Talk Elections

I'd say No. However, the reason I am asking this question is because NATO was originally created to confront the Soviet Union, and since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, many people say that NATO is no longer needed and should thus be disbanded.

Yes.  The United States should avoid these useless peacetime alliances.

Of course not; it should be expanded and have its mission reoriented.

It serves no benefit to the American people to go abroad and spend their tax dollars to defend an "ally" that was invaded.  If it wasn't for us defending one of our "allies" there would still probably be a World Trade Center.  For most of our history, we were able to survive and thrive as a country without these entangling alliances.

Yeah, what has Poland ever done for us?  And it's not like the west hasn't turned their collective backs on them before.  Really, the Kurds, Jews, etc should be used to it by now.

Yes

How exactly does a missile shield in Poland or a billion dollars of aid to Israel benefit the American people?  If anything it just puts them at a greater risk.  The terrorist attacks on September 11th happened because of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, which stems from our support for Israel, and our hand in the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government, as well as half a million dead Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions.

What exactly does Poland need defending from? Please don't make yourself into a joke by going on some delusional Putin/Russia rant.

BRTD, you're looking the wrong way:

Yes.


Good point BRTD. I couldn't agree more.

Deadman, we give you Kosciuszko and Pulaski :P

Yes.  And the US should withdraw from the UN.  The amount of taxpayer money we pour into that sh*thole of useless fail is treasonous.

Yes. It is an entangling alliance, a militarist warmongering organisation and a waste of money.

And so pouring taxpayer money into defending freedom, democracy, and human rights, as well as supporting our "allies," isn't?

Absolutely not.

It is expanding and its mission is being reoriented.

It doesn't benefit it us to have more alive Latvians and Finns?  Thanks for the history lesson though.Yeah, there is no chance in hell of the bear turning into a bigger dick if NATO goes away...no chance of that at all.

I'm glad the people you guys vote for have more balls than you do.

There is no chance of Russia invading Poland. The thought is downright comical. This reminds me of that troll with his "Russia will invade Alaska and Obama will do nothing about it" nonsense. Have you forgotten that Poland is an EU member, oh yeah that's right those Europeans are all wusses who always surrender. Actually the more relevant issue is that there is absolutely no reason or nothing to gain from Russia invading Poland, certainly nothing that would make up for their status as a pariah state afterwards that would result in an economic collapse, that they don't share a border (and no Belarus is not a Russian puppet state anymore than Canada is an American one) and that the Russian military can barely handle its own internal conflicts (they got beat by Chechnya for quite awhile.) Please note that even the Polish poster here knows that. I'm pretty sure if you were to poll Poland you'd find that fear of a Russian invasion is pretty low on their list of worries.

Seriously, if you think something this outrageous is likely you're going to need a more logical argument than "The leaders of Russia are dicks"

Oh yeah they do have a border. Still that little exclave isn't a strong area to launch an invasion from. And the EU may not be military alliance, but it doesn't mean there would be serious economic repercussions for Russia. EU countries would also be giving tons of arms to the Poles and the guerrilla warfare there would be nasty. Worse than Chechnya because its a much larger country. Meanwhile they gain virtually nothing from it.

No, there isn't. Don't use sarcasm to disguise idiocy.

You seem to have more faith in Putin than is warranted.

Putin has never once made a stupid move. That's why he's in power today.

Sure, Putin knows how to hold onto and consolidate his own power.  This frequently does not intersect with Western interests. Without a strong counter balance I see no reason why Putin would not push his hand.

Because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from invading Poland? As pointed out before, if Chechnya could give so much pain to Russia, imagine what a country several times the size would do.

The only person in Russia who seriously talks about this is that Zhirovnovsky nut.

NATO is perfectly ok; however, the UN is awful.

Won't be disbanded, they will officially change the name and the mission, maybe the League of Nations for Freedom, or something like that, the kind of stuffs Giulliani and Mc Cain spoke about in 2008 then, well at least if UN doesn't become stronger in a near future, that would happen...

A Russia is not a danger at all with Medvedev as president, Medvedev is your friend, he hasn't stopped to oppose and criticize Putin during the last months, but, when Putin will be back in 2012, what would happen if no big changes, he would certainly not invade Poland, but he could enjoy the...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VwkyrTb6go

Yes, NATO's reason for existence disappeared twenty years ago.

An historic moment in Atlas history.  I agree with Libertas. 

Even though I believe in firm and fierce retaliation for attacks like 9/11...and though I would certainly welcome the participation of any nation willing to aid in the capture of the mass murderers...NATO is a largely useless organization. 

Well, check that.  I see some sense in a European peacekeeping alliance, but one involving European nations and not relying on American/Canadian military or financial muscle.  This was my (very unpopular) position when Clinton joined us to the Balkan peacekeeping effort.  How was this an American sphere of influence?  Why couldn't France, Britain and the rest run the show and get the job done?  (I think they would have done just fine.)

That said, I gotta be honest.  I've never seen a military operation so expected to fail turn out so successfully.  And bloodlessly.

Careful now, I might start to like you.

It's been known to happen.  But I promise to back some big government welfare program in short order!  ;-)

Nah, I am not an interventionist but I am a hawk when the country is attacked.  And I hate to say it, but I am still guided by the old-fashioned notion that war should be hell.  Not because I believe in retribution.  But because, like Robert E. Lee, I believe "it is a good thing war is so terrible, lest men grow too fond of it."

I don't get why you thought the Yugoslav operation would be a failure. All Clinton had to do was bomb Serbia/Yugoslavia and force them to withdraw from Bosnia. It wasn't that hard and it was relatively quick and with few casualties. And BTW, I agree with Clinton's justification that a genocide cannot occur in NATO's backyard and that it would be too traumatizing for Europeans to see another genocide occur on their soil so many years after the horrors of WWII have ended. I wish Clinton would have done more to stop the Rwandan Genocide, but the thing is that the media constantly showed the war and genocide in Bosnia (and later Kosovo) while virtually ignoring the Rwandan Genocide.

I'm the same way.  I think that we were initially justified in going to Afghanistan, in order to anally rape Osama bin Laden (not literally).  However, we are not justified in remaining in order to stabilize the country, or whatever.

Pretty much agreed.  Nation building worked after WW 2 but there were actual nations in place before the devastation.  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.

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.

Whether NATO is disbanded or not, will not make much difference, since nations act in concert when they want to, and don't when they don't, irrespective of what pieces of paper say, or organizational structures being in place that can theoretically be used, but in fact are almost ceremonial at this point (part of the "problem" is that there are very few militaries around now in a high tech world that can effectively project their power much anyway; some of the European militaries are welfare schemes where the troops do make work, and are probably less "dangerous" than a street gang). It is kind of a moot point at this point.

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.

Don't forget the massive French military. French power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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. 

The UK has a very competent military. Germany?

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.

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. 

As I previously mentioned (see bold) I was alive back then. However, I knew absolutely nothing about politics. I understand your concern that Europe should worry about it's own problems. However, European leaders needed guidance and direction from the U.S. (despite having the ability to handle it themselves) because they were very scared to use their militaries in almsot any instance after WWII (and it is understandable why). Thus, was Clinton supposed to say no to them? What else could Clinton have done--push the Europeans harder? I'm not sure that would have worked, and he probably pushed them as much as he would. Besides, the media was constantly showing the Bosnian War (I believe) and thus he would have looked really bad if he sat on his butt and did nothing about it.

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.

Yes, it should.

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 way, 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.

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

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



I LOLed at that particular part:





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. :P

Anyway, did BushOklahoma manage to explain how Germany will overcome France's nuclear strike capabilities within the next ten years? ;)

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?

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



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?


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.


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.

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.



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'?


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?


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.


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.

No, I think NATO still has its place.