointed title of geek better if you gave the exact boundaries Case

Here you go: (taken from the on-line text of NATO Treaty at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)

Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5 [which reads that an attack on one member is an attack on all members], an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; [this is why NATO wasn't invoked for the Falklands War]
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.