NationStates Jolt Archive

NATO is considering admitting Ukraine and Georgia as members. President Bush has expressed support for the expansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344194,00.html

Thoughts?

I have to break ranks (:eek:) with the President on this issue. I don’t see any compelling need to admit either nation. Any security concerns they might have could probably best be addressed on a bi-lateral basis between each country and, e.g., the US, the UK, Germany, and/or other Western powers. I do see a compelling interest in not needlessly antagonizing Russia on this issue. If anything, the US at least should be seeking improved relations with Russia, for any number of reasons.

Polls indicate that the Ukrainians don't want to join NATO, so I don't see why they should at this time.

Provided they wish to join, I have no problem with them doing so. They are sovereign nations, and can enter into whatever alliances they choose.

NATO is a pact for mutual defence. No one is threatened by it, save those who desire to attack it's members.

Provided they wish to join, I have no problem with them doing so. They are sovereign nations, and can enter into whatever alliances they choose.

It's true that they are sovereign nations and can apply to join any alliance they want to. It's also true that the rest of NATO are also sovereign nations and can decide which countries they want to invite into the alliance.

The question that needs to be addressed is whether this expansion is worth the potential problems that might arise as a result.

For example, suppose Georgia is admitted to NATO, and then Abkhazia declares "independence". Then Russia recognizes Abkhazia. What is NATO going to do about that? Sovereign territory of Georgia will have attempted to secede, and Russia will have recognized it. Is NATO going to back Georgia's territorial integrity? If so, is NATO going to enter into a conflict with Russia? How is NATO's interest advanced in such a scenario?

I think this is one situation where diplomatic concerns need to take priority, and some of those concerns include legitimate Russian security interests and the perceptions of the Russian public, or at least significant factions thereof.

Ah, the old 'poke the bear' game. I guess we're adding a pin to the tip of our pointy stick, yes?

Something like this would only piss off the Russians more than they are. In a couple years we're going to be buying oil from them, anyway.

And, of course, its never particularly wise to piss off somebody with 15,000 nuclear weapons, most of which are pointed at you.

Provided they wish to join, I have no problem with them doing so. They are sovereign nations, and can enter into whatever alliances they choose.

NATO is a pact for mutual defence. No one is threatened by it, save those who desire to attack it's members.

Suppose Mexico wanted to enter an alliance with, lets say, Iran.

Not very likely, but this is just a hypothetical situation.

How do you think the US would react?

Well, in Bush's case he'd mix up Mexico and New Mexico and publicly condemn Bill Richardson. >_>

I don't understand why an outdated, relic of the Cold War, alliance is doing expanding its' ranks. NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those countries should enter into the alliance.

Suppose Mexico wanted to enter an alliance with, lets say, Iran.

Not very likely, but this is just a hypothetical situation.

How do you think the US would react?

Not favorably.

I would go further than that and analogize it as more like Texas allying with Iran after seceding from the US.

Russia has already seen almost the entire old Warsaw Pact join NATO, as well as the Baltic States, which (illegitimately incorporated as they were) were actually part of the old USSR. Whether or not NATO is a defensive alliance, a significant percentage of the Russian people find this problematic, to say the least. Expanding into Ukraine would be even more difficult to swallow. The Baltics were at most a peripheral area, but Ukraine was the second most populous of the old Soviet republics, and is mighty close to the heart of Russia.

So again, what's the hurry, and what's the compelling interest, in the proposed expansion?

Pffft. Russia should stick the tongue out at all the aspiring NATO members by joining NATO before them and then vetoing their admissions just for a good laugh >.>

Hell no the Ukraine and Georgia shouldn't join NATO. We've already pissed Russia off enough with our missile 'defense' shield; do we really want to re-ignite the Cold War on top of this stupid War on Terror?

Quick mother Russia, turn off the gas, the subject states are getting rebellious, a few weeks with no gas should calm them down.

NATO is considering admitting Ukraine and Georgia as members. President Bush has expressed support for the expansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344194,00.html

Thoughts?

I have to break ranks (:eek:) with the President on this issue. I don’t see any compelling need to admit either nation. Any security concerns they might have could probably best be addressed on a bi-lateral basis between each country and, e.g., the US, the UK, Germany, and/or other Western powers. I do see a compelling interest in not needlessly antagonizing Russia on this issue. If anything, the US at least should be seeking improved relations with Russia, for any number of reasons.

Ukraine gets my vote but not Georgia.

I don't understand why an outdated, relic of the Cold War, alliance is doing expanding its' ranks. NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those countries should enter into the alliance.

Actually...it was the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO <--1949

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact <--1955

Quick mother Russia, turn off the gas, the subject states are getting rebellious, a few weeks with no gas should calm them down.

If you could only take the sun away from certain countries...

Anyways, The more people in NATO the better, since there will be less of a chance of Russia getting involved if we have their backs. That and we can exploit them for security reasons :). Oh wait we already have.

Try getting both maybe. Inviting Russia is an interesting one- no more European standoffs? I don't know. Anyone care to guess the implications, this one's got me flummuxed.

Neither, please. No point in agitating Russia any more, indeed I'm pretty dubious about NATO as it is. Going into Russia's historic sphere of influence is pushing it.

NATO should be disbanded.

NATO ought to = North Atlantic Taco Orgainzation. *nod*

NATO ought to = North Atlantic Taco Orgainzation. *nod*

Only if you get to be Secretary General. ;)

NATO should be disbanded.

I agree. Even if it isn't disbanded, absorbing unstable breakaway republics in Eastern Europe is poor policy; as others have noted it could end up fueling instead of restraining another European war.

I agree. Even if it isn't disbanded, absorbing unstable breakaway republics in Eastern Europe is poor policy; as others have noted it could end up fueling instead of restraining another European war.

Breakaway republics?

Oh brother.

Breakaway republics?

Oh brother.

I am surprised at times by the people that miss the days of the old Soviet Union. Funny thing I find it is many that didn't even live during the time of the Soviets. To bad they couldn't witness a good old fashioned air raid drill. The fear of Soviet nukes dropping out of the skies and such. But hey those were the good old days, right?

I am surprised at times by the people that miss the days of the old Soviet Union. Funny thing I find it is many that didn't even live during the time of the Soviets. To bad they couldn't witness a good old fashioned air raid drill. The fear of Soviet nukes dropping out of the skies and such. But hey those were the good old days, right?

I really wouldn't know as I have only been around for 25 years and the Soviet Union was around for 9 of those years. I do understand what you are saying though due to talks with my parents and extended family on both sides plus talks with my fiance's family too.

I really wouldn't know as I have only been around for 25 years and the Soviet Union was around for 9 of those years. I do understand what you are saying though due to talks with my parents and extended family on both sides plus talks with my fiance's family too.


There was a real fear of being attacked. Especially if you were in an area where the B-52's would be flying circles overhead on airborne alert did you realize how serious the threat was. One of the cities I lived in as a kid use to have air raid practice drills. I still get creeped out listening to sirens.

There was a real fear of being attacked. Especially if you were in an area where the B-52's would be flying circles overhead on airborne alert did you realize how serious the threat was. One of the cities I lived in as a kid use to have air raid practice drills. I still get creeped out listening to sirens.

I lived three years in Tornado Alley. Sirens do not bother me much though if I knew that nuclear warheads were headed my way...

And here I thought the Cold War was long over. All this NATO crap and Missile crap is a big :upyours: at Russia.

NATO: The American/Western Empire and its Expansion
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Map_of_NATO_chronological.gif

And people complained about the Warsaw Pact...
This is too much arbitrary power that is clearly directed at Russia. If not, then why isn't it renamed and include other nations such as Japan, Brazil, etc...

I don't understand why an outdated, relic of the Cold War, alliance is doing expanding its' ranks. NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those countries should enter into the alliance.

Uh, budster, The Warsaw Pact was the facade the Soviet's threw up to pretend that they were utilizing collective defense when they used military force to keep countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, and it was done well after NATO was formed, nearly six years to be exact.

NATO was formed in response to the explicit threat of Red Army aggression against Western Europe in 1949.

Quick mother Russia, turn off the gas, the subject states are getting rebellious, a few weeks with no gas should calm them down.

Ok, now I know you're a joke.

NATO should be disbanded.

I agree. The notion of 'collective security' is simply imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism.

And here I thought the Cold War was long over. All this NATO crap and Missile crap is a big :upyours: at Russia.

First off, the ABM system simply has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, no matter how much the Russians wish that it did. It has everything to do with the United States being over-paranoid about Iran, and the capabilities of said country to launch a long range missile at the western allies. I mean, we've heard bizarre fantastical theories concocted by Russian generals, claiming that it was designed to knock down Russian commercial rockets! How does one even begin to address that sort of ridiculous charge?

There are thousands of Russian ICBM's, and their strategic rocket force wouldn't even need to change its doctrine to overwhelm these defenses. That's not even including TBM's, MRBM's, IRBM's and tactical and strategic nuclear bombers. The installations would have no impact on the actual strategic balance.

Furthermore, the one's who are in the wrong are the Russians for pointing missiles at western Europe, not the United States, if they were seeking to counter Russian missiles. Holding your neighbors hostage to annihilation hardly sounds the friendly thing to do.



NATO: The American/Western Empire and its Expansion
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Map_of_NATO_chronological.gif

You've gotta be joking if you are going to call NATO anything even remotely resembling an empire.

And people complained about the Warsaw Pact...

Because the Warsaw Pact was not a collective security organization. It was a tool used solely to keep its members within the Soviet sphere, even if they didn't want to be so. The Warsaw Pact sucked a lot.

This is too much arbitrary power that is clearly directed at Russia. If not, then why isn't it renamed and include other nations such as Japan, Brazil, etc...

Because that goes beyond its charter.

Seriously, chief, why on Earth would anyone want to menace Russia? They have thousands of nuclear weapons, and a conventional alliance, no matter how large, would stand half the chance a snowball in hell would.

No, it's nothing particularly designed to be aggressive towards Russia, at least on the part of the United States and the traditional members. It's nothing more than bandwagoning, with a mild dose of anti-Russianism from those states formerly crushed under the Soviet boot.

No, this is nothing more than Russia wishing that it was targeted at them, wishing that they were as big and mean and scary as they were back in the day.

Meanwhile, you just come off as sounding like a Putin apologist.

NATO is considering admitting Ukraine and Georgia as members. President Bush has expressed support for the expansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344194,00.html

Thoughts?

I have to break ranks (:eek:) with the President on this issue. I don’t see any compelling need to admit either nation. Any security concerns they might have could probably best be addressed on a bi-lateral basis between each country and, e.g., the US, the UK, Germany, and/or other Western powers. I do see a compelling interest in not needlessly antagonizing Russia on this issue. If anything, the US at least should be seeking improved relations with Russia, for any number of reasons.

Yes include Ukraine and Georgia as long as both nations have multi party democratic governments. Include both Ukraine and Georgia into the European Union.

As far as including Russia into Nato. Yes as long as Russia has a multi party democratic government. Include Russia into the European Union thats a hard one. Generally yes as long as Russia has a multi party democratic government. But with its big population some special representation limitations in the number of seats in the Euro parliment might have to be made.

Note for the record: I did not vote in the poll to include Russia in Nato, under my condition of multi party democratic government. Not saying Russia has such a government or not. just did not vote that option in the poll, perhaps I should have, under my conditions.

I'll answer the OP question with another question:

Should Russia keep military bases in Cuba and Mexico?

There you are.

As far as including Russia into Nato.

Russia already has a special partnership with NATO (see www.nato.org)

what nato really needs to do is expell the u.s. and bring everyone else in so the whole world can unite in defending itself against it.

=^^=
.../\...

NATO is considering admitting Ukraine and Georgia as members. President Bush has expressed support for the expansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344194,00.html

Thoughts?

I have to break ranks (:eek:) with the President on this issue. I don’t see any compelling need to admit either nation. Any security concerns they might have could probably best be addressed on a bi-lateral basis between each country and, e.g., the US, the UK, Germany, and/or other Western powers. I do see a compelling interest in not needlessly antagonizing Russia on this issue. If anything, the US at least should be seeking improved relations with Russia, for any number of reasons.

Antagonizing countries that are run by douchebags like Putin is an end in itself.

Admitting Ukraine into NATO would antagonise Russia and would offer no benefit to NATO. The key military assets of Ukraine are having a warm water port (Odessa) and a strategic "seing eye" location over the Central Asian oil reserves and over the Middle East. Turkey already offers all these assets, plus also offers control of the Hellespont, which restricts the strategic value of Odessa (hence the Soviet built naval base at Tartus in Syria).

I see only problems this move, stirring up feas in an already hostile Russian military, and no real benefits.

I agree. The notion of 'collective security' is simply imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism.

Ok...now I know you're a joke.

For a "defensive" alliance, NATO sure has many soldiers in foreign countries. Can someone remember ONE aggressive action of ENTIRE Warsaw Pact (the word entire is important) ? If Warsaw Pact was tool of USSR, then I fail to see how NATO is not a tool of USA and convenient organisation to clean their problems.

Oh, so some of you lived under fear of possible Soviet attacks ?
That it is good that you do not live in Iraq, Afganistan, Grenada, Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc. to fear American (or maybe NATO as extension of USA) chemical or biological or just plain conventional attacks, no?

NATO should be disbanded, its leaders tried for war crimes and the silly idea of "Transatlantic Cooperation" buried.

I am surprised at times by the people that miss the days of the old Soviet Union. Funny thing I find it is many that didn't even live during the time of the Soviets. To bad they couldn't witness a good old fashioned air raid drill. The fear of Soviet nukes dropping out of the skies and such. But hey those were the good old days, right?
Oh what I'd give to have passport controls whenever felt like leaving my half of the city back again...

Ok...now I know you're a joke.It took you this long to notice?

*snip*

Name me a time when the US used Chemical and Biological weapons.

And most of the world did fear a USSR attack.

Name me a time when the US used Chemical and Biological weapons.

And most of the world did fear a USSR attack.Not sure about bio, but Vietnam saw extensive use of chem.

Not sure about bio, but Vietnam saw extensive use of chem.

Ok...let me rephrase, when have we targeted civilians on purpose with chemical and biological weapons.

Ok...let me rephrase, when have we targeted civilians on purpose with chemical and biological weapons.

If I remember correctly, the early 1950s, but those were on your civilians, and the weaker stuff.

For a "defensive" alliance, NATO sure has many soldiers in foreign countries. Can someone remember ONE aggressive action of ENTIRE Warsaw Pact (the word entire is important) ? If Warsaw Pact was tool of USSR, then I fail to see how NATO is not a tool of USA and convenient organisation to clean their problems.

Oh, so some of you lived under fear of possible Soviet attacks ?
That it is good that you do not live in Iraq, Afganistan, Grenada, Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc. to fear American (or maybe NATO as extension of USA) chemical or biological or just plain conventional attacks, no?

NATO should be disbanded, its leaders tried for war crimes and the silly idea of "Transatlantic Cooperation" buried.


Aggressive action of Warsaw pact ? Terrorizing and oppressing Eastern Europeans for half a century. That's what I call a crime.

War crimes ??

Iraq-Saddam Hussein- Got what he deserved. Saddam was a brutal dictator and murdered Kurdish civilians.

Afghanistan. Are you saying the Taliban are all friendly, democratic and stuff ?

Yugoslavia: NATO stopped a brutal genocide caused by extreme nationalist elements.

The only ones who deserved prosecution were the abovementioned dictators and murderers.

It is good there is still an alliance which preserves democratic values.

It is good there is still an alliance which preserves democratic values.The Greeks beg to differ.

The Greeks beg to differ.

Living in a democracy is not a granted right. It is a privilege. NATO fought for it, and still fights. A majority of all countries in the world, are, in fact dictatorships, who formally call themselves democratic.

Living in a democracy is not a granted right. It is a privilege. NATO fought for it, and still fights. A majority of all countries in the world, are, in fact dictatorships, who formally call themselves democratic.When did NATO chastise the Greek dictatorship? Isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim NATO fights for democracy when it has tolerated dictatorial member states?

When did NATO chastise the Greek dictatorship? Isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim NATO fights for democracy when it has tolerated dictatorial member states?

The Greeks sorted it out themselves, in 1975, when democracy was restored.

For a "defensive" alliance, NATO sure has many soldiers in foreign countries. Can someone remember ONE aggressive action of ENTIRE Warsaw Pact (the word entire is important) ?

Czechoslovakia '68. 'Nuff said. What's particularly interesting, Warsaw Pact invaded one of its own.

When did NATO chastise the Greek dictatorship? Isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim NATO fights for democracy when it has tolerated dictatorial member states?

Actually, Laerod, tolerated is the correct term. The Greek dictatorship was, iirc, suspended from the NATO Council for a time.

Further, you can't help everyone all the time. Picking your fights and making the most of opportunities is the best anyone can do.

For a "defensive" alliance, NATO sure has many soldiers in foreign countries. Can someone remember ONE aggressive action of ENTIRE Warsaw Pact (the word entire is important)

Quite true, the Warsaw Pact was never militarily used against an external threat. It has the unique distinction of being probably the only military alliance in history in which force was only ever used against its own members. That doesn't sound like a positive record, if I dare say so myself.

When did NATO chastise the Greek dictatorship? Isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim NATO fights for democracy when it has tolerated dictatorial member states?

As you should recall, the Greek dictatorship was not included in the organization for some time, and was eventually readmitted to the group. The tensions with Greece were related to concerns about the stability of the government in that country, and its ability to maintain itself and not serve as a gateway for the Soviet fleet to reach the Mediterranean without passing the Hellespont.

It also doesn't hurt that the Greek government did, eventually, turn democratic, and has been so for a majority of the time that it has been in the organization.

While having a despotic Greece as a member was a less than desirable situation, it has certainly turned out better than had Greece fallen to a Soviet puppet state, and been unable to democratize until 1989-1990.

And soon we'll be taking over the World, MUAHAHAHHAHAA-....wait, did I just say that? I meant, *ahem*. I meant we'll be admitting the World through a democratic process and not intending to start a New World Order. Yes, yes, thats what I meant...

Czechoslovakia '68. 'Nuff said. What's particularly interesting, Warsaw Pact invaded one of its own.

Hungary 1956

Afghanistan 1979

Poland 1980s

Maintainance of forced membership of Baltic states

The Warsaw Pact's record is far from spotless.

The Greeks sorted it out themselves, in 1975, when democracy was restored.Took long enough, and involved the stationing of US ships in Piraeus for the longest time.Actually, Laerod, tolerated is the correct term. The Greek dictatorship was, iirc, suspended from the NATO Council for a time.You remember incorrectly. Greece left NATO shortly after the dictatorship fell apart as Greece was in conflict with the fellow NATO member Turkey.

Ok...now I know you're a joke.

One need only look at the overwhelming evil that the United States government has done and caused in the name of collective security to see that I am quite serious.

I vote "Why do we still have NATO?"

We don't need the rest of them, and they don't need us. The Cold War is (supposedly) over. Europe has united into what is almost a single entity now.

Oh, while we're pissing off the Russians, why don't we just expand NATO to include Kosovo and Chechnya?

Oh, while we're pissing off the Russians, why don't we just expand NATO to include Kosovo and Chechnya?If Chechnya were attacked by, oh I don't know, Russia?, NATO would have to intervene on behalf of Chechnya. What fun that will be...

No. Why must bush provoke russia every time he opens his mouth?

No. Why must bush provoke russia every time he opens his mouth?Because he sincerely believes the Ukranians said they loved the US when they managed to turn away from Russia. The man takes great pains to shield himself from public opinion so that he may craft his own rose-tinted reality. Prominent examples are the Iraq war and the upcoming failure of his last-ditch Israeli-Palestinian peace plans.

I don't understand why an outdated, relic of the Cold War, alliance is doing expanding its' ranks. NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those countries should enter into the alliance.

Because NATO actually works. perfect example Ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, the UN is unable to really do anything about it for years. NATO gets involved problem solved with in the month.

now specifically I think the Ukraine seems to be a stable democracy worth inviting. Inviting Georgia seems to just be asking for trouble down the line

I don't understand why an outdated, relic of the Cold War, alliance is doing expanding its' ranks. NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those countries should enter into the alliance.

there are SEVERAL blatant marks of ignorance in this that i would like to address here...

A- NATO was formed years before the Warsaw Pact, the Pact was formed when NATO decided to admit the West Germans and was then seen as a much more viable threat to the USSR...

B- NATO is a mutual defense treaty that still has applications in current events, i.e. policing the Kosovo-Serbian border zone among others...

C- NATO is one of those things that keeps wars from starting, if your enemy knows that you have a bunch of friends who are willing to come to your aid if they try to start something, they will more than likely think twice about it...

those are just my rebuttals to a particularly ignorant assertion, made by someone who obviously shouldn't be talking about that which they have no knowledge of...feel free to comment...

If Chechnya were attacked by, oh I don't know, Russia?, NATO would have to intervene on behalf of Chechnya. What fun that will be...

only if they invoked Article 5 (which i admit they would very likely do), but that has only happened once in all history, right after 9-11...

For a "defensive" alliance, NATO sure has many soldiers in foreign countries. Can someone remember ONE aggressive action of ENTIRE Warsaw Pact (the word entire is important) ? If Warsaw Pact was tool of USSR, then I fail to see how NATO is not a tool of USA and convenient organisation to clean their problems.

:confused:

Oh, while we're pissing off the Russians, why don't we just expand NATO to include Kosovo and Chechnya?

Kosovo yes, Chechnya no.

:confused:

i agree, as i said before, Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter (the mutual-defense part) has only been invoked by a member nation ONCE, and NATO is often used as a peacekeeping force in Europe in cooperation with the UN (emphasis on the word "peacekeeping"), and the Warsaw Pact was used a couple times...against other Pact members...

there are SEVERAL blatant marks of ignorance in this that i would like to address here...

A- NATO was formed years before the Warsaw Pact, the Pact was formed when NATO decided to admit the West Germans and was then seen as a much more viable threat to the USSR...

B- NATO is a mutual defense treaty that still has applications in current events, i.e. policing the Kosovo-Serbian border zone among others...

C- NATO is one of those things that keeps wars from starting, if your enemy knows that you have a bunch of friends who are willing to come to your aid if they try to start something, they will more than likely think twice about it...

those are just my rebuttals to a particularly ignorant assertion, made by someone who obviously shouldn't be talking about that which they have no knowledge of...feel free to comment...

Oh yeah, cause that really worked in world war 1...... and 2.... and Korea....

Oh yeah, cause that really worked in world war 1...... and 2.... and Korea....
Your point fails because NATO didn't exist in time for WWI and II, and wasn't involved in Korea.

The Samurai sword is over there. Don't get any of your intestines on the floor.

Oh yeah, cause that really worked in world war 1...... and 2.... and Korea....
Your point fails because NATO didn't exist in time for WWI and II, and wasn't involved in Korea.

Your point fails because NATO didn't exist in time for WWI and II, and wasn't involved in Korea.

Yeah um actually your point fails. I was directly responding to somebody who claimed that large alliances prevent wars. I wasnt specifically talking about NATO.

You=fail

Why not invite everybody (compulsory ;) ). This way we are all in one alliance and if one member attacks another, all other members have to help the victim.

Oh. Wait. That was the U.N., wasn't it? So let us just replace the U.N. with the N.A.T.O. :D

No. Why must bush provoke russia every time he opens his mouth?

Let me rephrase this question in another question:

Why is Russia provoked by everything that goes against their interest to control all former USSR- or even Warsaw-Pact-countries?

Oh. I see. So it is not just the scrubs, erm Bushs fault.

Im not entirely sure why we even have NATO anymore. The Cold War's over, and we have no need to have a military presence in Europe anymore, let the EU Defend its own damn self, I say.

Furthermore, Half the nations in NATO no longer bother to support the US anylonger (i.e Germany, France, etc.) honestly i just dont see the point :confused:

Im not entirely sure why we even have NATO anymore. The Cold War's over, and we have no need to have a military presence in Europe anymore, let the EU Defend its own damn self, I say.

Furthermore, Half the nations in NATO no longer bother to support the US anylonger (i.e Germany, France, etc.) honestly i just dont see the point

:confused:

Im not entirely sure why we even have NATO anymore. The Cold War's over, and we have no need to have a military presence in Europe anymore, let the EU Defend its own damn self, I say.


The nature of Alliances is that you don't have to have any interest in defending the area of your ally yourself. The thing is ... you are just allied to fight together if a threat arises which is too dangerous for one alone.


Furthermore, Half the nations in NATO no longer bother to support the US anylonger (i.e Germany, France, etc.) honestly i just dont see the point :confused:

Yes, you are right. Neither german nor french troops are fighting in the NATO-controlled ISAF in Afghanistan. Nor were there any involvements in the Kosovo war. Pardon me.

And pardon the reality, that most of these countries are democracies which actually have to sell it to their people why they fight alongside in some NATO-missions which are not actually covered by NATO-rules.

Like ... Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Maybe you mistakenly take the NATO for an US-support-organization?

The nature of Alliances is that you don't have to have any interest in defending the area of your ally yourself. The thing is ... you are just allied to fight together if a threat arises which is too dangerous for one alone.



Yes, you are right. Neither german nor french troops are fighting in the NATO-controlled ISAF in Afghanistan. Nor were there any involvements in the Kosovo war. Pardon me.

And pardon the reality, that most of these countries are democracies which actually have to sell it to their people why they fight alongside in some NATO-missions which are not actually covered by NATO-rules.

Like ... Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Maybe you mistakenly take the NATO for an US-support-organization?

Maybe you seem to mistake that it wasnt? can you think of another reason for its Creation, other than to Support the US against the USSR Warsaw Pact?

Furthermore, i dont see the point for it if the supposed reason for its existence is for it to defend the other countries when threatened, they didnt come to our support...and, quite frankly, if it came to it, i dont wish to come to theirs, since it has no bearing on the United States...

We're simply wasting money and resources on Military bases in these countries that could better be used elsewhere, i say dissolve NATO...

Maybe you seem to mistake that it wasnt? can you think of another reason for its Creation, other than to Support the US against the USSR Warsaw Pact?

Maybe you missed the detail that NATO existed before the Warsaw Pact and thusly you fail.

Why do we need NATO again?
We don't.

Maybe you missed the detail that NATO existed before the Warsaw Pact and thusly you fail.

Maybe you missed the fact that the USSR owned those countries, and simply gave the organization a name after the creation of NATO, which itself was in response to the Soviet satellites military build up....

Maybe you seem to mistake that it wasnt? can you think of another reason for its Creation, other than to Support the US against the USSR Warsaw Pact?


Please look up the word "alliance". It includes more than one member.

After that ... look at the history of NATO. It says nowhere "US support team no. 1". It is a defense-pact.


Furthermore, i dont see the point for it if the supposed reason for its existence is for it to defend the other countries when threatened, they didnt come to our support...and, quite frankly, if it came to it, i dont wish to come to theirs, since it has no bearing on the United States...


Ah yes. The problem is ... the rules say to fight back against an armed attack together ... but they don't say to take the war elsewhere in prevention. So we had no NATO-pact-state of defense since some time where another ally had to help the US.

The reasoning "war against terror" might seem logical to you. But it is not.


We're simply wasting money and resources on Military bases in these countries that could better be used elsewhere, i say dissolve NATO...

Erm. The US may pull out their ressources. But that does not dissolve the NATO.

And another thing ... most of the european bases are actually support-bases. For example: try to fly from the US directly to Iraq. So this NATO-thingy has the benefit of support-bases to the US. Without NATO ... the US would pay a little bit more money for flying rights :)

Maybe you missed the fact that the USSR owned those countries, and simply gave the organization a name after the creation of NATO, which itself was in response to the Soviet satellites military build up....

Actually the Warsaw Pact was done in response to West Germany becoming part of NATO, which indicated to Nikita Krushchev and the Red Army leadership that NATO was preparing to take back that which was 'rightfully' the Soviet Union's

Please look up the word "alliance". It includes more than one member.

After that ... look at the history of NATO. It says nowhere "US support team no. 1". It is a defense-pact.



Ah yes. The problem is ... the rules say to fight back against an armed attack together ... but they don't say to take the war elsewhere in prevention. So we had no NATO-pact-state of defense since some time where another ally had to help the US.

The reasoning "war against terror" might seem logical to you. But it is not.



Erm. The US may pull out their ressources. But that does not dissolve the NATO.

And another thing ... most of the european bases are actually support-bases. For example: try to fly from the US directly to Iraq. So this NATO-thingy has the benefit of support-bases to the US. Without NATO ... the US would pay a little bit more money for flying rights :)

Funny thing about Alliances, theyre supposed to work both ways, The US has done plenty of supporting Germany...like, say, reuniting it...But i dont see where Germany has done shit for us...

And, honestly, if we withdrew from all NATO bases, there would be no NATO, no other nation contributes as much Men and Material to the project...

And, btw, Missions have been flying to Iraq straight from Florida for quite some time now...

Funny thing about Alliances, theyre supposed to work both ways, The US has done plenty of supporting Germany...like, say, reuniting it...But i dont see where Germany has done shit for us...

So allowing us to have military bases within their nation is nothing now?

Actually the Warsaw Pact was done in response to West Germany becoming part of NATO, which indicated to Nikita Krushchev and the Red Army leadership that NATO was preparing to take back that which was 'rightfully' the Soviet Union's

And, thats exactly my point, The Soviet Union saw that territory as theirs, when in fact it wasnt, and therefore moved his Military into the Area, prompting West Germany to join NATO, which in turn prompted the USSR to name an Organization to oppose it...

In the end it was simply an organization to fight the USSR, and now that the Cold War's over it is no longer necessary, and no longer Functions properly, it should be a relic of the Past...

And here I thought the Cold War was long over. All this NATO crap and Missile crap is a big :upyours: at Russia.

NATO: The American/Western Empire and its Expansion
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Map_of_NATO_chronological.gif

And people complained about the Warsaw Pact...
This is too much arbitrary power that is clearly directed at Russia. If not, then why isn't it renamed and include other nations such as Japan, Brazil, etc...None can stop my slow and steayd takeover of the world.

So allowing us to have military bases within their nation is nothing now?

Psh, they werent allowing shit, we had those there to defend them from the Soviets, we were providing a service...We also used those bases to Rebuild theyre asses after WWII, theyd still be recovering, or worse, under the Iron Curtain if we hadnt stepped in...

Psh, they werent allowing shit, we had those there to defend them from the Soviets, we were providing a service...We also used those bases to Rebuild theyre asses after WWII, theyd still be recovering, or worse, under the Iron Curtain if we hadnt stepped in...

Yes, they were.

In addition, here is the terms of NATO
The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
How has Germany (or any other member for that matter) not lived up to their end of the bargain?

And, thats exactly my point, The Soviet Union saw that territory as theirs, when in fact it wasnt <snip>

By right of conquest, yes it was.

Funny thing about Alliances, theyre supposed to work both ways, The US has done plenty of supporting Germany...like, say, reuniting it...But i dont see where Germany has done shit for us...


I see. So again, the support in Afghanistan and Kosovo is "shit".

And thanks for reuniting Germany. As I was along for some time I'd like to correct your wording: A big "Thank you" to the USSR, UK, France and US for _letting_ Germany reunite. Look into Wikipedia for "2+4 talks". Most of the reuniting itself was done by the Germans, though.


And, honestly, if we withdrew from all NATO bases, there would be no NATO, no other nation contributes as much Men and Material to the project...


Yeah, actually that is where democracy stops - in the military. No matter how many men a single partner contributes, he does not get the say by this. That is the difference between "support team" and "alliance". Thanks for paying attention.


And, btw, Missions have been flying to Iraq straight from Florida for quite some time now...

So that is why there is a 435th Air Base Wing at Ramstein. To take a photo of the C-130E when it flies by.
You know, one of the 'mules' of the US airforce. The one where you have to add some extra tanks to fly from Florida to Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan). Which is so extremely good for cargo capacity.

Please go back to military school and learn something about support lines. US military nearly stumbled over this ancient concept in the second desert war. No need for further experts like you.

Yes, they were.

In addition, here is the terms of NATO

How has Germany (or any other member for that matter) not lived up to their end of the bargain?

There is the whole, idk, not defending the US, Spain, or the UK after the numerous Terrorist attacks...

Im just saying, if you cant get everyone to agree to meet the Requirements it should be dissolved...

I see. So again, the support in Afghanistan and Kosovo is "shit".

And thanks for reuniting Germany. As I was along for some time I'd like to correct your wording: A big "Thank you" to the USSR, UK, France and US for _letting_ Germany reunite. Look into Wikipedia for "2+4 talks". Most of the reuniting itself was done by the Germans, though.



Yeah, actually that is where democracy stops - in the military. No matter how many men a single partner contributes, he does not get the say by this. That is the difference between "support team" and "alliance". Thanks for paying attention.



So that is why there is a 435th Air Base Wing at Ramstein. To take a photo of the C-130E when it flies by.
You know, one of the 'mules' of the US airforce. The one where you have to add some extra tanks to fly from Florida to Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan). Which is so extremely good for cargo capacity.

Please go back to military school and learn something about support lines. US military nearly stumbled over this ancient concept in the second desert war. No need for further experts like you.

Yes, because the USSR "Allowed" it to happen, they loosened their Grip after pressure from the United States...

And, I wasnt saying it was efficient, i was saying that it has happened...

I refer to your previous statements at France and Germany not supporting Kosovo or Afghanistan, so, no, they have not in fact done Shit...

There is the whole, idk, not defending the US, Spain, or the UK after the numerous Terrorist attacks...

Im just saying, if you cant get everyone to agree to meet the Requirements it should be dissolved...

Than better resolve the US Army. After all it should defend the US against armed attacks. Whoa, steady there ... ?

Problem of terrorism is that you can't fight back like in a normal war. See last year Lebanon vs. Israel for that matter. And this is where normal armies and normal defense pacts fail. But they were not intended to help against such a threat in the first place.

Yes, because the USSR "Allowed" it to happen, they loosened their Grip after pressure from the United States...

And, I wasnt saying it was efficient, i was saying that it has happened...

I refer to your previous statements at France and Germany not supporting Kosovo or Afghanistan, so, no, they have not in fact done Shit...

I hereby introduce you into two new concepts:
(1) look up if you don't know [1]
(2) irony

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#NATO_nations

Than better resolve the US Army. After all it should defend the US against armed attacks. Whoa, steady there ... ?

Problem of terrorism is that you can't fight back like in a normal war. See last year Lebanon vs. Israel for that matter. And this is where normal armies and normal defense pacts fail. But they were not intended to help against such a threat in the first place.

The US Army isnt a Treaty Organization...

And yes you would need to use Unconventional Tactics but that doesnt mean that the NATO nations cant at least give support...

Another funny thing about Alliances, its not really an Alliance if One member is shouldering Damn Near all the Burden...

There is the whole, idk, not defending the US, Spain, or the UK after the numerous Terrorist attacks...

And what exactly would the military forces have done to stop these attacks?

Yes, because 3000>19000...Id like to introduce you to a new concept...MATH...

Secondly, Those troops arent being utilized by NATO to counter the threats to member nations, thereby failing at its stated duties...

And what exactly would the military forces have done to stop these attacks?

Im not saying they could have stopped them, im saying that they should have been involved in the Counter-Attacks

Im not saying they could have stopped them, im saying that they should have been involved in the Counter-Attacks

In say Afghanistan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom_-_Afghanistan:_Allies)

The US Army isnt a Treaty Organization...

And yes you would need to use Unconventional Tactics but that doesnt mean that the NATO nations cant at least give support...


Against what? Against terrorists? How so? If even the illustrious US Army fails to support itself against this threat.


Another funny thing about Alliances, its not really an Alliance if One member is shouldering Damn Near all the Burden...

Oh please. That is like saying you'd rather have only 5 bucks from one person than 7 bucks from three persons.
It is a defense pact and if it has to be invoked beggars can't be choosers. And .. go and read numbers about the ISAF.

Iraq? What? It is not a NATO thing, although the US army surely would like to have it this way. You see ... they do not choose.

Yes, because 3000>19000...Id like to introduce you to a new concept...MATH...

Uh.

I'm not sure what those numbers represent, but I think you have your little munching sign backwards.

Uh.

I'm not sure what those numbers represent, but I think you have your little munching sign backwards.

Shhhh!!! Its funnier that way...

Im not saying they could have stopped them, im saying that they should have been involved in the Counter-Attacks

And how effective these were you saw later.

2001 Afghanistan liberated from Taleban
11 March 2004 Madrid bombings
7 July 2005 London bombings

Face it ... military invasion does not work against terrorism.

Uh.

I'm not sure what those numbers represent, but I think you have your little munching sign backwards.


Actually, thats called Sarcasm friend :rolleyes:

and thats the Number of Germans vs Americans in NATO...

but, i honestly did not know of all those nations supporting us in Afghanistan...and so, withdraw my argument, congrats...

In the US, our News Networks have a tendency to Downplay foreign support of the War on Terror...and, so, many, like me, have no idea that there is anyone, cept Britain on occasion supporting the US....

Yes, because 3000>19000...Id like to introduce you to a new concept...MATH...


I fear your awesome power of math. If you start adding numbers I will surely be reduced to a trembling mass.


Secondly, Those troops arent being utilized by NATO to counter the threats to member nations, thereby failing at its stated duties...

So, Afghanistan is not a "NATO against XYZ"-mission. Ok then.

But then ... where does your conviction, that the US was attacked and is not defended by its allies come from? If there is no attack/counterattack at the moment? You could only state taht you see no threat at the moment according to NATO-rules.

Actually, thats called Sarcasm friend :rolleyes:

and thats the Number of Germans vs Americans in NATO...

but, i honestly did not know of all those nations supporting us in Afghanistan...and so, withdraw my argument, congrats...

In the US, our News Networks have a tendency to Downplay foreign support of the War on Terror...and, so, many, like me, have no idea that there is anyone, cept Britain on occasion supporting the US....

to make sure its seen, lol

Actually, thats called Sarcasm friend :rolleyes:

and thats the Number of Germans vs Americans in NATO...

but, i honestly did not know of all those nations supporting us in Afghanistan...and so, withdraw my argument, congrats...

In the US, our News Networks have a tendency to Downplay foreign support of the War on Terror...and, so, many, like me, have no idea that there is anyone, cept Britain on occasion supporting the US....

There's this thing called the internet, its a great tool for finding information.

True, i just never suspected the Media of lying to me...Who'd've Thought? ;) lol...

Stupid, yes, but, whatre you gonna do...

Wow, this thread seems to have turned into a US bashing session. ahaha
You're all entitled to your opinion, but I think we should stay on topic.

After reading all of the posts here, I've concluded that there would be too many problems involved with admitting ether nation. So, in my opinion, we should abandon the idea of adding ether nation to NATO, besides what exactly would NATO gain by admitting them, anyway?

but, i honestly did not know of all those nations supporting us in Afghanistan...and so, withdraw my argument, congrats...

In the US, our News Networks have a tendency to Downplay foreign support of the War on Terror...and, so, many, like me, have no idea that there is anyone, cept Britain on occasion supporting the US....

Problem is that a lot of people (in Germany) do not believe that a "War on Terror" is effective and thus do not want to participate. (But they believe in liberations and protection against genocide, that is why they still vote for the delegates that send troops to Afghanistan.)

Anyhow ... back to the NATO thing. Defense-pact. So why not include these two countries? And the rest of them too? Anybody who wants?

And if it irks Mr. Putin ... because he'd rather have these countries "on his side" ... what does that matter to the NATO? As long as he do not want to attack he has to fear nothing. Ok, ok, that is a little bit too idealistic. But burying the idea of beeing the "big playa in da Europe/Asia" would help Russia a lot on the way to accept the NATO.

Wow, this thread seems to have turned into a US bashing session.

Where's the U.S. bashing?

What Geo-Political thread doesnt?

Not that i didnt do my part in making it that way, lol...

Really i was just trying to refute arguments against me, but i did the Arrogant American thing, and said Fuck everyone else, lol...

What Geo-Political thread doesnt?

Not that i didnt do my part in making it that way, lol...

Really i was just trying to refute arguments against me, but i did the Arrogant American thing, and said Fuck everyone else, lol...

I'm fairly sure that at least half of the people who corrected you are also Americans...

I'm fairly sure that at least half of the people who corrected you are also Americans...

True, but, it doesnt change the fact...dammit im doing it again...the Internets is too argumentative, lol

True, but, it doesnt change the fact...dammit im doing it again...the Internets is too argumentative, lol

Are not!

Yeah um actually your point fails. I was directly responding to somebody who claimed that large alliances prevent wars. I wasnt specifically talking about NATO.

You=fail

World war I was a different type of alliance system. Part of the reason the alliance system was powder keg prior to world war I was that alliance could be made in secret. Also half of the countries involved were not part of the alliance.

the UK had no alliance with France or the Soviet Union however sided with them. Italy crossed alliance lines.

Really when you get down to it there are two real causes to world war I.
1. trade barriers required expansion in order to use Mercantilism to benefit the economy.
2. Despite the US having becoming the strongest economic power in the world around 1907ish the US utterly refused to step up into a world leadership role that had previously been held by the UK.

World 2 was caused by
1. total break down of world trade
2. US refusal to step into world leadership role.


Korean war??? what alliance was Korea in ???

Are not!

You know, on a side note, The Internet has a habit of being Anathema to Organizations like NATO, imo...

Normally, im pretty Liberal, and am the first to point out the fucked up shit we're doing in the Middle East...

But something about people on the Internet Bashing One's Country, or visa-versa...Makes one wish to defend one's country with a passion...

Internet promotes Nationalism and Disunity from what ive noticed...:sniper:

Just a thought...

But something about people on the Internet Bashing One's Country, or visa-versa...

Something about people on your country bashing the internet?

Something about people on your country bashing the internet?

Alright, that was pretty cruel, you know what i mean, people bashing my country, or Me or people from my Country bashing other peoples country...

Alright, that was pretty cruel, you know what i mean, people bashing my country, or Me or people from my Country bashing other peoples country...

:D_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif_:D

:D_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif_:D

lmao, alright...off to SoulStorm...

Maybe a Warhammer NATO would help matters in the grim darkness...

...but, anyway, pointless post concluded :p lol

Polls indicate that the Ukrainians don't want to join NATO, so I don't see why they should at this time.

I didn't know that Ukraine held referendums on every issue of international policy before deciding what to do. They have a legitimate government, they should leave it up to their government to decide what to do.

Unless there is a better reason to not let them in, other than it might piss Russia off, I say we should allow it. Russia is on the road to it's old way of doing business, and having more allies in the region of its greatest influence will be a good thing, not a bad thing in the future.

World war I was a different type of alliance system. Part of the reason the alliance system was powder keg prior to world war I was that alliance could be made in secret. Also half of the countries involved were not part of the alliance.


Alas, after Bismarck left the ship Germany (see http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g41007/bismar4.html) the Kaiser neglected to keep up the spinning of treaties to prevent war and found himself deep in the KuK-Austria-shit in the end. A treaty brought Germany in the war ... and the treaty NATO would bring every NATO-member in a NATO-war.

But most nations welcomed war at this time. I'm not joking.

Korean war??? what alliance was Korea in ???

The garlic-alliance? ;)

I'll answer the OP question with another question:

Should Russia keep military bases in Cuba and Mexico?

There you are.

I would support American military bases in an economically strong democratic Cuba. And Membership in Nato with Canada and all European Union Nations that should include all European nations including a democratic Russia.

So there you are.

MJA.

Alas, after Bismarck left the ship Germany (see http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g41007/bismar4.html) the Kaiser neglected to keep up the spinning of treaties to prevent war and found himself deep in the KuK-Austria-shit in the end. A treaty brought Germany in the war ... and the treaty NATO would bring every NATO-member in a NATO-war.

But most nations welcomed war at this time. I'm not joking.



The garlic-alliance? ;)

there is more to it then that. Germany had been looking to expand east ward into Russia for some time as they were expecting the czarist regime to collapse and occupying parts of western Russia would have become necessary (for get the German term but it translates roughly as eastern reconnaissance and the same term was used prior to WWII).

I didn't know that Ukraine held referendums on every issue of international policy before deciding what to do. They have a legitimate government, they should leave it up to their government to decide what to do.It's a bit silly to do something a pretty large majority of the country is against, especially when its always possible to do it at a later time when public opinion may be more favorable. Even legitimate governments should take their citizen's opinions into account.

Alas, after Bismarck left the ship Germany (see http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g41007/bismar4.html) the Kaiser neglected to keep up the spinning of treaties to prevent war and found himself deep in the KuK-Austria-shit in the end. A treaty brought Germany in the war ... and the treaty NATO would bring every NATO-member in a NATO-war.

But most nations welcomed war at this time. I'm not joking.To be honest, if it really had been a treaty, then World War I could have been prevented. Instead, Kaiser Bill told the Austrians (as in verbally) that he would back anything they would do to Serbia unconditionally. This is qualitatively different from the treaty the Central Powers had (remember Italy was a part of this as well and was not bound to intervene on Austria's behalf since Austrian agression started the conflict), and from the NATO treaty.

And how effective these were you saw later.

2001 Afghanistan liberated from Taleban
11 March 2004 Madrid bombings
7 July 2005 London bombings

Face it ... military invasion does not work against terrorism.Methinks you're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. Madrid is unlikely to have happened without Spanish participation in the Coalition of the Willing while London had nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with Iraq.

By right of conquest, yes it was.

there are no "rights" of conquest. only fiate accompli, and WRONGS.

whether it be russia, portugal, great britan, the u.s., china, the ottomans, the romans, the greeks, spain, ANYbody. ever.

=^^=
.../\...

there are no "rights" of conquest. only fiate accompli, and WRONGS.

whether it be russia, portugal, great britan, the u.s., china, the ottomans, the romans, the greeks, spain, ANYbody. ever.

=^^=
.../\...

Which would be why I said 'rightfully' (with the quotation marks) the first time.

Methinks you're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. Madrid is unlikely to have happened without Spanish participation in the Coalition of the Willing while London had nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with Iraq.

I don't think so. Terrorists will strike whenever they see the chance and a sufficient reason. And "sufficient reason" can be simply that they don't like you.

Maybe without the Iraq-participation of Spain they would not have struck Madrid. But ... <choose western city>. The reasoning "because of Iraq" led to Spain caving in (after election etc. pp.) ... which does not help against terrorism either. Giving in to terrorist ... John McClane would not have done this :D

The point was - all the "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan did not help against these bombings. Nor will any defense pact like the NATO help against terrorists. It is an asymmetric threat which cannot be resolved by military strength, unless you consider making your country into a military organization ... then ... maybe.

I don't think so. Terrorists will strike whenever they see the chance and a sufficient reason. And "sufficient reason" can be simply that they don't like you.

Maybe without the Iraq-participation of Spain they would not have struck Madrid. But ... <choose western city>. The reasoning "because of Iraq" led to Spain caving in (after election etc. pp.) ... which does not help against terrorism either. Giving in to terrorist ... John McClane would not have done this :D

The point was - all the "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan did not help against these bombings. Nor will any defense pact like the NATO help against terrorists. It is an asymmetric threat which cannot be resolved by military strength, unless you consider making your country into a military organization ... then ... maybe.

I'm sorry, but this continuous "You can't win using military force against Terrorists" BULLSHIT is really getting on my nerves.

The fact is, military force and security sevices, properly applied, are the only things that DO work against terrorism.

By keeping the pressure on, catching or eliminating the forces behind the terror campaign and infiltrating and crushing the individual cells, their ultimate objectives - to create ungovernable conditions and public fear - can and have been prevented. The Provisional IRA never came close. ETA is contained. The Red Army Faction was contained, exposed, and eventually eliminated completely.

It's true you can't prevent terrorist acts. But you can constrict the terrorsits' ability to degrade your social and political systems to the point where their actions are exercises in futility - even if they get the occasional bomb off, nobody cares.

And that very constriction can only be done with military force.

I don't think so. Terrorists will strike whenever they see the chance and a sufficient reason. And "sufficient reason" can be simply that they don't like you.

Maybe without the Iraq-participation of Spain they would not have struck Madrid. But ... <choose western city>. The reasoning "because of Iraq" led to Spain caving in (after election etc. pp.) ... which does not help against terrorism either. Giving in to terrorist ... John McClane would not have done this :D

The point was - all the "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan did not help against these bombings. Nor will any defense pact like the NATO help against terrorists. It is an asymmetric threat which cannot be resolved by military strength, unless you consider making your country into a military organization ... then ... maybe.Most of the Jihadists do receive training, which was kind of suspended until the camps were relocated on account of the Taleban being ousted. That was a blow to international terrorism. Iraq, on the other hand, fueled anti-western sentiments due to Western hubris, and motivated the homegrown terrorists that struck in London.

I'm sorry, but this continuous "You can't win using military force against Terrorists" BULLSHIT is really getting on my nerves.

The fact is, military force and security sevices, properly applied, are the only things that DO work against terrorism.

By keeping the pressure on, catching or eliminating the forces behind the terror campaign and infiltrating and crushing the individual cells, their ultimate objectives - to create ungovernable conditions and public fear - can and have been prevented. The Provisional IRA never came close. ETA is contained. The Red Army Faction was contained, exposed, and eventually eliminated completely.

It's true you can't prevent terrorist acts. But you can constrict the terrorsits' ability to degrade your social and political systems to the point where their actions are exercises in futility - even if they get the occasional bomb off, nobody cares.

And that very constriction can only be done with military force.
The RAF disbanded itself, and the containment was largely influenced by political measures.

The RAF disbanded itself, and the containment was largely influenced by political measures.

If by "disbanded itself", you mean "all of the major participants wound up in prison"...yeah.

Certainly, there is a political element. In fact, the final act in a terrorist/guerilla/freedom fighter/insurgent action is almost always political - when the terrorists realize they have more to gain at the bargaining table than they have to lose in the field.

But it's equally usually military and paramilitary force that gets them to the table. If the insurgents become convinced that fighting is a losing proposition, then the smart insurgents - the leaders, usually - start looking for other solutions. It doesn't matter if you have infinite supplies of disposable troops - if they aren't getting the job done, they're so much confetti.

If by "disbanded itself", you mean "all of the major participants wound up in prison"...yeah.

Certainly, there is a political element. In fact, the final act in a terrorist/guerilla/freedom fighter/insurgent action is almost always political - when the terrorists realize they have more to gain at the bargaining table than they have to lose in the field.

But it's equally usually military and paramilitary force that gets them to the table. If the insurgents become convinced that fighting is a losing proposition, then the smart insurgents - the leaders, usually - start looking for other solutions. It doesn't matter if you have infinite supplies of disposable troops - if they aren't getting the job done, they're so much confetti.No, by "disbanded itself" I mean "issued a statement saying it disbanded itself, whereupon it disbanded itself." It's recent history, and I'm surprised someone that apparently has read up on the RAF wouldn't have heard about it.

No, by "disbanded itself" I mean "issued a statement saying it disbanded itself, whereupon it disbanded itself." It's recent history, and I'm surprised someone that apparently has read up on the RAF wouldn't have heard about it.

Given that the leading members were generally either long dead or long imprisoned by the time of the "dissolution", and that the organization had been inactive for quite some time, I'd dare to say that it was defeated and no longer a functioning entity well before it "disbanded itself".

The RAF disbanded itself, and the containment was largely influenced by political measures.

The Royal Air Force has disbanded?

No, by "disbanded itself" I mean "issued a statement saying it disbanded itself, whereupon it disbanded itself." It's recent history, and I'm surprised someone that apparently has read up on the RAF wouldn't have heard about it.

No, must have missed it. I don't find it surprising, though; with the loss of most of it's ideological leadership, the organization had been effectively dead (or at least moribund) for years. I don't recall them actually doing anything since, oh, must have been the early nineties.

No, must have missed it. I don't find it surprising, though; with the loss of most of it's ideological leadership, the organization had been effectively dead (or at least moribund) for years. I don't recall them actually doing anything since, oh, must have been the early nineties.

Quite true, their last attack was in 1993, and the so-called announcement of their "disolution" came in 1998. They were decidedly no longer a functional organization in the fashion they once were, and were likely fully defunct well before the announcement.

I mean, after all, the announcement was merely a fax with their letterhead logo on it that was sent to some German newspapers.

Quite true, their last attack was in 1993, and the so-called announcement of their "disolution" came in 1998. They were decidedly no longer a functional organization in the fashion they once were, and were likely fully defunct well before the announcement.

I mean, after all, the announcement was merely a fax with their letterhead logo on it that was sent to some German newspapers.It effectively prevented a 4th generation RAF to spring up, however.

It seems that many of the allies had reservations about Ukraine and Georgia. However, not so much with Croatia and Albania.

Does admission of the latter two to NATO make sense?

I'd say, probably more than the former two. Especially since they're surrounded by current NATO members and relatively far from the front.

It seems that many of the allies had reservations about Ukraine and Georgia. However, not so much with Croatia and Albania.

Does admission of the latter two to NATO make sense?

I'd say, probably more than the former two. Especially since they're surrounded by current NATO members and relatively far from the front.

Not as far as you think they are.

NATO needs to be dissolved and its resources funnel over to the UN. The Cold War is over. It's expanding beyond the North Atlantic. It's clearly trying to point a middle finger at Russia with the missile plan and expansion. Why is the Warsaw pact (which was much smaller) bad, but this perfectly acceptable?

Where is the "NATO shouldn't exist at all" option? Neither should the UN, for that matter.

Where is the "NATO shouldn't exist at all" option? Neither should the UN, for that matter.

I agree.

However, Option #6, "Why do we still have NATO?" comes close enough.