NATO, useful or useless?

[Darsh]

NATO is always a useful organization with a clear goal today or it's an old organization of the 20th century which lost its reason to be and need to be disolved ?

[Heathen Hammer]

Definitely useless for Europe and Canada. After all, USSR no longer exists, so there is no other threat for them. EU will probably have its own military alliance.

[Captain Jin]

Useless because it has to change it's mission statement? That's absurd. Hundreds of organizations constantly have to update their mission statements and goals to fit the times they exist in, especially ones that happen to last a long time. You think the UN has focused on one thing and operated the same way since it's inception? No. Of course it's largely a bloated, beauracratic, impotent organization, but NATO doesn't work that way.

[Treize]

I would prefer a European alternative, it will be better without USA.

[Darsh]

I would prefer a European alternative, it will be better without USA.

+ rep my friend.

[Treize]

+ rep my friend.

As a military alliance, nothing more.


Now the USA is not that bad, but they do seem to drag you into their evil imperialist wars.

[Watchman]

Which has **** all to do with NATO and very much with some heads-of-states' yes-man instincts.

Also, IPA ? So i herd u liek pointless redundancy... (Also have some WEU.)

[Captain Jin]

As a military alliance, nothing more.


Now the USA is not that bad, but they do seem to drag you into their evil imperialist wars.

You mean war, as in non-plural, but then I wouldn't say A-stan is much of an Imperialist venture.

I don't want EU to be allied with USA

Lol, what does that mean? Even if there is no NATO Europe is more or less allied with the United States.

[motiv-8]

I would prefer a European alternative, it will be better without USA.

Indeed, taking away the vast majority of the actual military might and operational capability is a genius idea.

[Treize]

Indeed, taking away the vast majority of the actual military might and operational capability is a genius idea.

You don't need that in a defensive alliance.
Now the USA made NATO an offensive and interventionist alliance.
I prefer armed neutrality as a block.

[skag]

Indeed, taking away the vast majority of the actual military might and operational capability is a genius idea.

Yeah, because following you in your stupid and no sense wars is also a genius idea ??

We don't have to make war, I don't see then why we have to follow you ... and gather hatred of others because of you

Europe is soft, I'm sorry you had to realize this now.

happy you realiize it, better being soft than a dickheaded country

[Watchman]

Yeah, because following you in your stupid and no sense wars is also a genius idea ??

I assume you're talking about the likes of Vietnam and Iraq here ?

[motiv-8]

Yeah, because following you in your stupid and no sense wars is also a genius idea ??

Afghanistan, the only current operation in which NATO is in participation is neither "stupid" nor "no sense." Given that the region was a primary base from which terrorists attacked several NATO countries, you have absolutey no cause to speak in that way.

[Azog 150]

Afghanistan, the only current operation in which NATO is in participation is neither "stupid" nor "no sense." Given that the region was a primary base from which terrorists attacked several NATO countries, you have absolutey no cause to speak in that way. Not to mention it's highly immature.

I agree with you here, but I would just like to point out that Afghanistan was the base for an attack on only one NATO country (The US). The rest of the attacks on NATO members were more linked with Pakistan.

[skag]

Afghanistan, the only current operation in which NATO is in participation is neither "stupid" nor "no sense." Given that the region was a primary base from which terrorists attacked several NATO countries, you have absolutey no cause to speak in that way. Not to mention it's highly immature.

What about Irak ?
whine whine you are our allies whine whine whine, you must come also

FFS, you created that
I don't understand why it must concern us

Same for the rest
You "created" talibans & other extremist (not directly obviously), you (and UK) created the hate of those countries against occidental countries

Before we came to follow you into those wars, we had no problems
then, terrorists attacked us also

have to be surprised ? no
we fight against an entity, then this entity replied ... basically, that's what happen when you fight against something

[Pickle_mole]

I would prefer a European alternative, it will be better without USA.

No doubt, so you limp wristed wet blankets could start footing some of the bill.

Europe can protect itself from Russia, and the United States would interfere in a European war at some point anyway, like it always has. You know, after the damage has been dealt to us.

is this whining about the USA winning WWII?

Your logic confounds me, you make some snide remark how the US doesnt come and protect you before your gets blown up but then you say you can protect yourself?

[motiv-8]

The last I checked NATO was a "bring your own toys, just make sure the ammo and protocols work with everyone elses'" kind of outfit you know. The ridiculously bloated US military budget has preciously little to do with the alliance.

When that "ridiculously bloated" US military budget brings forth the overwhelming majority of firepower, manpower, and operationaly capability, can you really be so confident in such a claim?

[Watchman]

When that "ridiculously bloated" US military budget brings forth the overwhelming majority of firepower, manpower, and operationaly capability, can you really be so confident in such a claim?

I didn't say its results weren't useful. (Especially for diverse Europeans and Japanese who can thus cheerfully let the US foot the bill for much stuff, a burden which it appears not only willing but downright eager to shoulder... silly military-industrial complexes.)
That doesn't make it any less grotesqualy bloated, however.

[Stavroforos]

is this whining about the USA winning WWII?

No, and how you extrapolated that from my comment "confounds me."

Your logic confounds me, you make some snide remark how the US doesnt come and protect you before your gets blown up but then you say you can protect yourself?

Because the situation of the world in 1939 is the same as it is in 2009.

[Gelgoog]

I would prefer a European alternative, it will be better without USA.

Exactly.

While we are at it, the US should remove all of its bases from europe taking away all the money pumped into the local economies.

The US should also stop its umbrella protection of the west, forcing european countries to boost their defensive spending and cutting back on social programs.

I am all for giving europeans the shaft and making them stand on their own two feet these days. Greenbacks could be better spend in the US and not on silly eurotrash.