Options
Is NATO totally pointless?
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
I ask this becuase almost every week I read/hear/watch news reports on how the British, Americans and Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan and no one else is. This is dispite shortly after 9/11 NATO vowed to go into the country and not leave until the job is done. I have also read that the other NATO forces that are in the country are in quite safe areas doing very little.
What is the point of NATO if it doesnt do what it says. I am no arguing the rights and wrongs of the conflict... just the treaty organisation that said it'd do something.
What is the point of NATO if it doesnt do what it says. I am no arguing the rights and wrongs of the conflict... just the treaty organisation that said it'd do something.
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
but that is my argument. it really isnt nato... its the british, canadians and americans. where is poland? where is france? where is germany? where is italy? where is holland? where is nato?
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I hear ya man. do you know the exact breakdown of troops in afgahistan from NATO? I found this site, it shows the breakdown as of feb 05
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
can they touchtype and take notes?
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I read a good book on this actually, but i cant remember the name of it. Pretty much it talks about how after WW2 Europe cannot economically send troops into other countries.
According to that fact sheet... Germany tops the list (regarding total numbers) with Canada and Turkey following. The U.S. is listed with 89.
...
And I believe that NATO was originally formed to counter the Warsaw Pact countries of the former Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Europe was the most likely region for hot conflicts to break out. With the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO absorbed the Warsaw Pact nations to basically protect Europe.
Of course, things have changed since then. NATO was never supposed to be the World's Cops. That role was taken but the U.S. (which I think is stupid). Who put us in charge anyway?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yep. I can see Tony Blair's frustration with NATO in Afghanistan. If NATO's there, and there's a job to be done, then there are countries who need to pull their weight, in military terms:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aPBX.6R9WzmY&refer=uk
You know who needs to get involved with affairs in the Middle East? Middle Eastern countries.
If those fuckers want peace, then they should do something about is. Where is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kwait, U.A.E., Qatar, Jordan and the rest of them? They know how the system works over there. Why don't they ever do anything?
Hail, Hail!!!
they are only concerned about how many palaces they can build and how they can keep oil above 50 dollars a barrel
As long as Bush is president and deciding for other countries what to do, the NATO is useless.....
So Americans: start to impeach Bush!
tell me why you think your second sentence is true?
bush doesnt decide for other countries and does not control NATO.
Well, when Bush enterend Afghanistan, he knocked on the door of Blair and Balkenende (Dutch prime minister) office for joining him.... Then he want's to finish his fathers work in Iraque and again he askes us for help. Bush' also mentioned then he would be badly dissapointed if we didn't join and it would hurt the relationship of Netherlands and America..
But everybody knew it was a bad idea of attacking Afghanistan and Iraque. The UN didn't found any clues of mass destruction weapons. Bush knew that!
they did find the reciepts in washington from the wmds that rummy sold to saddam... but we dont talk about that
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
wmds? What is that? Remember I'm Dutch!
still didnt answer the question. bush doesnt command or control NATO or NATO forces. bush asking for support has nothing to do with NATO
and no american thought it was a bad idea to attack the taliban and el queda in afgahistan.
you shouldnt use afgahistan and Iraq in the same sentence. no one accused afgah of having WMDs. they were attacked for a very vaild reason.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Ok thanks!
This was my answer:
Bush' also mentioned then he would be badly dissapointed if we didn't join and it would hurt the relationship of Netherlands and America...
That is why I think Bush is deciding for us.
they also "promised" funds (or bribed depending on your viewpoint) many members of the un (mainly poor ones) to vote for a war in iraq. some call it diplomacy... some call it immoral... lets not get bogged down in symantics
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Nato is indeed heavily involved in Afghanistan. I think the numbers for most nations are higher than the feb 05 numbers to be honest. So the answer to your question to where NATO is, the answer is "right there". Norway is contributing as many soldiers as we ever have for foreign operations, and have one of the highest soldier pr capita contributions.
But nowadays the NATO commanders in Afghanistan wants more troops and/or less restrictions on those there. But seeing as most of the NATO-nations have a very sceptic public about these things, and anti-war sentiments being strong, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place doing something about it. I remember the opposition raised a big hubbub about sending more troops, which our government declined, talking about how dangerous it was letting down our allies, blabla. When none of the other nations actually raised their numbers. Gotta love political partisanship. Norway is as deep in as we ever have been in a foreign mission at least.
As for the use of NATO, I dunno. Furthering european and american interests I guess. And Cosmo, NATO came first, the Warzaw pact after as the response, but correctly it was formed in fear of soviet aggression. NATOs role has expired, but instead of just shutting down, they started trying to find a new mission for it. So it's not so much a defense alliance anymore, as it is an offensive alliance attacking and securing other nations according to western interests. For countries like Norway, it's about snuggling up to the US.
I dont know how much I really like NATO as it is now. Up to the soviet fall, it's mission and purpose was clear and necessary. Now, it's neither.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965