Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 02:32:53 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Should NATO be disbanded?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Poll
Question: .
Yes   -13 (50%)
No   -13 (50%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: Should NATO be disbanded?  (Read 4780 times)
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8102
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2010, 10:54:13 pm »
Ignore


Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west.  

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

U.S. relations with China aren't that bad, actually. It's more of an on-and-off thing, similar to how many romantic couples act. They have feelings of both love and hate for each other. BTW, isn't the U.S. worried about losing it's influence in Asia? That's partially why we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and several other Asian countries, despite the fact that WWII and the Cold War are already over for a relatively long time.

I don't think we should have "influence" anywhere, through military means.  That is something called imperialism.

Look, I have no problem with selling weapons to Taiwan. We have done it for over 60 years and China didn't retaliate since. I am actually in favor of the U.S. selling specific (though not all) weapons to any country who wants them, even North Korea or Iran. That was, the govt. can make more money and thus be much more fiscally responsible. However, I am againt the U.S. having its military stationed in any foreign country, unless it is on a specific mission to protect American citizens (like Afghanistan). I think that South Korea and Japan can protect themselves. Besides, who is going to attack them? Russia? China? Indonesia? I don't see any attack on South Korea or Japan happening within my lifetime, regardless of whether or not the U.S. has troops stationed there. I seriously doubt even North Korea will attack South Korea or Japan.

Holy sh*t I actually agree with you on something.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2010, 11:15:18 pm »
Ignore


Roch--  I hear you.  I was not necessarily expecting a military defeat.  I was expecting the inauguration of a wider war, possibly with Russia. And even without that, I certainly did NOT expect the Balkan intervention to happen without one single U.S. casualty.  That, above all else, is the most amazing facet of that little experiment.  Not sure who to credit for that...Wes Clark? The Clinton Administration?  Our soldiers and airmen?  Dunno...but I am happy it played out the way it has.

I understand your fear of U.S. casualties but how come you thought Russia was going to step into the conflict? First of all, Russia does not border the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the USSR didn't necessarily have the best relations with Yugoslavia. Third, why would Russia care about what happens in the former Yugoslavia? It was a pretty poor region (especially back then), and it wasn't even under the USSR's sphere of influence during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't want to start a war with the U.S. over some small countries that have little importance to Russia, and Russia had it's own fair share of problems back then. Finally, I'm sure Yeltsin remembered what helping Serbia in 1914 and expanding WWI resulted in for Russia--two revolutions, massive genocide, and 75 years of economic stagnation. To be honest, I never heard anyone else saying that they thought bombing Bosnia would lead to a war with Russia. This is the first time I heard of this opinion. Of course, I was a small child back then, so maybe this sentiment and opinion was much more widespread in the early-mid 1990s than I think it was.

Were you alive back then?

There was a lot of concern that Russia would flex what military muscle she had in defense of her historic allies in the region. Russo-Serbian ties go back long before the Cold War.

We got lucky, in that Russia -- at the time -- didn't even have gasoline to powers its military vehicles.  If I didn't know that at the time, I sure learned it quickly. But the major concern would have been disabusing the United States of the notion that Europe was a place where it could work its will.  The notion of spheres of influence is one that is still cherished in some parts of the world. Russia has never liked us flaunting our military power in an area it considers more its backyard than our own.

My primary objection, however, was that England, France and other NATO countries were more than capable of doing the job themselves...without our help.  And I have long insisted that, when practicable, Europe should be permitted to tend to her own problems without the much-resented input of her cousins to the west.  

Which is why I think America's foreign policy is putting the American people at risk.  We're risking a Cold War with China over selling weapons to Taiwan.  I ask, which of these would be more beneficial to the American people?

1) Cut off relations with China.  No pencils or other cheap goods.  Potential for nuclear annihilation.

2) Taiwan having weapons.

China is a big baby--it always complains about America's close ties with Taiwan but never does anything real about it because they known that their economy is as dependent on the U.S. as the American economy is on China.

I don't think the potential risk is worth supplying the Republic of China with arms.  As I asked, how exactly does our support for the tiny country benefit the American people?  Wouldn't it be better to not have hostile relations with a country with over a billion people, the largest army in the world, and nukes?

U.S. relations with China aren't that bad, actually. It's more of an on-and-off thing, similar to how many romantic couples act. They have feelings of both love and hate for each other. BTW, isn't the U.S. worried about losing it's influence in Asia? That's partially why we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and several other Asian countries, despite the fact that WWII and the Cold War are already over for a relatively long time.

I don't think we should have "influence" anywhere, through military means.  That is something called imperialism.

Look, I have no problem with selling weapons to Taiwan. We have done it for over 60 years and China didn't retaliate since. I am actually in favor of the U.S. selling specific (though not all) weapons to any country who wants them, even North Korea or Iran. That was, the govt. can make more money and thus be much more fiscally responsible. However, I am againt the U.S. having its military stationed in any foreign country, unless it is on a specific mission to protect American citizens (like Afghanistan). I think that South Korea and Japan can protect themselves. Besides, who is going to attack them? Russia? China? Indonesia? I don't see any attack on South Korea or Japan happening within my lifetime, regardless of whether or not the U.S. has troops stationed there. I seriously doubt even North Korea will attack South Korea or Japan.

Holy sh*t I actually agree with you on something.

I know. Shocking, isn't it? Looks like we're not so different after all. I'm a hawk in general, believing that the U.S. should always retain force as an option in order to handle a particular threat. However, I am against stationing our military in other countries since there is no need for it now that the Cold War is over (even though I would have supported it during the Cold War). Also, I am against pointless wars with no clear objective, such as Vietnam and Iraq. Finally, if we would remove our troops from South Korea and Japan and North Korea would attack either of them or both, then the U.S. should be able to reinstate its troops in those two countries, but not before. I mean, honestly, why do we need to have several tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany other than to please the military-industrial complex? There was a need for the U.S. to station its troops in Germany during the Cold War, but there is no need to do that right now.
Logged

Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9784
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2010, 04:54:24 am »
Ignore

some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang).
All of the "important" Euro countries have very competent, modern militaries that are man for man, on par with the US.  Yes, even the best rely too much on the US for force projection, but I wouldn't want to fight any majorish war without the help of the UK and Germany.

The UK has a very competent military. Germany?

No idea.  I know that in the Balkan conflict there was some sort of caveat disallowing the presence of German, Italian or Hungarian troops outside their own borders.  I seem to remember that as a reason for them not participating on the ground.  (Well, Hungary wasn't yet part of NATO anyway.)  Italy did some flight mission work but I think Germany stayed out entirely.  At least until combat was clearly over.

I could be wrong, but I think now there are even some non NATO forces on the ground there...Ireland, to be specific. 

Ireland has been in KFOR since 1999.
Most of the other European neutrals are also there (Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland).
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do
Old Europe
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5734


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2010, 10:27:18 am »
Ignore

BRTD, you're looking the wrong way:

Some might say Iran.  Some might say China.  Some might say N. Korea.  Some might even say ourselves.  All of those are big threats, no doubt, but I've got my eye on a country we've had trouble with before--GERMANY.

The reason I say Germany is our biggest threat is due to the Euro.  France and Germany were in cahoots in creating the Euro.  They created the Euro to force all the European nations to come under one currency so the Germans and the French could "currency-gouge" the rest of Europe and force them to break loose of the grip of the Euro.  Plus, in my opinion, Germany did not learn its lesson from World War II and the United States failed to completely stabilize the country mainly because stupidly got ourselves into a Pacific theater with Japan. (Japan wasn't our biggest enemy in WW2, we made them our biggest enemy.)  If America had done things right like befriend Japan (they wanted to be our friend in the late 1930s), we may have been able to avoid Pearl Harbor.  Since Pearl Harbor happened our focus had to mainly shift out to the Pacific and thus the European theater ended a good 5 months before the Pacific theater.  We didn't treat the Germans with a whole lot of respect coming out WW2 and during the Cold War.  That's part of the reason they decided to initiate the Euro some 50 years after the suicide of Hitler.  I can very easily see another German attack on France in the coming years and I can see them linking arms with Italy again and plunge the world back into World War 3 in the next 10-15 years.

Epic post! I regret that I missed that particular thread.



I LOLed at that particular part:

We didn't treat the Germans with a whole lot of respect coming out WW2 and during the Cold War.  That's part of the reason they decided to initiate the Euro some 50 years after the suicide of Hitler.



I can very easily see another German attack on France in the coming years and I can see them linking arms with Italy again and plunge the world back into World War 3 in the next 10-15 years.

Neither is very likely, but I guess the chances are a bit higher that Germany allies with France and attacks Italy and not the other way around. Tongue

Anyway, did BushOklahoma manage to explain how Germany will overcome France's nuclear strike capabilities within the next ten years? Wink
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 10:47:47 am by Old Europe »Logged

Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5914
France


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2010, 10:53:21 am »
Ignore

I could support US involved as an equal partner in certain projects like Haiti or Afgahanistan.  But I would like to know when other rich nations are going to kick in.

In fact, France tried in Haiti, but it has been kicked out by US...

Also, amusing this debate on Yusgoslavian wars, like if, of course, US had just been here to make European countries benefiting of its generous presence and help, there were of course no strategic ideas of influence or domination behind it, how could we just try to envisage it?? It's just that poor Europeans that have been totally unable to do something... But no, wait, Euros were in NATO, the US military tool, too bad. What if European nations could have tried to build a military alliance to do something there, that could have been a beginning for an actual Euro Force, did US tried to evocate this idea to Euros or they preferred directly 'offering' their help?

Oh, and, I see that people in US use to continue to speak of the world like if it was their Risk map, you just don't get it that this is one of your problems with other countries, do you?
Logged

14/01/2011: Tunisia
11/02/2011: Egypt
20/10/2011: Libya
??/??/2013: Syria??

Money became totally unfair.
Money became totally senseless.
Let's make Money totally useless...

??/??/20??: EU UU!
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21912
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2010, 11:00:34 am »
Ignore

Quote
Also, amusing this debate on Yusgoslavian wars, like if, of course, US had just been here to make European countries benefiting of its generous presence and help, there were of course no strategic ideas of influence or domination behind it

Is this a problem? We got the job done, die we not?

Quote
It's just that poor Europeans that have been totally unable to do something... But no, wait, Euros were in NATO, the US military tool, too bad.


European countries joined NATO voluntarily and have certainly benefited greatly from it during the Cold War. Are you saying that NATO serves only American interests?

Quote
What if European nations could have tried to build a military alliance to do something there, that could have been a beginning for an actual Euro Force, did US tried to evocate this idea to Euros or they preferred directly 'offering' their help?

You really believe in an American conspiracy to prevent a unified Europe? Now I oppose European federalism, even from a European perspective...but I highly doubt that Bill Clinton's reason for sending troops was to keep Europe from organizing themselves.

Quote
Oh, and, I see that people in US use to continue to speak of the world like if it was their Risk map, you just don't get it that this is one of your problems with other countries, do you?

What is the U.S. supposed to do, deny any strategic involvement in foreign affairs whatsoever? Of course our own interests define our foreign policy to an extent, but which country's does not?

Although accusing the U.S. of imperialism is always a way out of any argument in Europe, right? That's at least my experience in Germany.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8102
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: February 19, 2010, 11:32:39 am »
Ignore

Quote
What is the U.S. supposed to do, deny any strategic involvement in foreign affairs whatsoever? Of course our own interests define our foreign policy to an extent, but which country's does not?

The countries that don't have troops in 130 foreign countries, and the largest defense budgets in the world.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5914
France


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2010, 11:35:06 am »
Ignore

Quote
Also, amusing this debate on Yusgoslavian wars, like if, of course, US had just been here to make European countries benefiting of its generous presence and help, there were of course no strategic ideas of influence or domination behind it

Is this a problem? We got the job done, die we not?

Oh, did I contested the fact that some job hasn't been done?

Just found amusing that people on here were all 'oh luckily we gave an hand to that poor Europeans', as if it had just been something generous from the US.

Quote
It's just that poor Europeans that have been totally unable to do something... But no, wait, Euros were in NATO, the US military tool, too bad.


European countries joined NATO voluntarily and have certainly benefited greatly from it during the Cold War. Are you saying that NATO serves only American interests?


Still about the fact that people wondered why Euros didn't take initiative, I just meant they were already in a military alliance, NATO, and no, it didn't only serve US interests but it is largely dominated by US, and given we were in it, maybe that's why we didn't have a lot of initiative, still answering here to the blame that people here would put on us. Didn't Nixon said something like: 'In fact NATO is the only efficient international organization because it is led by US'?

Quote
What if European nations could have tried to build a military alliance to do something there, that could have been a beginning for an actual Euro Force, did US tried to evocate this idea to Euros or they preferred directly 'offering' their help?

You really believe in an American conspiracy to prevent a unified Europe? Now I oppose European federalism, even from a European perspective...but I highly doubt that Bill Clinton's reason for sending troops was to keep Europe from organizing themselves.

Oh, did I speak about conspiracy? Geostrategical decisions in order to maintain the domination of oneself on an area would maybe fit better. Something that you seem to be aware of if I read the rest of your post. Or US is really that wonderful state that thinks first to the interests of others before its own...

The point being, did US tried to let us the initiative there, or did they take it?

Quote
Oh, and, I see that people in US use to continue to speak of the world like if it was their Risk map, you just don't get it that this is one of your problems with other countries, do you?

What is the U.S. supposed to do, deny any strategic involvement in foreign affairs whatsoever? Of course our own interests define our foreign policy to an extent, but which country's does not?

k, and sure, countries use to do that, so please people don't do as if all what you do where guided by a great generosity, please.

Although accusing the U.S. of imperialism is always a way out of any argument in Europe, right? That's at least my experience in Germany.

Then you recognize yourself US were guided by their own interests, you said in an extent, I say to a major extent, as any country would, yes. This plus the fact US doesn't let a lot of initiative to others, how will we call that? Will that now be forbidden to speak about the concept of imperialism just because it has been overused? What a weird reason for a censor.

US would act as any other country, the fact that it became the more powerful make it having imperialist behaviors, I just don't like hypocrisy and when the one does as if it was just some kind of 'generosity'.

But, anyways, that's not because it has already been done that it has to be done again or that it has to be encouraged, especially when you claim for being 'generous', maybe it would be time to try to make it just be a bit...coherent.

You can also encourage the development of an actual international cooperation for those really interested in spreading their generosity, by trying to develop the power of UN, something that US haven't done a lot, not to say more likely the opposite.

Also, it is changing, look at EU for example, that's the exact opposite, it gives a lot and not for its interest, which is as much a problem, because since it only gives some money but without having some actual power, it is some waste that lead to statu quo at best.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 11:37:55 am by Bunoah »Logged

14/01/2011: Tunisia
11/02/2011: Egypt
20/10/2011: Libya
??/??/2013: Syria??

Money became totally unfair.
Money became totally senseless.
Let's make Money totally useless...

??/??/20??: EU UU!
Mos Definite
President Gary Busey
Rookie
*
Posts: 33
United States


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: February 20, 2010, 07:32:10 pm »
Ignore

No, I think NATO still has its place.
Logged

Economic score: 1.12
Social score: -3.54
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines