Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The beginning of the end for NATO?

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

  • The beginning of the end for NATO?

    France , Germany and Belgium have blocked a move by NATO to begin planning for the security of Turkey in the case of an Iraqi attack on that country. The flimsy rationale is that such a move would give the appearrance of a "logic to war".

    Whaaatttt???

    Turkey, in its turn, has been forced to invoke article 4 of the NATO charter. This forces consultation of NATO members when a member country feels itself to be under threat.


    There will be a war in Iraq (unless Saddam surprises everybody). To refuse assistance to an Allie at this critical juncture risks causing the dissolution of NATO. France, Germany and Belgium have to wake up and smell the coffee or they'll find that not only are their actions rendering the UN ineffective, but also NATO.
    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

  • #2
    Re: The beginning of the end for NATO?

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by tigersqn
    [B]France , Germany and Belgium have blocked a move by NATO to begin planning for the security of Turkey in the case of an Iraqi attack on that country. "


    lets Nuke them!!!!!


    :flag:
    There is only one tactial principal which is not subject to change, That is to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
    - General George S. Patton, Jr

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Re: The beginning of the end for NATO?

      Originally posted by Dog 1
      lets Nuke them!!!!!
      :flag: [/B]
      so, how old are you ? 13 ? 14 ?
      "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

      Henry Alfred Kissinger

      Comment


      • #4
        28 ... and you ? 2 or 3

        I say Nuke every one......

        There is only one tactial principal which is not subject to change, That is to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
        - General George S. Patton, Jr

        Comment


        • #5
          15 days older than you, 5. Feb. 1974
          "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

          Henry Alfred Kissinger

          Comment


          • #6
            We can't nuke them. First, we must look a little closer at Turkey's request. Who do they want NATO to protect them from? Iraq, or groups like the anti-Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party? If it's Iraq, NATO technically has an obligation to support their allie. On the otherhand, if it's the PPK, the US, Turkey, and the allies participating in the invasion of Iraq share the burden.

            While I'm growing tired of France and Germany's maneuvering, I still believe we should remain committed to NATO. The organi-zation has proven it has a role in the post-Cold War world. I just feel it's strange the French government is making all this fuss publically, but behind closed doors, they're trying to establish a situation that will allow them to join the Coalition. Politics is politics I guess, we're no better.

            As for nuking the three countries, well, they are entitled to their own opinion. This is just a good example of what happens when agendas don't mix or compromises be created. It doesn't mean all the people are againtst us. If we were attacked by Saddam tomorrow, I'm confident Europe would rally behind us. The same goes for the US. I wouldn't allow a disagreement over a moron like Saddam to destroy a relationship created over sixty years, bounded with blood.

            Me and my little brother use to fight all the time. However, no matter how angry I was at him, I would never allow someone else to touch him with doing my best to hand out a bloody nose. The same is with Europe and NATO. We need each other. We don't want to admit because of national pride. However, it's the truth.

            So let's not blow up our friends because they are getting on our nerves.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              I fail to see a need for NATO, so it would be good riddance to me. Its existence is almost entirely due to the innate conservatism of government, demonstrated by failing to adjust to a changing world until either outright decay or a crisis changes it for them. In its place the Anglo-American alliance could find like-minded nations, not bound to a certain region, and form a new alliance or keep the Anglo-American alliance and build ad hoc alliances when needed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Like a 'New World Order' Tex?
                http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                Comment


                • #9
                  No, it wouldn't be a New World Order. Simply a more streamlined alliance of nations with shared interests and shared capabilities.
                  Last edited by Tex; 10 Feb 03, 18:28.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    NATO was formed to counter the Warsaw Pact. Now most of the Warsaw Pact is part of NATO. What the heck is going on here?
                    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oddly enough, the new NATO nations of Eastern Europe seem to be more dedicated to the idea of common security than their brethren in Western Europe.
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        as soon as all nations worldwide are part of NATO it'll be really hard to find a convincing enemy
                        Than maybe NATO will become the world police while the UN will be a mixture between judicative and legislative world government
                        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                        Henry Alfred Kissinger

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tex
                          I fail to see a need for NATO, so it would be good riddance to me. Its existence is almost entirely due to the innate conservatism of government, demonstrated by failing to adjust to a changing world until either outright decay or a crisis changes it for them. In its place the Anglo-American alliance could find like-minded nations, not bound to a certain region, and form a new alliance or keep the Anglo-American alliance and build ad hoc alliances when needed.
                          That would be a grave mistake. The current superpower status of the U.S. lies on the great geopolitical influence it has on 2 critical "poles" of power:

                          A) Europe
                          B) Japan / Asia-Pacific Region (South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Australia, Indonesia)

                          Without the influence on these 2 poles, America's power would be greatly diminished and Washington would feel geographically isolated in the Americas.

                          Looking at the first pole of power, we can see that NATO is a master piece of the American influence and presence in Europe. If the U.S. starts to disregard NATO, guess who will be more than happy about it?.... Mother Russia.

                          Moscow's dearest wish is to exercise as much geopolitical influence in all of Europe as the U.S. is doing today. However, Washington has been sucessfull so far in checking Russia's ambitions by extending NATO to Eastern Europe.

                          Of course, NATO's role need to be redefined in this new era and some ideas have been put on the table for this at the last NATO summit in Prague. So the association needs an overhaul and a new mission, but giving up on NATO would only mean even more independance and defiance of Europe towards Washington, and I don't think the White House wants that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Doesn't NATO use a democratic process to prevent one member nation from dictating to the others what the group as a whole will do?

                            Isn't part of this democratic process the right of veto?

                            Obviously it is or those member nations not in favour of bolstering the defences of Turkey would not be using that democratic process to oppose it.


                            Doesn't the United Nations use a democratic process to prevent one member nation from dictating to the others what the group as a whole will do?

                            Isn't part of this democratic process the right of veto?

                            Obviously it is or those member nations not in favour of the overthrow of Saddam Hussain's government would not be using that democratic process to oppose it.

                            Should we not all be remembering that the most important cornerstone of a free and democratic society is the right to disagree with, and remove (via the democratic process), any leaders that the majority disagree with?

                            The Theatre Option of Strengthening Turkey's defences can be seen, by the cynical, as an excuse to mass your forces/ Allied Forces on your opponent's border at the expense of looking more aggressive and possibly forcing the hand of your opponent into using the WMD Theatre Option that he say (but says he hasn't ) got available.

                            Personally to me it's blatantly obvious the Iraqis aren't going to feel pressured into invading Turkey. After all that swings the French, German, Russian faction right against him and into the US/UK corner

                            Evileye

                            I'm gonna look pretty silly if the tanks are rolling across the border as I press the Submit button
                            "What's the Zakdornian for mismatch?"

                            "Challenge! We do not whine about the inequities of life. And how you perform in a mismatch is precisely what is of interest to Starfleet. After all- when one is in the superior position, one is expected to win."

                            -- Riker and Kolrami, ST:TNG, Peak Performance.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tzar

                              Of course, NATO's role need to be redefined in this new era and some ideas have been put on the table for this at the last NATO summit in Prague. So the association needs an overhaul and a new mission, but giving up on NATO would only mean even more independance and defiance of Europe towards Washington, and I don't think the White House wants that.
                              Certainly not. At the moment europe is still not that united concerning their defence politics, a european army exists only rudimentary. Would NATO fall apart and the protection of the USA suddenly gone europe would be forced to build up their military forces and increase cooperation to ensure that they can defend themselfs. OK, this is what America wants right now but they want to see this european army under their/NATO control, an independant strong europe can't be desired by the USA.
                              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                              Henry Alfred Kissinger

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X