Is NATO totally pointless?

Options
Posts: 1,102
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
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.
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
Post edited by Unknown User on

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 10,118
    I think they are better then the pointless UN. from what I have read they are putting up a fight against the taliban but I am surprised they dont have a larger more effective force in place.
  • Posts: 1,102
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think they are better then the pointless UN. from what I have read they are putting up a fight against the taliban but I am surprised they dont have a larger more effective force in place.

    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?
    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
  • Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    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?


    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
  • Posts: 2,057
    darkcrow wrote:
    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?
    Germany is there, but they won't allow their troops be deployed to any place their may be fighting. So basically Germany sent a bunch of secretaries.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Posts: 1,102
    surferdude wrote:
    Germany is there, but they won't allow their troops be deployed to any place their may be fighting. So basically Germany sent a bunch of secretaries.

    can they touchtype and take notes? ;)
    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
  • Posts: 1,450
    Nato and the United Nations are just the United States in different helmets....
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • Posts: 1,450
    darkcrow wrote:
    can they touchtype and take notes? ;)

    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.
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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
    ...
    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?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    surferdude wrote:
    Germany is there, but they won't allow their troops be deployed to any place their may be fighting. So basically Germany sent a bunch of secretaries.

    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
  • Posts: 12,225
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    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?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    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?


    they are only concerned about how many palaces they can build and how they can keep oil above 50 dollars a barrel
  • Posts: 2,875
    There also Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan/Uruzgan.

    As long as Bush is president and deciding for other countries what to do, the NATO is useless.....

    So Americans: start to impeach Bush!
  • Posts: 10,118
    disconnected wrote:
    There also Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan/Uruzgan.

    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.
  • Posts: 2,875
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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!
  • Posts: 1,102
    disconnected wrote:
    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 ;)
    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
  • Posts: 2,875
    darkcrow wrote:
    they did find the reciepts in washington from the wmds that rummy sold to saddam... but we dont talk about that ;)

    wmds? What is that? Remember I'm Dutch!
  • Posts: 10,118
    disconnected wrote:
    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!

    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.
  • Posts: 10,118
    disconnected wrote:
    wmds? What is that? Remember I'm Dutch!


    Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Posts: 2,875
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
  • Posts: 1,102
    disconnected wrote:
    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 ;)
    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

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories