Should NATO be abolished?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:57:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should NATO be abolished?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should NATO be abolished?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 37

Author Topic: Should NATO be abolished?  (Read 7908 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 09, 2012, 10:31:39 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Yes.

The USSR is gone and even if it wasn't, the other European countries could defend themselves against it.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2012, 10:39:31 PM »

No.  Even if they can defend themselves against any likely threat, it still doesn't hurt to be friends with a lot of like minded nations.  If nothing else it makes them less likely to start sh**t with each other.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2012, 10:40:03 PM »

forest for the trees question life ends barriers onto the reef come to believe in the process.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2012, 10:45:33 PM »

No.  Even if they can defend themselves against any likely threat, it still doesn't hurt to be friends with a lot of like minded nations.  If nothing else it makes them less likely to start sh**t with each other.

Since when is a military partnership a requirement "to be friends"?

forest for the trees question life ends barriers onto the reef come to believe in the process.

Put down the crack if you wish to communicate.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2012, 10:48:44 PM »

hand in your chest?  hand in your existence... push along, push along young squire!  we don't know who you are and as such we romanticize... you are our text-back after a given time, a saviour
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2012, 10:55:55 PM »

No.  Even if they can defend themselves against any likely threat, it still doesn't hurt to be friends with a lot of like minded nations.  If nothing else it makes them less likely to start sh**t with each other.

Since when is a military partnership a requirement "to be friends"?
It's not, but it certainly makes friends closer.  It's better to have more close friends versus fewer distant friends.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2012, 11:24:06 PM »

So long as Russia remains under its authoritarian regime -whether under Putin or one of his minions- it will always present itself as a potential threat to Europe through its sheer proximity to the continent, thus understating the continued importance of NATO (and by extension, the United States) in protecting it. 

So the answer is 'no', it should not be disbanded -yet. 
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2012, 05:12:08 AM »

Pointless idea.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2012, 12:00:40 PM »

Yes yes yes.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2012, 05:39:28 PM »

No - it would be preferable to rename the organization and encourage states participating in the Partnership for Peace (especially Russia) to join. However - falling short of that - I get the feeling that NATO tends to drive a wedge between between First and some ex-Second World countries.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2012, 06:20:01 PM »

Abolishing IGOs ultimately means that they're less ways for political science majors to make money after graduation.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2012, 06:21:27 PM »
« Edited: March 12, 2012, 10:14:44 AM by politicus »

NATO helps make the Baltic countries and Poland feel save from potential Russian aggression, which is a good thing - even if Russian aggression is highly unlikely. Otherwise paranoid nationalists will be too powerfull in those countries.
Plus it is binding Turkey to the Western world. Since it is increasingly unlikely that Turkey will be able to join the EU it is vital to have NATO for binding the Turks to the West.
NATO's command structure is also a usefull framework for conducting joint international military operations. Obviously the US will play a smaller part in the defence of Europe in the long run with increased military cooperation in the EU, but I see no point in abolishing NATO all together.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2012, 06:50:58 PM »

I get the feeling that NATO tends to drive a wedge between between First and some ex-Second World countries.
What do you mean? The "Second World" is the Americas.

In an outmoded Cold War context, some Americans use the term First World in reference to the arguably "capitalist" countries advocating liberal or social democracy, Second World as a label for countries deemed "communist" advocating Marxist-Leninist ideologies, and Third World to describe unaligned, mostly developing countries not an integral part of the geopolitical struggle. Many folks might have a different understanding of it though. In the States, I reckon the Old World refers to Europe, Asia, and Africa while the New World is in reference to the Americas.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2012, 06:52:34 PM »


If any, the supporters of keeping NATO are the ones who need to demostrate the point of their idea.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2012, 07:15:24 PM »


If any, the supporters of keeping NATO are the ones who need to demostrate the point of their idea.
Frodo and I just did.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2012, 11:18:25 PM »

What do you mean? The "Second World" is the Americas.
Nope.  Second World
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue is 1st
Red is 2nd
Green is 3rd
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2012, 02:46:21 AM »

No, because it served as embarrassment to Bush when most NATO countries opposed invading Iraq.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2012, 04:36:58 AM »

Yes.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2012, 04:53:44 PM »

It is  shame that this thread seems to be dead. We never really got around to a real debate and it is an interesting topic. But no arguments from the NATO opponents.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2012, 08:16:58 PM »

Yeah, it's a leftover from the Cold War that's gotten stale.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2012, 11:19:22 PM »

I can't believe "yes" is winning when they've given nothing for an argument other than "cold war leftover" derp.  Decaying NIKE missile sites are a cold war leftovers.  Tens of thousands of square boring apartment buildings dotted across the ex-Soviet Union are Cold War leftovers.  NATO is the most important alliance of "good" nations there is.  You can make some decent arguments against expansion (I'd disagree, but that doesn't mean they are bad arguments), but to say it should go away is....well, I don't know what it is, but it certainly doesn't make any sense.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 14 queries.