NATO should be scrapped

[Makain]

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization for those of you not very informed) is increasingly becoming outdated and is now being manipulated by our President to support a war in Iraq. I for one don't support this war and as some of you might have heard from the riots in San Fransico and Oakland (those not related to the Super Bowl) a lot of others don't either. However, NATO was formed to counter the Soviet threat during the middle-late years of this century and if we allow it to remain it will only provide the United States with an alternate route besides the United Nations to push its pro-war agenda. In short NATO should be scrapped and the UN be reformed to better protect its members and adqueately and timely punish nations who show violations to human rights and agression (Iraq Israel, and perhaps North Korea).

-Alerick

[wu_trax]

i fully agree. i dont see any need for the nato anymore.

[Tactitus]

The NATO-dragging-the-ambivalent-into-conflicts argument cuts both ways (lo Bosnia). It is the nature of alliances that you have to support your allies even when sometimes you'd rather not or you think there's a better solution. Ultimately, however, each nation has to decide for itself if the value of remaining in an alliance outweighs whatever benefits it provides. Judging by the fact there are nations still joining NATO, I think it's premature to suggest it no longer serves a purpose. Still; Article 13 of the NATO Charter permits any member to leave.

Reforming the UN might be a good idea, but there's no need to scrap NATO to do that.

[meglamaniac]

Originally posted by Makain
those not related to the Super Bowl

That made me laugh for the first time today!

On a more serious note - riots? I didn't realise there were that many people in the US who seriously doubted Herr Bush enough to get out the banners and the megaphones.
Do you have a news link? I don't watch the news as much as I should...

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
That made me laugh for the first time today!

On a more serious note - riots? I didn't realise there were that many people in the US who seriously doubted Herr Bush enough to get out the banners and the megaphones.
Do you have a news link? I don't watch the news as much as I should...

The queers in Oakland and San Francisco are always rioting about something. They would even riot to protest not having any reason to riot.

Forget Iraq, I say the US should send the troops into California, and nuking San Francisco is a must.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Forget Iraq, I say the US should send the troops into California, and nuking San Francisco is a must.

Now that would be a war that everyone could support!

[Cochese]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
On a more serious note - riots? I didn't realise there were that many people in the US who seriously doubted Herr Bush enough to get out the banners and the megaphones.

There seems to be a common misconception around here that 99% of Americans are all Bush supporters, fat, lazy, war-mongering, ignorant people.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Cochese
There seems to be a common misconception around here that 99% of Americans are all Bush supporters, fat, lazy, war-mongering, ignorant people.

exaggeration.





















60% maybe.

[JonnyBGood]

No it shouldn't. NATO was formed to protect the west and democracy, communism just happened to be the main threat. It was also formed to ensure that the US stayed involved in Europe but that doesn't matter as much at this time. However I would reform NATO. The point of a few divisions of tanks when all your enemy does is strap bombs to himself and crash aeroplanes into buildings is beyond me.

[Curufinwe]

great idea, abolish nato, the european military isnt capable of defending itself against a bunch of boy scouts, just remove the only protection left.

[Auro]

Reform the U.N., you say. What do you propose to be done? Expand the permanent members of the SC to include more 3rd-world representation? Increase more seats for non-permanent members? Give more members veto power? Give the General Assembly more actual power instead of just the ability to recommend? Take away Veto power all together? They will not affect any international crisis at all. Unless, that is, you give Iraq the power to veto and a permanent seat in the SC, which, other than the tremendous comedic value, will truly only be detrimental.

Scrapping NATO would only take the security blanket away from European nations. It was never explicitly intended only to counter Communism and COMECON nations. Its purposes were never 100% set in stone. Scrapping it would only make European nations more vulnerable. The E.U. is not a military alliance after all.

[Curufinwe]

The UN will fall apart because it is a useless institution. it is just at times by the bigger nations if it uses them, else it is ignored. it will end with a failure, as did the league of nations

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
great idea, abolish nato, the european military isnt capable of defending itself against a bunch of boy scouts, just remove the only protection left.

defend against whom ?? id rather have an integrated european army

[GavGull]

Why would the US want to disband NATO if it provided a good means for them to "manipulate" said countries?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by GavGull
Why would the US want to disband NATO if it provided a good means for them to "manipulate" said countries?

Why would said countries want to disband NATO if it provided a good means for them to be "manipulated" by the US?

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
defend against whom ?? id rather have an integrated european army

ofc an intergrated european army would be good, but i wont happen, the european countries can not afford to built up an army that can match up with the best of the world.
defend against those that will try to exploit a defenceless europe, since when does war need a reason anyways?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
ofc an intergrated european army would be good, but i wont happen, the european countries can not afford to built up an army that can match up with the best of the world.

ofc it could. it would just mean to switch priorities, but anyway, what do we need the best army in the world for??

defend against those that will try to exploit a defenceless europe, since when does war need a reason anyways?

war always has a reason, that reason might not make much sence, but there is always a (political) reason.
whop should attack us and for what ??

[Neferti]

the UN is an essential part of modern international relations. Far better than the old League. I can't imagine a world without the UN, nor would i want to.

and even outside it's diplomatic efforts, its humanitarion branch is just fantastic...

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
ofc it could. it would just mean to switch priorities, but anyway, what do we need the best army in the world for??

we need the strongest army because despite all progress humankind things to have made in the last centuries it still comes down to one principle: survival of the fittest

Originally posted by wu_trax

war always has a reason, that reason might not make much sence, but there is always a (political) reason.
whop should attack us and for what ??

money, religion, envy, bad mood, disliking of the french...

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by Neferti
the UN is an essential part of modern international relations. Far better than the old League. I can't imagine a world without the UN, nor would i want to.

and even outside it's diplomatic efforts, its humanitarion branch is just fantastic...

the un is one of the most undemocratical institutions ever come up by men and is useless, since the stronger nations can still do what they want

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
we need the strongest army because despite all progress humankind things to have made in the last centuries it still comes down to one principle: survival of the fittest

money, religion, envy, bad mood, disliking of the french...

tell me: who should attack us and what for ?? most countries are far better off doing buiness with us
economical strength is far more important than military power nowadays.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
tell me: who should attack us and what for ?? most countries are far better off doing buiness with us
economical strength is far more important than military power nowadays.

i can not tell you who, but changes can happen very fast and new political/econonical scenarios can quickly evolve. look how fast things changed after 9/11.

"Der Preis der Freiheit ist ewige Wachsamkeit!"

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
i can not tell you who, but changes can happen very fast and new political/econonical scenarios can quickly evolve. look how fast things changed after 9/11.

"Der Preis der Freiheit ist ewige Wachsamkeit!"

but a large army wont be of much use against terrorism. sure, they are bombed out of afganistan now, and that will be a good thing for the population (if kazai stays in power long enough that is), but how much will it help to fight the terrorism itself? it will do the exact opposite ("the evil amaericans have bombed and occupied the poor afganistan and plan the same thing with irak")

PS check private messages

[Deathjam]

a reason foor warr

they have jam

i want jam

they wont give me jam

i want jam

i demant they give me jam or else

they don't give me jam

i then nuike them

they kinda died

they give me jam

im happy

\o/

war ends here btw

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
but a large army wont be of much use against terrorism. sure, they are bombed out of afganistan now, and that will be a good thing for the population (if kazai stays in power long enough that is), but how much will it help to fight the terrorism itself? it will do the exact opposite ("the evil amaericans have bombed and occupied the poor afganistan and plan the same thing with irak")

PS check private messages

ofc you cant use armies to fight terrorism, you should use them as a deterrent againt other armies. terrorism can only be fought effectivly via politics (unless you decide to kill the whole group associated to the problem that is the reason for terrorism, which is ofc not a good idea).
in the case of iraq, the time for politics is over in my opinion. but i am also saying that the us should seriously rethink its politics in the middleeast, even better in the whole world, after the iraq conflict is solved, with the result of a more isolational foreign policy. imo this would seriously reduce the threat of terrorism to the us, but i am pretty sure that we would have a lot more regional conflicts and even wars if the us doesnt act in its role of "world policeman" anymore. but since fighting is in the nature of humans, there is nothing much you can do about it...

[Nixjim]

The US used to practice Isolationism. Then WW1 forced us into helping anyway. After the war the US returned to isolationism, the result was WW2. Twice burned the US decided it had no choice but to act as the worlds Police if WW3 was to be avoided.
Of course we get bashed either way, but at least this way we are acting to prevent a major war instead of sitting back and waiting until it comes to us.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
snip
"Der Preis der Freiheit ist ewige Wachsamkeit!"

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

Translated by Texan of Terra for those of you who are still studying German.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nixjim
The US used to practice Isolationism. Then WW1 forced us into helping anyway. After the war the US returned to isolationism, the result was WW2. Twice burned the US decided it had no choice but to act as the worlds Police if WW3 was to be avoided.
Of course we get bashed either way, but at least this way we are acting to prevent a major war instead of sitting back and waiting until it comes to us.

noone wants you to turn back to isolationism and/or protectionism, just dont get involved in the policy of other countries.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
noone wants you to turn back to isolationism and/or protectionism, just dont get involved in the policy of other countries.

That is a contradiction.

Isolationism means not getting involved in other countries' foreign policy.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
That is a contradiction.

Isolationism means not getting involved in other countries' foreign policy.

as i understand isolationism it involves not to trade with the rest of the world

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
as i understand isolationism it involves not to trade with the rest of the world

It means not fighting wars against other countries. Not stationing troops outside the United States.

It means when Iraq attacks Kuwait, China attacks Taiwan, Syria attacks Israel or North Korea attacks South Korea, the United States would not be involved.

It means no NATO or UN involvement.

It means pointing at a line on a map and saying, "See this line. Cross this line and you are dead. Do whatever you want on the other side of this line."

That is what isolationism means. Trading is still allowed as long as it does not require any political agreements with other countries.

[Phang]

put it another way: we want THEM to make the first move, and then the US can act. But no preemptive attacks on undisclosed evidence, yeah?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
It means not fighting wars against other countries. Not stationing troops outside the United States.

It means when Iraq attacks Kuwait, China attacks Taiwan, Syria attacks Israel or North Korea attacks South Korea, the United States would not be involved.

It means no NATO or UN involvement.

It means pointing at a line on a map and saying, "See this line. Cross this line and you are dead. Do whatever you want on the other side of this line."

That is what isolationism means. Trading is still allowed as long as it does not require any political agreements with other countries.

there are other methods to get involved in world politics, the use of military power, or thread of it, should be none of them.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
there are other methods to get involved in world politics, the use of military power, or thread of it, should be none of them.

Isolationism means the government does not get involved with other governments.

If Nike wants to buy rubber from sub-saharan African countries, the government does not need to be involved. It is purely a commercial transaction.

[GavGull]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Why would said countries want to disband NATO if it provided a good means for them to be "manipulated" by the US?

Exactly, if they felt they were being manipulated why wouldn't they leave? And to my knowledge nobody has left in recent months.

[xtrasyn]

How about a new thing: NETO.

New European Treaty Organisation.

All old NATO members, but excluding the US, but including Russia.

For some reason it seems a natural choice since most political opinions seem to be the same.