Do we really need NATO?

[Mexture]

Please tell us your opinion about NATO.
Is it really necessary to the world, or it is just an excuse to create more conflicts around the world?

[lycanox]

I think it lost its reason to exist after the fall of the soviet union and should have been disbanded back then.

[MaximumPain]

NATO has been a force for peace in Europe and still serves to make major conflicts unwinable by any aggressors.

[Traveler]

Take it away and it will very soon have to be replaced with something else come the next crisis.

Why waist the money getting rid of it.

[lycanox]

NATO has been a force for peace in Europe and still serves to make major conflicts unwinable by any aggressors.

Thats the job of the UN not NATO.
At the moment NATO is more provoking conflicts with Russia than solving them.

[Traveler]

It would seem that Europe wants to scrap it and Americas not in the program yet.

If there is to be a NWO then there will need to be a one world army which means NATO would be obsolete as a regional force.

Politics and regional brainwashing in operation I think.

[Abyssal_Worm]

Thats the job of the UN not NATO.
At the moment NATO is more provoking conflicts with Russia than solving them.

I agree that it is supposed to be the role of the UN, but the UN Security Council is in perpetual deadlock due to most of the conflicts being caused by proxies of certain members of the council. It would be nice if the UN actually had some way of ensuring that peace existed throughout the world, but unfortunately that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Especially while certain member nations have veto authority and are permanent members on the council. The system just doesn't work. Really, it is more for show than anything else.

Considering that Europe was ravaged twice in the last century by extremely nasty wars, it seems like a very good idea for them to maintain a united front if for no other purpose than to discourage their neighbors form antagonizing them.

The EU is an option, but if a nation doesn't want to become entangled with the rule and regulations of becoming a member nation then they deserve to look for an alternative measure for diplomatic peace. NATO gives them that option.

At the same time however, the NATO charter is often abused by certain nations as a means for forcing their agenda upon others. Not so much the NATO agenda, but the instigators agenda.

[IsisNicole]

NWO is coming ...totalitarian rule is coming...Big brother listens, tracks and sees pretty much I would say 80% of what we do now....NATO or not we are all screwed either way

[MaximumPain]

Thats the job of the UN not NATO.
At the moment NATO is more provoking conflicts with Russia than solving them.

And by NATO you mean the USA of course. Do you as a European feel that the USA or Russia is more of a threat to Europe Lycanox?

[lycanox]

Actually I was more referring to Georgia, which president thought that NATO would support his attempts to bring some autonomic nations under his control and tried to use NATO to lure the west in a war with Russia.

And aside from the US Hague invasion act. Neither superpowers have concrete plans to invade Europe as a whole.

[Mezurashi]

NATO is one of those things, like Income Taxes and Daylight Savings Time, which were enacted in a time of crisis or war and which was Kept In Place long after the conditions which spawned it's creation are long gone.

NATO became something so huge that there are probably whole departments of it devoted to nothing but keeping itself in existence (like the IRS which uses up to 40% of it's yearly 'take' to prep the next years tax forms and feed its inner bureaucracy).

it is a beast created from Perceived Necessity and which has proven to be a cash cow for certain people in certain places ... it will never go away, though it might be morphed into a 'Newer, shinier organization.'

[MaximumPain]

NATO is one of those things, like Income Taxes and Daylight Savings Time, which were enacted in a time of crisis or war and which was Kept In Place long after the conditions which spawned it's creation are long gone.

I would like to see a world where there was no need for military alliances and I share the opinion that most of it is money wasted, However we still live in a dangerous world and an alliance of the free democracys is overall a good thing for trade, relations, and protection. NATO being so strong makes it extremely difficult for any other nation to aggress on Europe.

NATO became something so huge that there are probably whole departments of it devoted to nothing but keeping itself in existence (like the IRS which uses up to 40% of it's yearly 'take' to prep the next years tax forms and feed its inner bureaucracy).

Without a doubt there are expenditures in order to keep the organization afloat but that money would likely be spent on defense anyway so is wasted either way.

As for the 40% administration cost for the IRS?! It sounds like you pulled that number out of your ass. That is nearly half of the entire tax revenue of the USA if you are right then the outrage has been to little. Lets see a link on that or I just cant buy it.

it is a beast created from Perceived Necessity and which has proven to be a cash cow for certain people in certain places ... it will never go away, though it might be morphed into a 'Newer, shinier organization.'

"Perceived Necessity" implies that western Europe was under no threat from the Warsaw pact and that is just not true. It may be that that alliance and American Nukes were the only thing that prevented WWIII (and the desire of the leaders of the USSR not to annihilated).

[MaximumPain]

Actually I was more referring to Georgia, which president thought that NATO would support his attempts to bring some autonomic nations under his control and tried to use NATO to lure the west in a war with Russia.

Sorry about McCain and his advisers they did make that incident more dangerous then it would have otherwise been. Georgia is not a member of NATO and would receive no protection from the alliance. Most of the member nations would balk at an attempt to support a non member nation especially if it involved a war with Russia.

And aside from the weird US plans to invade Holland. Neither superpowers have concrete plans to invade Europe as a whole.

If you think the USA would invade the low countries then I think you need to stay out of those "coffee shops" in Amsterdam. America has yet to directly attack another Democracy. Russia knows they could never win a war against the EU backed up by the USA but that is partly due to the existence of NATO.

[lycanox]

I would like to see a world where there was no need for military alliances and I share the opinion that most of it is money wasted, However we still live in a dangerous world and an alliance of the free democracys is overall a good thing for trade, relations, and protection. NATO being so strong makes it extremely difficult for any other nation to aggress on Europe.

Whish country would want to invade europe that is actually dangerous enough to require an military force like NATO?

And again, modern NATO has more been a reason of conflict than a reason of peace.

Without a doubt there are expenditures in order to keep the organization afloat but that money would likely be spent on defense anyway so is wasted either way.

Expendures that are now wasted to combat an imaginary enemy.

"Perceived Necessity" implies that western Europe was under no threat from the Warsaw pact and that is just not true. It may be that that alliance and American Nukes were the only thing that prevented WWIII (and the desire of the leaders of the USSR not to annihilated).

That was the situation years ago. Not that of today.

You could argue similary about keeping an military presense in the north sea incase Spain or france decide they want europe back. Or a military presence in boston incase the english decide to take their collony back.

Sorry about McCain and his advisers they did make that incident more dangerous then it would have otherwise been. Georgia is not a member of NATO and would receive no protection from the alliance. Most of the member nations would balk at an attempt to support a non member nation especially if it involved a war with Russia.

However fact remains that a war broke out becouse a leader expected help from NATO.

If you think the USA would invade the low countries then I think you need to stay out of those "coffee shops" in Amsterdam. America has yet to directly attack another Democracy. Russia knows they could never win a war against the EU backed up by the USA but that is partly due to the existence of NATO

Then why do they threaten us with an invasion becouse we want to keep americans accountable for international law.

And when exactly, outside Nazi or US conspiracy theories did Russia concretely threaten western europe with an unprovoked invasion.

[MaximumPain]

Whish country would want to invade europe that is actually dangerous enough to require an military force like NATO?

Only Russia is even close, however the alliance also has the effect of keeping smaller countries inline by being much bigger and tougher then any one or two countries that could get into a conflict with one of the nations in the alliance.

And again, modern NATO has more been a reason of conflict than a reason of peace.

Give us another example besides Georgia where NATO has caused a conflict? Hell NATO didnt cause that the Georgians were just playing politics trying to get the Russians to back down NATO would have never supported action in Russia over Georgia.

Expendures that are now wasted to combat an imaginary enemy.

You just have no knowledge of military matters do you? Obviously two or more nations that have a defensive military alliance strengthen each other far more then if they spent the incidental amount to make the alliance able to cooperate on their own military.

That was the situation years ago. Not that of today.

Russia still has ample military force and the industrial capacity to produce major forces. Do think their government is as stable as those that exist in the NATO countries?

You could argue similary about keeping an military presense in the north sea incase Spain or france decide they want europe back. Or a military presence in boston incase the english decide to take their collony back.

Hahaha I love it when you reach Lyconox. So you think that Spain, France, and Russia all have equally stable governments?

However fact remains that a war broke out becouse a leader expected help from NATO.

His fault not NATOs. Also the very existence of NATO could have prevented a much larger escalation of that war.

Then why do they threaten us with an invasion becouse we want to keep americans accountable for international law.

Never heard about this do you have a link? America invade a NATO country? No way would that happen unless we get some kind destabilization of our government. The fact the America and Holland are members of NATO makes your little country pretty safe.

And when exactly, outside Nazi or US conspiracy theories did Russia concretely threaten western europe with an unprovoked invasion.

When they had the largest army in the world pointed right at West Germany's throat. When they oppressed the peoples of the Warsaw pact countries. Fuck dude you need to read some history all of that was hardly US conspiracy theory.

[lycanox]

[QUOTE=MaximumPain;287751]

Only Russia is even close, however the alliance also has the effect of keeping smaller countries inline by being much bigger and tougher then any one or two countries that could get into a conflict with one of the nations in the alliance.

Russia is not an enemy anymore. And the situation in Georgia suggests otherwise.

Give us another example besides Georgia where NATO has caused a conflict? Hell NATO didnt cause that the Georgians were just playing politics trying to get the Russians to back down NATO would have never supported action in Russia over Georgia.

How about the whole US missile shield, Kosovo, the illegal NATO presence in eastern Europe etc.

The whole organization is now actually achieving the opposite as it was intended for.

You just have no knowledge of military matters do you? Obviously two or more nations that have a defensive military alliance strengthen each other far more then if they spent the incidental amount to make the alliance able to cooperate on their own military.

Then they should work in the UN. Not in organizations for enemies that don't exist while feeding conflicts.

Russia still has ample military force and the industrial capacity to produce major forces. Do think their government is as stable as those that exist in the NATO countries?

So does America, the UK, France and Germany.
Should we create separate organizations to keep those in check as well in case they elect an madman.

Hahaha I love it when you reach Lyconox. So you think that Spain, France, and Russia all have equally stable governments?

There is no such thing as a stable government.

His fault not NATOs. Also the very existence of NATO could have prevented a much larger escalation of that war.

The war would still never have started if NATO didn't exist.

Never heard about this do you have a link? America invade a NATO country? No way would that happen unless we get some kind destabilization of our government. The fact the America and Holland are members of NATO makes your little country pretty safe.

Yet America does threaten to invade Holland in the American serviceman protection act. And being both a member of NATO never stopped Turkey and Greece from attacking each other.

When they had the largest army in the world pointed right at West Germany's throat. When they oppressed the peoples of the Warsaw pact countries. Fuck dude you need to read some history all of that was hardly US conspiracy theory.

That military build up was mostly a response to the allied build up and fears for an Allied invasion or an civilian uprise. At most the Soviet union had plans to take the rest of Germany.

And again, these were event that took place decades ago.
Get your nose out of the history book and look at the present time.
The Soviet union exist not anymore and so does the threat of an invasion.

[MaximumPain]

[QUOTE=lycanox;287758]

Russia is not an enemy anymore. And the situation in Georgia suggests otherwise.

Yes it suggests that they are still a potential threat.

How about the whole US missile shield, Kosovo, the illegal NATO presence in eastern Europe etc.

Kosovo needed to be dealt with or it would have boiled up into a real war. America intervened at the request of our NATO allies. It could have been worse if it was not put in check.

The whole organization is now actually achieving the opposite as it was intended for.

You think that because you live in a polyanna world where only the USA is a danger and every one else can be trusted. You seem to love the Russians so much you should ask some people who used to live in Eastern Europe under the communists how they did?

Then they should work in the UN. Not in organizations for enemies that don't exist while feeding conflicts.

The UN is completely ball less any one can walk all over them. Its easy for one or two nations to just block any action from the UN especially one of the security council members. If you actually had a UN with any real power you get a tyranny of the masses which would be the death of the organization.

So does America, the UK, France and Germany.
Should we create separate organizations to keep those in check as well in case they elect an madman.

or keep in the alliance with them that keeps them in check and focuses their power against states which can threaten your nations interests.

There is no such thing as a stable government.

Some governments are much more stable then others. Russia has a less stable government then any NATO member.

The war would still never have started if NATO didn't exist.

You have no basis to make that statement. If NATO didn't exists there's no telling what the European map would look like today.

Yet America does threaten to invade Holland in the American serviceman protection act. And being both a member of NATO never stopped Turkey and Greece from attacking each other.

Links please I think your full of shit and/or paranoid. America attack a western Democracy!? NATO prevents that from happening unless the US pulls out. I would say that NATO membership has prevented Turkey and Greece from going to all out war

That military build up was mostly a response to the allied build up and fears for an Allied invasion or an civilian uprise. At most the Soviet union had plans to take the rest of Germany.

You should ask south Korea if they attacked the north first? Soviet supplied and trained forces stormed the south with the support of Russian advisers and some of their best equipment in the Mig 15 (sorry the Mig 15 came later in the war but they did have a lot of soviet tanks and other weapons), they leveled Seoul and nearly drove the allied forces into the sea of Japan. They attacked without provocation with the complete support of the Soviet Union. Numerous other atrocities can be documented by the communist Koreans and Vietnamese Its been shown that the communists would attack and support insurrections against western democracy's.

What you dont seem to understand is that the law of the Jungle applies at all levels from the street to international politics. If you are weak or seen as weak then you will be "punked" as in taken advantage of beat up your luch money taken from you (you do have bullies in Holland right?).
A strong alliance has a political effect on the surrounding area if someone tries to atack one of its members then the other will come to their aid just the fact that that structure exists keeps those conflicts from occuring.

And again, these were event that took place decades ago.
Get your nose out of the history book and look at the present time.
The Soviet union exist not anymore and so does the threat of an invasion.

NATO is the reason the soviet Union doesn't exist anymore they tried to keep up and bankrupted themselves. Russia could very easily get another despot in power and get designs on their neighbors.

The Soviet Union is not the only threat in this world without an alliance like NATO you could face issues from your neighbors once again or do you think the Blue Helmet's can protect you? I know you look at things now and cant imagine how it could all go wrong or you have this delusion that America is going to attack you. But it has happened before and could easily happen again. Your nation benefits from the security provided by big tough nations like the USA yet you spit on us?

[lycanox]

[QUOTE=MaximumPain;287762]

Yes it suggests that they are still a potential threat.

Threat? All Russia did was defend his alliances. Just like the US did in Kosovo.

Kosovo needed to be dealt with or it would have boiled up into a real war. America intervened at the request of our NATO allies. It could have been worse if it was not put in check.

So would South Ossetia if Russia didn't intervened.

Or are you suggesting that the west has special rights over other nations.

You think that because you live in a polyanna world where only the USA is a danger and every one else can be trusted. You seem to love the Russians so much you should ask some people who used to live in Eastern Europe under the communists how they did?

Perhaps you should ask the Indians the US wiped out. Or Mexico.

If you want to believe that things that happened long in the past, please do.
But I prefer to deal with an situation as they currently are.

And Russia is NOT a threat anymore. And is NOT oppression nations anymore.
And is now looking to work with Europe, not against it.

In fact the biggest reason of military political conflict with Russia is NATO infringing on their interests. Not the other way around.

The UN is completely ball less any one can walk all over them. Its easy for one or two nations to just block any action from the UN especially one of the security council members. If you actually had a UN with any real power you get a tyranny of the masses which would be the death of the organization.

Than take the Veto right away from nations like the US, Russia and other Veto countries.

or keep in the alliance with them that keeps them in check and focuses their power against states which can threaten your nations interests.

Again thats should be the UN's job. Not NATO.
And what enemies?

Some governments are much more stable then others. Russia has a less stable government then any NATO member.

You really don't follow European politics do you?
I would call Russia ten times more stable than Belgium.

You have no basis to make that statement. If NATO didn't exists there's no telling what the European map would look like today.

If Russia didn't exist we would have been in a lot worse scape.
As there is no way that Germany could have been defeated if they weren't fighting a second front.

Links please I think your full of shit and/or paranoid. America attack a western Democracy!?

Just look up the American Service Members Protection Act. A.K.A. The Hague invasion act.

NATO prevents that from happening unless the US pulls out. I would say that NATO membership has prevented Turkey and Greece from going to all out war

Tell that to Cyprus.

You should ask south Korea if they attacked the north first? Soviet supplied and trained forces stormed the south with the support of Russian advisers and some of their best equipment in the Mig 15 (sorry the Mig 15 came later in the war but they did have a lot of soviet tanks and other weapons), they leveled Seoul and nearly drove the allied forces into the sea of Japan. They attacked without provocation with the complete support of the Soviet Union. Numerous other atrocities can be documented by the communist Koreans and Vietnamese Its been shown that the communists would attack and support insurrections against western democracy's.

So... If Russia didn't exist we would be living in the United National socialist states of Germania. Or in the French Napoleon Empire or something in that line.

Bringing up stuff that happens in the past is futile if the present is completely different. Whats next? You are going to suggest that we should build up troops around England in case they want their colony back.
Or move troops to Brazil in case Spain invades again?

You are discussing events that happened in the past. By a nation that does not exist anymore.

What you dont seem to understand is that the law of the Jungle applies at all levels from the street to international politics. If you are weak or seen as weak then you will be "punked" as in taken advantage of beat up your luch money taken from you (you do have bullies in Holland right?).
A strong alliance has a political effect on the surrounding area if someone tries to atack one of its members then the other will come to their aid just the fact that that structure exists keeps those conflicts from occuring.

You cant expect people to like you if you constantly shove a gun in their face. Yet, that is exactly what NATO is doing.

You choose Paranoid self defense over just talking and solving problems.

NATO is the reason the soviet Union doesn't exist anymore they tried to keep up and bankrupted themselves. Russia could very easily get another despot in power and get designs on their neighbors.

So could Germany. You want to arrange an military organization around to keep them in check as well.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia is planning the invade Europe or something like that.

The Soviet Union is not the only threat in this world without an alliance like NATO you could face issues from your neighbors once again or do you think the Blue Helmet's can protect you? I know you look at things now and cant imagine how it could all go wrong or you have this delusion that America is going to attack you. But it has happened before and could easily happen again. Your nation benefits from the security provided by big tough nations like the USA yet you spit on us?

Protect us from what. Imaginary enemies? Enemies NATO has created themselves?

All I am seeing is an organization that has long lost its purpose and has become more a source to more conflicts. Instead of creating a safer world.

As for being thankful. As a European nation we also have lots of thank of other nations as well. Even Russia played a large role in saving us several times from an aggressor. So we have not more to thank to America as to Russia.

So stop living in the past. The efforts spend on keeping the old political fossil NATO around could have been better spend on fixing the UN.

[Abyssal_Worm]

So stop living in the past. The efforts spend on keeping the old political fossil NATO around could have been better spend on fixing the UN.

I am curious. In what ways would you fix the UN? So long as the Permanent membership and veto rights are enacted, it will always remain a simple showcase of political futility.

Frankly, I think the UN is likely to be replaced long before NATO ever does.

[lycanox]

Removing the Veto right, giving all nations or groups a seat and improve the sanction system would be a start.

[Nasik]

NATO - NO!

NATO was formed, ostensibly, to counter the Warsaw pact - when that dissolved - NATO should have as well - instead, what we see is a steady augmentation of NATO - it starts subsuming the caucases and to me, just creates more fucking problems then it was supposed to solve.

It's used now like a military tool - its function bears little resemblance to what it was created to do. Besides the existence of this "alliance" creates quite a few risks; if one member is attacked then all members are required to go to war in their defence.

NO THANKS.

[MaximumPain]

Perhaps NATO should be reformed then but I don't agree that it should be totally abolished. The alliance between our nations serves to keep our relations on good terms and I believe actually places pressure on member nations to fly right. I know the Iraq war is a bad stain on American honor but a good number of us opposed that action and became much more involved in the process in order to try and keep the kind of people who would bring us into that war out of office.

The escalations between the USA and USSR were obviously enhanced by each sides fear of one another and did place the world in a lot of danger. However some of those fears from the American side were justified by the way the Soviets acted in the early years after WW II in Korea and Eastern Europe. Of course a lot of it was western paranoia of communism. You could also make the case that Soviet fears were justified because of the number of Nukes pointed at them from American bases in Turkey and Europe.