Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: It is time to disolve NATO

  1. #1
    Casanova's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    someplace in afghanistan
    Posts
    496

    Default It is time to disolve NATO

    Can someone please explain to me why NATO still exists? There is no longer a cold war going on, and Europe is hardly at risk of invasion any time soon. Yet the US still has over 100,000 troops in europe, and the US still foots 70 percent of the bill for NATO. What exactly is NATO defending europe from? Russia? Russia is in its current sate is in no way a threat to europe. The billions that the US spends on defending europe could be much better spent on say college for americans. It really pisses me off that I have to bust my butt to pay for school, while most people in europe can get a free education. I am not blaming europe for NATO still existing, and I know most europeans probably dont want US troops there anymore either. It is time that the US stopped wasting billions, and pulled our troops out of europe, we have been there far too long already.
    I used to have a quote from George S. Patton about the Russians, but I guess some might have found it offensive.

  2. #2

    Default

    Yes, that's right, dissolve the greatest stabilising military alliance the world has ever known, which as you yourself point out was what prevented a Third World War - what a brilliant idea. Collapse the mutual obligations of defence as China steadily and with absolute self-assurance scales the steps towards superpower status, as Russia threatens to dissolve into separate fragments which would undoubtedly war amongst each other and against smaller European nations and use nuclear weapons in the process, as global Islamic fanatacism and terrorism develop ever more focused goals and acquire even greater sense of purpose.

    Or perhaps not. I'll refrain from calling you an idiot or anything, because I've just eaten a nice cheese sandwich and am in a good mood.
    Cluny the Scourge's online Rome: Total War voice-commentated battle videos can be found here: http://uk.youtube.com/profile?user=C...e1&view=videos - View on High Quality only.



    Cluny will roast you on a spit in your own juice...

  3. #3
    Casanova's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    someplace in afghanistan
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Perhaps it was the greatest military alliance the world has ever known. But it has served its purpose and now it is no longer needed. If China poses a threat our allies ( Germany and France ) do not seem to care because they are currently trying to sell advanced weapontry to the Chinese, and only US protests have kept them from doing so thus far. If NATO does indeed need to exist then at least the Europeans should be footing a greater portion of the bill. And there is still no need for over 100,000 US troops to be stationed in Europe. Perhaps I should have titled the thread, "why is the US wasting so much money defending Europe?"

    Btw... calling someone an idiot only shows your low level of intellect. If you cannot debate without name calling then you really dont need to post at all.
    Last edited by Casanova; August 20, 2005 at 11:21 AM.
    I used to have a quote from George S. Patton about the Russians, but I guess some might have found it offensive.

  4. #4

    Default

    Nato was conceived as a counter to the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw pact does not now exist so why should NATO remain? Jobs for the boys perhaps?

    The American troops in Europe are there solely to look after America's interests and to defend the American empire.

    JAN.

  5. #5
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default

    I agree NATO has served it's purpose and should be disbanded.

    But Casanova: you have a twisted idea of what NATO is.
    NATO isn't there to defend Europe, It's an alliance to protect all it's members including the US and Turkey.
    You make it sound as if it's some kind of charity from the US to the other members.
    But in reality the US benefits the most from NATO.
    The US is the LAST member who wants to disband NATO. (well, maybe Turkey is....).



  6. #6
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    NATO is more necessary now than ever. While before there was only one threat to western freedom, not there are multiple threats to western freedom.

  7. #7

    Default

    Why should we disband NATO?? They may not work as they once did, but they are certainly still needed... Especially now at day's with the terror roaming around the world, NATO also help different nations to better understanding of eachother... which I think is very important today,,, They also creates a certain feeling of being safe, right?? I mean, if you ask people if they are afraid of being attacked by a neighbour nation or whatever... most will answer: "No, nobody is so stupid that they make war with the whole world"

    Let NATO exist and let people feel safe...

  8. #8
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon
    NATO is more necessary now than ever. While before there was only one threat to western freedom, not there are multiple threats to western freedom.
    There are no threats that they can deal with however; invading countries does not work, as shown by Iraq and Afghanistan (the second is better than the first); terrorists cannot be stopped by armies; and China is thus far no problem and therefore NATO can be re-formed when needed rather than acting as a drain on all of us.

  9. #9
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    Nato has not performed aggressive military campaigns since Bosnia, and that was under UN flag. Nato is a defensive alliance, and it should be coupled with eurodefense, not disbanded.

    Russia is still a potential military threat.
    Terrorism is a potential threat.
    Local dictators are potential threats.
    Iran is a potential threat (it possesses ballistic missiles able to strike Europe)
    China is a potential threat to Europe, just not an immediate threat.

  10. #10
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon
    Nato has not performed aggressive military campaigns since Bosnia, and that was under UN flag. Nato is a defensive alliance, and it should be coupled with eurodefense, not disbanded.
    Maybe, but then we sink money into EU bureaucracy as well as NATO for one result rather than two (cming frm a briton).1
    Russia is still a potential military threat.
    Which has to much to lose to attack anyone, and is in too much chaos from the fall of the USSR to be effectrive
    Terrorism is a potential threat.
    But not one NATO could deal with.
    Local dictators are potential threats.
    Very potentiel and about as threatening as Germany in the very early thirties.
    Iran is a potential threat (it possesses ballistic missiles able to strike Europe)
    Too much to lose, the US is already looking for an excuse to attack it and that would be perfect.
    China is a potential threat to Europe, just not an immediate threat.
    Very long term potentiality to waste money on that could well be better spent.

  11. #11
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    Which has to much to lose to attack anyone, and is in too much chaos from the fall of the USSR to be effectrive.
    Not so, Russia has invested much more than it was thought in military infrastructure. In some fields, the Russian military has infact modernized and expanded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    But not one NATO could deal with.
    NATO has the resources to deal with any kind of threat. Nations which support terrorism have to be taken into account too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    Very potentiel and about as threatening as Germany in the very early thirties.
    This infact proved my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    Too much to lose, the US is already looking for an excuse to attack it and that would be perfect.
    Not now, but in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    Very long term potentiality to waste money on that could well be better spent.
    Not true, China may attack Taiwan anytime soon.

  12. #12
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon
    NATO has the resources to deal with any kind of threat. Nations which support terrorism have to be taken into account too.
    NATO is only suitable for conventional wars.
    But for conventional wars it's not necessary to have such an alliance anymore because there are no big enemies left.

    NATO does nothing to counter modern theats like terrorism.
    In fact: it takes away valuable resources because the member states are forced to buy expensive tanks, fighters and battleships.
    Most NATO members can't invest enough in intelligence and anti-terrorist units because they have to spend so much on conventional weapons.

    Not true, China may attack Taiwan anytime soon.
    What does that have to do with NATO?
    Taiwan is no member so NATO doesn't have to come to their aid.



  13. #13

    Default

    Well here's my take on it.The whole point of creating NATO was to allow small european countries to counter a possible soviet invasion, now that the is no such thing as soviets (and i doubt we will invade europe any time soon) i don't really see the point of it's existense.Correct me if i'm wrong.
    Manstein16 This is especially for you and your bill.

  14. #14

    Default

    NATO at this point isn't really bad for anything, so why not keep it to streamline the war on terror and maintain a nominal balance of power?

    The REAL question is why there are US troops in Europe. Can you just imagine what right-wingers would say if Germany said, "Hey, you've got troops in our land, we want to send troops to Chicago."?


    Simple proof that the US is a bully.

  15. #15

    Default

    But remember its not the war on terror anymore, it's "The global struggle against violent extremism" LOL What a ****in' joke.

    "And I have felt the sudden blow of a nameless wind's cold breath,
    And watched the grisly pilgrims go that walk the roads of Death,
    And I have seen black valleys gape, abysses in the gloom,
    And I have fought the deathless Ape that guards the Doors of Doom."
    -Robert E. Howard "Recompense"

  16. #16
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
    NATO at this point isn't really bad for anything, so why not keep it to streamline the war on terror and maintain a nominal balance of power?
    But it's NOT streamlining (or doing anything else for) the war on terror in any way.
    And NATO is very expensive, why keep it if you aren't using it and don;t need it in the future?

    The REAL question is why there are US troops in Europe. Can you just imagine what right-wingers would say if Germany said, "Hey, you've got troops in our land, we want to send troops to Chicago."?

    Simple proof that the US is a bully.
    I think the US pulled back most of it's troops from Europe before the Iraq war.
    But anyways Europeans don't mind because it earns them money (maybe the only good thing about NATO: American soldiers spending their money in European shops).
    The US likes to put it's soldiers all over the world, including Europe, god knows why.



  17. #17
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon
    Not so, Russia has invested much more than it was thought in military infrastructure. In some fields, the Russian military has infact modernized and expanded.
    yet is it a threat to the European militaries? And are the nations it threatens, ie the eastern European ones, members of NATO anyway?
    NATO has the resources to deal with any kind of threat. Nations which support terrorism have to be taken into account too.
    Finances but not skills. And if we are ging to deal with nations that support terrorism are we also going after nations whose citizens give money to terrorists? Are we going to go after every nation which does or ha supported terrorism? No, we go after those that possibly support Islamic terrorism with the exceptions of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
    This infact proved my point.
    30s Germany was allowed to become a threat, it was not one in the early thirties.
    Not now, but in the future.
    The same applies. the US will stll be spoiling for a fight, as they already are.
    Not true, China may attack Taiwan anytime soon.
    And this concerns (involves) NATO how?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    And this concerns (involves) NATO how?
    Because it is destablizing to a region of the world that is vastly important? How did WW2 'concern' the US? How does the middle east 'concern' the rest of the world now? NATO doesnt live inside a bubble, it lives inside a world where every major action can impact and influence it.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
    yet is it a threat to the European militaries? And are the nations it threatens, ie the eastern European ones, members of NATO anyway?
    despite the russian modernisation, Russia doesn't represent a thread to Europe as the country is driven by different objectives.In 2003, putin signed a series of legislative laws that will convert russian military to a small professional highly trained force, and suppose to illiminate the conscripts system.So i don't think russian objectives are conquests of other countries, as the whole military is cut down, to become a smaller force, much like Britain's, etc.So i believe that NATO is useless as there will be no real thread for european countries, so instead of keeping it, they could convert it for the war on Terror.
    Manstein16 This is especially for you and your bill.

  20. #20
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danzig
    Because it is destablizing to a region of the world that is vastly important? How did WW2 'concern' the US? How does the middle east 'concern' the rest of the world now? NATO doesnt live inside a bubble, it lives inside a world where every major action can impact and influence it.
    It concerns them, like it concerns most people in the world.
    But it doesn't involve them since NATO would no nothing about it.

    The US and Britain would do something about it, and they might ask some other countries to help out, but NATO only protects it's members.



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •