Should NATO be abolished?

[greenforest32]

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.

[dead0man]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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

[greenforest32]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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

[dead0man]

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.

[Frodo]

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. 

[I left.]

Pointless idea.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Yes yes yes.

[Redalgo]

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.

[Boris]

Abolishing IGOs ultimately means that they're less ways for political science majors to make money after graduation.

[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.

[Redalgo]

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.

[Californian Tony]

Pointless idea.

If any, the supporters of keeping NATO are the ones who need to demostrate the point of their idea.

[politicus]

Pointless idea.

If any, the supporters of keeping NATO are the ones who need to demostrate the point of their idea.

Frodo and I just did.

[dead0man]

What do you mean? The "Second World" is the Americas.

Nope.  Second World

The term "Second World" is a phrase used to describe the communist states within the Soviet Union's sphere of influence or those countries that had centrally-planned economies.[1] Along with "First World" and "Third World", the term was used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. In other words, the concept of "Second World" was a construct of the Cold War and the term has largely fallen out of use since the revolutions of 1989..

Blue is 1st
Red is 2nd
Green is 3rd

[So the Heroes Fall]

No, because it served as embarrassment to Bush when most NATO countries opposed invading Iraq.

[dialectical fetishist]

Yes.

[politicus]

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.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Yeah, it's a leftover from the Cold War that's gotten stale.

[dead0man]

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.