Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is NATO still a credible military organization?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is NATO still a credible military organization?

    Why are there 4 NATO member countries with troops combined that total close to 12,000 not doing any fighting? Are caveats and roe's going to stand in the way of stablizing a-stan? The 4 that are fighting, the Dutch, Brits, Canadians and US troops need a little help from thier NATO "allies". Germany, with Europe's biggest economy and a potent military will not take the lead in helping rid a-stan of islamofacists. Art. 5, NATO charter must have alot of strings attached. Lack of will is going to wreck this mission, and those 4 members, Germany, Italy, Spain, and France to a lesser degree will have thier slimy fingerprints all over this failure. If it fails, the US should pull out of NATO and go its own way. We may need Incirlik now, but i bet a base in Kurdistan would be a lot closer to where we need to be. We could tell the Turk 2 faced "ally" to f-off. The situation in a-stan INFURIATES me. A disgrace....

  • #2
    As it was initialy designed and promoted yes....now? No. They can't even agree on the fact that Islamofascism/terrorism is the current forseeable threat let alone how to deal with either it or its adhoc effects; not the Russians or Chinese from the PRC.

    best
    CV

    Comment


    • #3
      No, it is not. As you mention, some of its members are feckless cowards, and are not pulling their weight in any sense. The U.S. should get out and leave the EUnuchs to fend for themselves, before they get the chance to continue stabbing us in the back. We could set up a new alliance with people we know we can trust not to run and hide like a little girl.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RHYNO101AB View Post
        Why are there 4 NATO member countries with troops combined that total close to 12,000 not doing any fighting?
        Because NATO has failed. How long could it really last, 60 years after WWII, 20 years after the Soviet Union ceased to be much of a threat, 10 years after Clinton exasperated and scared the Europeans by interfering in "their" territory with the war on Serbia?

        Basically, the Europeans badly want to be our enemies: surely you all have noticed that? All the demonstrations, the majority populace of all the countries including Britain and Poland opposing their nation's participation in the Iraq War?

        Now they are opposing participation in Afghanistan. So strongly that the politicians don't dare let their troops fight. They are hoping this fig leaf "participation" will fool Americans, but it isn't fooling most of us, especially. Europe wants out of Afghanistan, they think it's failing like Iraq, and they are probably right.

        Afghanistan doesn't make any sense --- not to Europeans, or to me. The point was to get bin Laden and al Qaeda, but the Taliban is stronger than ever now and bin Laden is sitting enjoying the sun probably no more than a hundred miles from NATO troops, and Afghanistan is now supplying nearly all the heroin that gets into Europe, so I can see the NATO forces would be disillusioned. The battles get worse, but the original point of fighting has fled years ago and no one is going after them.

        Anyway, they won't fight and the nations' peoples want them out entirely and want to be our enemies, not our friends, so I'd say NATO is well and truly busted. Five years left till it disbands? Three years? How long do people think it will be before we formally end what has already ended in fact?

        Comment


        • #5
          "Yea A DANIEL....a Daniel come to judgement."



          Phebe just put her war paint on....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phebe View Post
            Because NATO has failed. How long could it really last, 60 years after WWII, 20 years after the Soviet Union ceased to be much of a threat, 10 years after Clinton exasperated and scared the Europeans by interfering in "their" territory with the war on Serbia?

            Basically, the Europeans badly want to be our enemies: surely you all have noticed that? All the demonstrations, the majority populace of all the countries including Britain and Poland opposing their nation's participation in the Iraq War?

            Now they are opposing participation in Afghanistan. So strongly that the politicians don't dare let their troops fight. They are hoping this fig leaf "participation" will fool Americans, but it isn't fooling most of us, especially. Europe wants out of Afghanistan, they think it's failing like Iraq, and they are probably right.

            Afghanistan doesn't make any sense --- not to Europeans, or to me. The point was to get bin Laden and al Qaeda, but the Taliban is stronger than ever now and bin Laden is sitting enjoying the sun probably no more than a hundred miles from NATO troops, and Afghanistan is now supplying nearly all the heroin that gets into Europe, so I can see the NATO forces would be disillusioned. The battles get worse, but the original point of fighting has fled years ago and no one is going after them.

            Anyway, they won't fight and the nations' peoples want them out entirely and want to be our enemies, not our friends, so I'd say NATO is well and truly busted. Five years left till it disbands? Three years? How long do people think it will be before we formally end what has already ended in fact?
            The Soviet Union did not just "cease to be a threat". They were defeated by being well as out lasted. Fifty years of military, economic and diplomatic isolation by the NATO alliance and other allies was largely responsible. The willingness of Reagan and later Bush to up the ante and respond to Brezshnev reinvigorating the Soviet conventional forces by doing the same as well as responding with new tactical and strategic nukes openned the eyes of the Politbureau.

            The final straw, according to former big shots in the Soviet military, was the US decision to go ahead with SDI. The irony was that those leftists who derided the program concept with the monicker "Star Wars" didn't understand that most of us kids in the 70s and 80s thought Star Wars was cool and the nickname made us more supportive of the idea. Likewise changing the strategic paradigm from Mutually Assured Destruction to a non offensively capable defense system could not be matched by the Communist economies or technology.

            There is a lesson which should apply to the GWOT and the claim that one cannot win a war against a concept or ideology and that democratic nations win long struggles . Unlike Phebe, I am an optimist and do see future value in the alliance, but then unlike Phebe, I see that the NATO alliance succeeded rather than failed. Soviet Communism in Europe was defeated.
            "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
            George Mason
            Co-author of the Second Amendment
            during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

            Comment


            • #7
              We (Canada and the US) needed Nato back when the Warsaw Pact existed.

              There now is no Warsaw Pact, and half or more of that Pact is now Nato it seems.

              Nato might need Canada and the US, but does the US and Canada need Nato?

              I think the only reason for the US and Canada staying in Nato, is so we can influence opinions INSIDE of Nato. But, if the European portions are largely uninterested in participating in "Nato" activities, then maybe Canada and the US need to create a North American military union of common interests.

              I wouldn't mind inviting Mexico in as well for that matter.

              In this way, we could do what we felt we (the 3 North American nations) saw as being needed done, and do it according to our own needs, and we wouldn't have to wonder if the European portions were interested or not.
              Life is change. Built models for decades.
              Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
              I didn't for a long time either.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                The Soviet Union did not just "cease to be a threat". They were defeated by being well as out lasted. Fifty years of military, economic and diplomatic isolation by the NATO alliance and other allies was largely responsible. The willingness of Reagan and later Bush to up the ante and respond to Brezshnev reinvigorating the Soviet conventional forces by doing the same as well as responding with new tactical and strategic nukes openned the eyes of the Politbureau.

                The final straw, according to former big shots in the Soviet military, was the US decision to go ahead with SDI. The irony was that those leftists who derided the program concept with the monicker "Star Wars" didn't understand that most of us kids in the 70s and 80s thought Star Wars was cool and the nickname made us more supportive of the idea. Likewise changing the strategic paradigm from Mutually Assured Destruction to a non offensively capable defense system could not be matched by the Communist economies or technology.
                Oh, I entirely agree. Good post, IMO. That's how I saw it too. Certainly the Soviet Union was defeated, and by Reagan. And yes, I thought "Star Wars" was cool, too. The idea of actually DEFENDING ourselves instead of MAD! Much preferable.


                There is a lesson which should apply to the GWOT and the claim that one cannot win a war against a concept or ideology and that democratic nations win long struggles . Unlike Phebe, I am an optimist and do see future value in the alliance, but then unlike Phebe, I see that the NATO alliance succeeded rather than failed. Soviet Communism in Europe was defeated.

                Okay, I hear you.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paul Maud'dib View Post
                  does the US and Canada need Nato?
                  Naaaaah, they won't fight in Afghanistan, what earthly good are they? I doubt they'll fight anywhere else with us, either. It's busted, that's all. NATO could not reasonably be expected to last forever ---- nothing does.


                  then maybe Canada and the US need to create a North American military union of common interests.

                  I wouldn't mind inviting Mexico in as well for that matter.

                  In this way, we could do what we felt we (the 3 North American nations) saw as being needed done, and do it according to our own needs, and we wouldn't have to wonder if the European portions were interested or not.
                  Nice idea. And we wouldn't have to worry that Europeans were actually working to sabotage us, as I think is their real and constant agenda. Brits always excluded for the obvious reasons, of course. (That is, the eternal British concern that Europeans will conquer them and their need to look for allies outside that zone.)

                  I think we should consider what NATO is DOING in Afghanistan, sitting around not fighting: are they there because they are trying for political cover, or are they actually trying to sabotage us so we'll lose?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nato was all about containing the Warsaw Pact, and not letting them have Western Europe.

                    It served its purpose.

                    Whether or not the continental Nato members want to say thank you is not required. Canada and the US had valid reasons for doing it other than just being nice to Western Europe.

                    But as there is now no need, well that says it all doesn't it. There is no longer any need. Let the continental European Nato nations see to their own needs now.
                    Life is change. Built models for decades.
                    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                    I didn't for a long time either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Phebe View Post
                      Basically, the Europeans badly want to be our enemies: surely you all have noticed that?
                      What utter rot. Britain has been an instrumental part of the Coalition from Day 1. Are they not part of Europe? Others are giving material and/or manpower support. France has decidely turns its official status from antiUSA to old friends and compatriots.
                      "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Phebe View Post
                        Nice idea. And we wouldn't have to worry that Europeans were actually working to sabotage us, as I think is their real and constant agenda. Brits always excluded for the obvious reasons, of course. (That is, the eternal British concern that Europeans will conquer them and their need to look for allies outside that zone.)

                        I think we should consider what NATO is DOING in Afghanistan, sitting around not fighting: are they there because they are trying for political cover, or are they actually trying to sabotage us so we'll lose?
                        I recommend you start looking words up before you start using them. At least that way you will know when you are wrong.

                        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                        Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy, oppressor or employer through subversion, obstruction, disruption, and/or destruction.
                        Sabotage in war
                        In war, the word is used to describe the activity of an individual or group not associated with the military of the parties at war (such as a foreign agent or an indigenous supporter), in particular when actions result in the destruction or damaging of a productive or vital facility, such as equipment, factories, dams, public services, storage plants or logistic routes. Prime examples of such sabotage are the events of Black Tom and the Kingsland Explosion. Unlike acts of terrorism, acts of sabotage do not always have a primary objective of inflicting casualties. Saboteurs are usually classified as enemies, and like spies may be liable to prosecution and criminal penalties instead of detention as a prisoner of war. It is common for a government in power during war or supporters of the war policy to use the term loosely against opponents of the war. Similarly, German Nationalists spoke of a stab in the back having cost them the loss of World War I..
                        The cold war included a subtle form of sabotage. One well documented case is the Soviets Trans-Siberian Pipeline Incident, triggered by the Farewell Dossier.
                        Subtle sabotage has also been employed for other reasons, including attempting to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.


                        Thus, not only were you were about NATO trying to sabotage the USA you were also wrong in using the word the way you did.
                        "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy, oppressor or employer through subversion, obstruction, disruption, and/or destruction.


                          In that case TB she's made her point... cuz that dog hunts.... when it comes to the EU's appreciation of the red white and blue; they essentialy view us as the enema. Speccciccccallly them thar socialist appeaser types.
                          best
                          CV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just so we understand. I don't subscribe to the hysterical notion any European nation is trying to deliberately ruin, hinder, or in any way (or term) harm US and or Canadian efforts in the fashion mentioned above.

                            They will have their needs, and we will have ours.
                            I can live with the idea their needs will mean more to them than ours will mean to them.
                            Seems fair, as a lot of what is important them, might not mean much to me.
                            Life is change. Built models for decades.
                            Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                            I didn't for a long time either.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                              Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy, oppressor or employer through subversion, obstruction, disruption, and/or destruction.


                              In that case TB she's made her point... cuz that dog hunts.... when it comes to the EU's appreciation of the red white and blue; they essentialy view us as the enema. Speccciccccallly them thar socialist appeaser types.
                              best
                              CV
                              'enema' rather than enemy? Did it on purpose or Freudian slip?

                              Very juvenile in either case.

                              Now I recommend you look up the word 'enemy'. No, the nations in Europe do not look upon the USA as the enemy. They may not like what the USA government does a lot of the time but certainly not viewed as the 'enemy'. No wonder you and Phebe have such a mutual appreciation society.
                              "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X