NATO began in 1947 to preclude Russian conquest of Europe. The Soviet Union faded from the scene. Is there still a need for NATO and, if so, what should that role be now?
DJ
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Is NATO still relevant?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 02, 2004 - 10:59 PM UTC
viper29_ca
Member Since: October 18, 2002
entire network: 2,247 Posts
KitMaker Network: 718 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 03:38 AM UTC
We still have the manic tyranists in the world waiting pop up.
Russia could revolve back to their old ways with the next election.
Not to mention the so called "Axis of Evil" Iran, North Korea, heck even China.....with over 4million troops just in their infantry alone....that would make me a little nervous.
Russia could revolve back to their old ways with the next election.
Not to mention the so called "Axis of Evil" Iran, North Korea, heck even China.....with over 4million troops just in their infantry alone....that would make me a little nervous.
sniperwolf
Member Since: March 28, 2004
entire network: 86 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 05:11 AM UTC
NATO is still a serious organization. Without starting a flame war, I feel that the U.N. does more harm than good.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 05:24 AM UTC
Chris-- we are all adults on this forum so fire away and let us know why you think NATO is more trouble than it is worth.
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
sniperwolf
Member Since: March 28, 2004
entire network: 86 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 09:17 AM UTC
I feel that NATO is still relevant, but the U.N. is dividing the world's militaries up into small pieces that are easy to attack and get away with. Nearly every zone the UN has gone into has turned into a quagmire. In fact, Bosnia divided the US and russians up so badly that there was nearly a battle between the two nations. Also, the premise of a world government would in fact harm the world. People have different interests and ideals in different regions. NATO's premise is still relevant. Pooling our militaries to create a stronger union, and being ready to send large amounts of forces where and when needed
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 06:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I feel that NATO is still relevant, but the U.N. is dividing the world's militaries up into small pieces that are easy to attack and get away with. Nearly every zone the UN has gone into has turned into a quagmire. In fact, Bosnia divided the US and russians up so badly that there was nearly a battle between the two nations. Also, the premise of a world government would in fact harm the world. People have different interests and ideals in different regions. NATO's premise is still relevant. Pooling our militaries to create a stronger union, and being ready to send large amounts of forces where and when needed
Chris--- good points. The vital ingredient is to convince your allies that there is a common threat to everyone's well-being. Whi is not NATO involved in the ground elements of say our actions in Iraq? Is terrorism, for example, a unique American or world threat?
thanks
DJ
phoenix-1
Member Since: December 25, 2003
entire network: 629 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 11:17 AM UTC
DJ, terrorism is a threat everywhere. For example, look at Russia, Israel, Germany, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. The problem isn't making an international issue; the problem is unilateral action by one force that ends up looking like imperialist desires. I'm not just talking about Iraq and the US but also Russia and Chechnya, for example. The international community under NATO or the UN needs to see that they are needed and won't be subverted. Then they would be willing to get involved in conflicts like Iraq along with other battles that will inevitably come in the War on Terrorism.
Kyle
Kyle
SonOfAVet
Member Since: January 18, 2003
entire network: 547 Posts
KitMaker Network: 268 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 05:21 PM UTC
I feel that NATO has a purpose and will continue to have a purpose. Correct me if I wrong but isn't an element of the NATO agreement is that an attack on one memeber is considered an attack on all members?
I feel this is an excellent front to have and it creates allies in a way. I'm sure one could argue exactly HOW strong these alliances are but...
Terrorism is tricky because it is not a single front..like the "evil" empire of the Soviet Union...which NATO was a response too..
Definately food for thought...
Sean
I feel this is an excellent front to have and it creates allies in a way. I'm sure one could argue exactly HOW strong these alliances are but...
Terrorism is tricky because it is not a single front..like the "evil" empire of the Soviet Union...which NATO was a response too..
Definately food for thought...
Sean
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 11:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I feel that NATO has a purpose and will continue to have a purpose. Correct me if I wrong but isn't an element of the NATO agreement is that an attack on one memeber is considered an attack on all members?
I feel this is an excellent front to have and it creates allies in a way. I'm sure one could argue exactly HOW strong these alliances are but...
Terrorism is tricky because it is not a single front..like the "evil" empire of the Soviet Union...which NATO was a response too..
Definately food for thought...
Sean
Sean-- the "attack against one is an attack against all " provison of the NATO agreement is exactly what we should be invoking (IMHO) to demand that our allies support the GWOT. We have been attacked. Terrorist are not non-state actors as some characterize them. They are human being who live, eat, sleep and plot somewhere in the world. If our democratic ways and ease of access foster their activities then our allies should be just as, if not more, concerned about eradicating the problem as we are. I continue to see the hoopla over Abu Ghari prison and Gitmo. But, I fail to see any movie maker using the footage of a man begging for his life before someone beheads him or another paraded before cameras and then murdered. If someone would portray what these murders do, it would graphically support the efforts of this Nation to contain and eliminate terror activities. Probably make Fahrenheit 9/11 go down in the ratings. This is what NATO should be doing. Actively pursuing these criminals until they get tired of running and we kill them.
DJ
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 12:32 AM UTC
Sorry folks, I think NATO has become useless for the US as recently proven. A good portion of the member states turned their backs on the principal, and continue to do so. As chief monetary supplier, I think the US ought to pull out and maybe form a differnet union. I don't think there is to big a threat to Europe any more, Maybe US ought to form new club and see who wants to truely join in with us.
phoenix-1
Member Since: December 25, 2003
entire network: 629 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 03:17 AM UTC
Steve, the only problem I see with the US creating its own union is that it may in fact cause the opposite of the desired effect on world relations. If the world is so hell bent on chastising the US for going it alone in Iraq, how many world powers would actually join if the US pulled out of NATO and formed its own club? Another thing that I was thinking of is in response to DJ's comment about NATO supporting the WOT. Since terrorism is a global problem, NATO would be involved everywhere in the world. While that may not seem like a problem now (NATO would be a welcome addition to peacekeeping forces in Iraq and Afghanistan), what happens if one of the nations of NATO sees American militia units, for example, as a terrorist group? Something tells me that the American public would not react well to a Russian T-90 rolling down the interstate in search of militia "terrorists." 
Kyle
Kyle
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:41 AM UTC
Kyle-- good points. Let me concentrate on the aspect of "who is a terrorist?" Is one man's terrorist another man's George Washington? I answer my own question by saying "I know pornography when I see it." In other words, there are people fighting for their rights and self-dignity that are easily separated from the scum who kill human beings in support of some off the wall cause. What do you think? We would never see a foreign power enforce law and order in our Country. There are parts of the world that do need such assistance. We do need our allies and friends to preclude another Saddan Hussein or Taliban. Australia and Britian among others are actively supporting our efforts. This is not as unilateral an action as Michael Moore would like us to believe.
DJ
DJ
mikeli125
Member Since: December 24, 2002
entire network: 2,595 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,079 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 09:23 PM UTC
lets not forget that there are Nato members in Iraq as well such as the UK.Poland,Romaina and Spain also
did a bit until recently. NATO does still have a relivent place in world polititcs today look at Kosovo how many lives were saved because of intervention by Nato ok could have been handled better but it done the Job look were Nato succeded in the Balkans were the UN failed and allowed wholesale slaughter and destruction.
Nato should change its role as the thread that it was formed against has gone. the war on terror is here for a long time and nato needs to shift is policy/doctrine to encompass actions such as iraq or afghanistan.
did a bit until recently. NATO does still have a relivent place in world polititcs today look at Kosovo how many lives were saved because of intervention by Nato ok could have been handled better but it done the Job look were Nato succeded in the Balkans were the UN failed and allowed wholesale slaughter and destruction.
Nato should change its role as the thread that it was formed against has gone. the war on terror is here for a long time and nato needs to shift is policy/doctrine to encompass actions such as iraq or afghanistan.
penpen
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:26 PM UTC
I don't feel NATO is still needed in it's old shape. Western europe is not endangered as it used to be. Still, there are threats, different ones. And it's true that the UN is far from perfect so it's very logical to keep other alliances alive.
We must not forget that there are hughe money considerations behind NATO too. When a country enters NATO, it needs to have interoperable equipment with the other members. This means it'll often need to buy US equipment. Arms trade money is big money. I'm not saying this is good or bad, most of the industrialised western countrys make big money by selling weapons worldwide.
Now, people wonder why some members of NATO didn't enter the war in Iraq. These countries felt that it was not a war on terrorism. The opinion there was that the true aim of armed operations in Iraq was different. In that case, such an attack against Irak was not seen as an answer to an attack against an ally.
I'm being very careful when writing down this answer. I'm not giving my personal opinion on these current events because I know it's going to be different from that of other members and the discussion is going to heat up for nothing !
We must not forget that there are hughe money considerations behind NATO too. When a country enters NATO, it needs to have interoperable equipment with the other members. This means it'll often need to buy US equipment. Arms trade money is big money. I'm not saying this is good or bad, most of the industrialised western countrys make big money by selling weapons worldwide.
Now, people wonder why some members of NATO didn't enter the war in Iraq. These countries felt that it was not a war on terrorism. The opinion there was that the true aim of armed operations in Iraq was different. In that case, such an attack against Irak was not seen as an answer to an attack against an ally.
I'm being very careful when writing down this answer. I'm not giving my personal opinion on these current events because I know it's going to be different from that of other members and the discussion is going to heat up for nothing !
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't feel NATO is still needed in it's old shape. Western europe is not endangered as it used to be. Still, there are threats, different ones. And it's true that the UN is far from perfect so it's very logical to keep other alliances alive.
We must not forget that there are hughe money considerations behind NATO too. When a country enters NATO, it needs to have interoperable equipment with the other members. This means it'll often need to buy US equipment. Arms trade money is big money. I'm not saying this is good or bad, most of the industrialised western countrys make big money by selling weapons worldwide.
Now, people wonder why some members of NATO didn't enter the war in Iraq. These countries felt that it was not a war on terrorism. The opinion there was that the true aim of armed operations in Iraq was different. In that case, such an attack against Irak was not seen as an answer to an attack against an ally.
I'm being very careful when writing down this answer. I'm not giving my personal opinion on these current events because I know it's going to be different from that of other members and the discussion is going to heat up for nothing !
What we are interested in is your views and opinions. No one has a crystal ball here. What we tell one another should be basis for intelligent discussion. We have never had a problem with dialogue in the History Forum. So, state your case and let us kick it around.
DJ
4-Eyes71
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
NATO began in 1947 to preclude Russian conquest of Europe. The Soviet Union faded from the scene. Is there still a need for NATO and, if so, what should that role be now?
DJ
IMHO, I believe NATO should reinvent itself lest it becomes an anachronism. With the inclusion of some former WarPac nations, I think it should redefine its mission statement and (though trivial as it may seem), rename itself.
I figure NATO has reached that stage where it has to evolve or metamorphse if it is to continue existing for the coming years.
NATO would not run out of enemies. Such an alliance would help check any would-be tyrant or belligerent. Make them think twice before even doing some saber-rattling.
phoenix-1
Member Since: December 25, 2003
entire network: 629 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:45 AM UTC
Honestly, with NATO including more of the WarPac nations though it could present a problem. If they include everyone then everyone has to go to war even if one or two or three or ... countries feel that the war isn't justified (I'm not talking about Iraq anymore, this is more big picture, encompass anything), then suddenly you have an alliance that falls apart because those nations aren't following protocol. Really, that is one of the reasons that the current form of the UN is destined to fail, in my opinion. There are just too many different opinions from both the "good" guys and the "bad" guys.
Kyle
Kyle
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 04:13 AM UTC
Let me pose this question to you. If NATO is based on the doctrine that an "attack against one is an attack against all" and the United States was attacked on September 11th, then why is there any question of NATO support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 04:21 AM UTC
There was a pretty good editorial in the WSJ on Monday June 28th on this very topic.
Link below.
Shaun
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005279
Link below.
Shaun
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005279
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 06:15 AM UTC
Shaun-- a well balanced piece. I urge others to read it and comment on it.
thanks again
DJ
thanks again
DJ
penpen
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 06:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Let me pose this question to you. If NATO is based on the doctrine that an "attack against one is an attack against all" and the United States was attacked on September 11th, then why is there any question of NATO support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Al Kaeda did attack the US on september the 11th and on other occasions. Many countrys are fighting today against Al Kaeda : with troops in Afghanistan, with ships patroling the gulf of aden... with inteligence operations worldwide !
I see operations in Irak differently. Were the al kaeda terrorists iraki ? No.
Were their funds iraki ? No.
Were their leaders iraki ? No.
Were they trained in Irak ? No.
Irak did help terrorists on several occasions. For exemple, they helped palestinian terrorist groups in the 80's. Sadam was still helping funding them (like Iran, Saudi Arabia...). But that is not a link with Al Kaeda ! No proof of that link has been brought forward.
people said that Irak was preparing weapons of mass destruction to hit the US. The so called proofs that were braught forward to convince allied state leaders were quickly proven to be false ! And today, not a single sign of a mass destruction weapon has been found ! So, why should allies take part to the attack against Irak ?
Saddam was a terrible tyran and he needed to be removed. That's a good point. But still, he didn't attack a member of NATO, so NATO (or an other ally) has no
obligation to go against him.
crossbow
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 08:20 PM UTC
Hello,
I couldn't resist anymore...
Ok, the states helped Europe in 14-18 and 40-45, thank you for that. They aided in protecting the "free" world in the cold war, again thank you.
U.s. was attacked in 2001 and retalliated against Afghanistan, main breeding ground of Al-Qaeda, no problem.
But Irak? Agreed Saddam was a tiran and needed to be removed, but no one can deny that economics also played a part, didn't it ? (I know over in the States this is a tricky subject). The free world should have dealt with Saddam 10 years earlier when he invade Kuwait. Nato was united then and everybody jumped in.
But now that Saddam is dealt with, what about Soudan? North-Korea? Somalia (remember that one...)? War criminals in former Yougoslavia? Israel and Palestina? and a couple more I forget....
How about Belgium? Well, we where always dependend on others. We are not a big country (even smaller than Texas...). Until 1914 we didn't even had a decent army. We didn't need to, Britain, France and even Germany would protect us. I did not work out... So from 1914 on we build up an army that held its ground in 14-18. After WW1 we kept up our army as well as we could. At the start of WW2 we had an army of 700.000 soldiers (on a population of then 7million, 10%!!!) with tanks and (relatively) modern air force (with hurricanes i.e.), it was at "1918 improved" state. Meaning we could hold out in a 14-18 type war. But regretfully no one was prepared for blitzkrieg ( although Poland was nearly a year earlier, so the could have learned...). We held out 18 days, helping in making Dunkirk a relative succes. Only to be blamed for the failure of the rapid German advance. But thousands escaped and helped the allies, also Kongo's supplies were made available for the allies. Not to mention, countless civilians who paid with their lives to help the allied effort, by spying and helping airmen to escape.
After 45 we were one of the co-founders of Nato and , if I am not mistaken, supplied its first Secretary-General.
Until the late 70's we kept up an (drafted) army, which was compared to the population quite numbered and modernised. But then warfare became expensive and the threat weakened, so we couldn't keep up. We downsized and specialised (logistics, medics, policing, communications,...) and if required supported Nato full out (Desert storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, ...) and sorry if it only is 2000-3000 men, we only got an army of 50.000...
Irak? Too late and for the wrong reasons and as it turns out no Nato threat....
We should be looking at other countries, where the situation is more threatning...
I have said my thing wether you like or not that's your problem. Everybody in this world has it right to his own opinion and we all have a beer afterwards
Kris
I couldn't resist anymore...
Ok, the states helped Europe in 14-18 and 40-45, thank you for that. They aided in protecting the "free" world in the cold war, again thank you.
U.s. was attacked in 2001 and retalliated against Afghanistan, main breeding ground of Al-Qaeda, no problem.
But Irak? Agreed Saddam was a tiran and needed to be removed, but no one can deny that economics also played a part, didn't it ? (I know over in the States this is a tricky subject). The free world should have dealt with Saddam 10 years earlier when he invade Kuwait. Nato was united then and everybody jumped in.
But now that Saddam is dealt with, what about Soudan? North-Korea? Somalia (remember that one...)? War criminals in former Yougoslavia? Israel and Palestina? and a couple more I forget....
How about Belgium? Well, we where always dependend on others. We are not a big country (even smaller than Texas...). Until 1914 we didn't even had a decent army. We didn't need to, Britain, France and even Germany would protect us. I did not work out... So from 1914 on we build up an army that held its ground in 14-18. After WW1 we kept up our army as well as we could. At the start of WW2 we had an army of 700.000 soldiers (on a population of then 7million, 10%!!!) with tanks and (relatively) modern air force (with hurricanes i.e.), it was at "1918 improved" state. Meaning we could hold out in a 14-18 type war. But regretfully no one was prepared for blitzkrieg ( although Poland was nearly a year earlier, so the could have learned...). We held out 18 days, helping in making Dunkirk a relative succes. Only to be blamed for the failure of the rapid German advance. But thousands escaped and helped the allies, also Kongo's supplies were made available for the allies. Not to mention, countless civilians who paid with their lives to help the allied effort, by spying and helping airmen to escape.
After 45 we were one of the co-founders of Nato and , if I am not mistaken, supplied its first Secretary-General.
Until the late 70's we kept up an (drafted) army, which was compared to the population quite numbered and modernised. But then warfare became expensive and the threat weakened, so we couldn't keep up. We downsized and specialised (logistics, medics, policing, communications,...) and if required supported Nato full out (Desert storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, ...) and sorry if it only is 2000-3000 men, we only got an army of 50.000...
Irak? Too late and for the wrong reasons and as it turns out no Nato threat....
We should be looking at other countries, where the situation is more threatning...
I have said my thing wether you like or not that's your problem. Everybody in this world has it right to his own opinion and we all have a beer afterwards
Kris
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:40 AM UTC
Kris-- what threat do you see as most dangerous to Europe?
DJ
DJ
crossbow
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:53 AM UTC
Hmm, everyone who holds a grudge against the U.s., seems to have one against Europe also.
I know that European (especially Belgian) news doesn't tricle to the U.s.. Lately there have been some small Arab-Israeli troubles in Belgium (no deaths yet... but a couple of wounded). So this is an issue that's not only a local middle east problem.
Kris
I know that European (especially Belgian) news doesn't tricle to the U.s.. Lately there have been some small Arab-Israeli troubles in Belgium (no deaths yet... but a couple of wounded). So this is an issue that's not only a local middle east problem.
Kris
4-Eyes71
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Let me pose this question to you. If NATO is based on the doctrine that an "attack against one is an attack against all" and the United States was attacked on September 11th, then why is there any question of NATO support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
IMHO, DJ. It's politics. Somehow I get this feeling the world is regressing. It's like the 1920's again after WWI. That return to normalcy, thinking that peace has finally arrived now that the belligerent powers are gone.
I see it as a clash of interests. National interests against the interests of the world community.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.