Should NATO be disbanded?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:05:32 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 disbanded?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: .
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Should NATO be disbanded?  (Read 8312 times)
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2010, 04:54:24 AM »

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
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2010, 10:27:18 AM »
« Edited: February 19, 2010, 10:47:47 AM by Old Europe »

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
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2010, 10:53:21 AM »

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
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2010, 11:00:34 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this 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?

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2010, 11:32:39 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The countries that don't have troops in 130 foreign countries, and the largest defense budgets in the world.
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2010, 11:35:06 AM »
« Edited: February 19, 2010, 11:37:55 AM by Bunoah »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.


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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
You must be logged in to read this 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?

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.

Logged
Mos Definite
President Gary Busey
Rookie
**
Posts: 33
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2010, 07:32:10 PM »

No, I think NATO still has its place.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« 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 0.039 seconds with 13 queries.