Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 04, 2016, 01:12:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Should NATO be abolished?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Should NATO be abolished?
Yes   -20 (55.6%)
No   -16 (44.4%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 36

Author Topic: Should NATO be abolished?  (Read 5675 times)
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2641


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« on: March 09, 2012, 10:31:39 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26090
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2012, 10:39:31 pm »
Ignore

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

accept no imitations

(unless you post at the toxic place)
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2012, 10:40:03 pm »
Ignore

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

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2641


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2012, 10:45:33 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2012, 10:48:44 pm »
Ignore

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

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26090
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2012, 10:55:55 pm »
Ignore

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

accept no imitations

(unless you post at the toxic place)
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15690
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2012, 11:24:06 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22374
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2012, 05:12:08 am »
Ignore

Pointless idea.
Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25600
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -6.61

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2012, 12:00:40 pm »
Ignore

Yes yes yes.
Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2697
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2012, 05:39:28 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7115
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2012, 06:20:01 pm »
Ignore

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

politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10310
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2012, 06:21:27 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 10:14:44 am by politicus »Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2697
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2012, 06:50:58 pm »
Ignore

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
Jante's Law Revivalist
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42191
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2012, 06:52:34 pm »
Ignore

Pointless idea.

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


"The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald [Drumpf] is defeated and defeated badly."

Bernie Sanders, 06/14/2016
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10310
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2012, 07:15:24 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26090
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2012, 11:18:25 pm »
Ignore

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

accept no imitations

(unless you post at the toxic place)
Voter #652
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 78389
France


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2012, 02:46:21 am »
Ignore

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

k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11892
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2012, 04:36:58 am »
Ignore

Yes.
Logged
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10310
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2012, 04:53:44 pm »
Ignore

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

Squidward Scissorhands
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7479
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2012, 08:16:58 pm »
Ignore

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

dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26090
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2012, 11:19:22 pm »
Ignore

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

accept no imitations

(unless you post at the toxic place)
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines