R Nitelight
Her Rock
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2000
- Posts
- 10,003
Do we still need it?
NATO
- Thread starter R Nitelight
- Start date
BlondeBeauty
Princess Charming
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2000
- Posts
- 2,163
Yes.
forgetunome
Kisses Sweeter Than Wine!!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2000
- Posts
- 1,181
Why?
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
Nope
Chuckus
'Master' of all things good and pleasurable
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Posts
- 6,187
jcgirl said:
Yes, but even more now than ever. At least there was a shade for the existance of NATO back in the day. NATO is too scared too try and enforce at all what it does....just a sound board for the world now, no one abides by what it says (for the most part) any longer.
Bobtoad777
Virgin
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2000
- Posts
- 3,067
we will know whether we need nato when it disappears
Xander
Rekindled
- Joined
- Dec 20, 1999
- Posts
- 17,089
USA??....No they dont need it. Strong enough to stand alone in the war department.
Small European countries?? Yes they need it.
World peace is still a myth, and as long as homo sapiens has that selfdestructive gene. World peace will remain a myth.
Small European countries?? Yes they need it.
World peace is still a myth, and as long as homo sapiens has that selfdestructive gene. World peace will remain a myth.
Renegade
Strange and Disturbed
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2000
- Posts
- 21,768
Xander said:
True, but in one way that selfdestructive gene might be what creates world peace at some point. Would work like this: Mankind keeps killing each other with bigger and more powerful weapons till the human race destroys itself. Then with no humans left to create war, the world would be at peace.
Xander
Rekindled
- Joined
- Dec 20, 1999
- Posts
- 17,089
Renegade said:
Amen and Halleluja Renegade.
Only way the world will ever be at peace, will be when theere's no humans left to destroy it.
Chances are, though. That by that time Mankind will already have destroyed earth. And it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
Personally I give us just about 500 yrs before we have efficiently destroyed this planet, and made it inhabitable for carbon based lifeforms.
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
I the sad shape it's in right now.....
No!
It's in shambles.
The concept when first conveived was sound - and still coulb be. But typically, times change and politics has eaten away at it's structure.
It is now not much more than a disorganized, multi-national, bunch of inexperienced whimps with ammoless weapons.
Nothing worse, no worse message than a rifle, boldly held hi, and everybody knows - no bullets.
No!
It's in shambles.
The concept when first conveived was sound - and still coulb be. But typically, times change and politics has eaten away at it's structure.
It is now not much more than a disorganized, multi-national, bunch of inexperienced whimps with ammoless weapons.
Nothing worse, no worse message than a rifle, boldly held hi, and everybody knows - no bullets.
Ambrosious
Weaver of Written Worlds
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2000
- Posts
- 6,346
Xander said:
Well we WERE given dominion over the earth. I see the end coming at the hands of nasty, vile, microscopic, bugs. You just know that it's in some laboratory, waiting to be unleashed, or spilled accidently.
NATO? Useless. Unless they suddenly develop a set.
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
Okay, keep'em around.....
But let's replace'em with US Marines (mostly) other Marine's could join in from around the world. Better still - put'em all through Paris Island. You know - make'em Marines.
I'd feel very much safer then.
But let's replace'em with US Marines (mostly) other Marine's could join in from around the world. Better still - put'em all through Paris Island. You know - make'em Marines.
I'd feel very much safer then.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Then they'd be marines Sparky, not NATO.
Yes, we need NATO.
No, we don't need NATO.
We need it because it fills the need of mediating and peacekeeping during war. I know the pacifistic rhetoric that armed soldiers and weaponry aren't "peace." Let's skip that okay? No purely pacifist state exists, they are always subjugated by some neighboring territory. You may look upon the example of Tibet. The current problem with war, particular civil ones, is that they are being fought against non-combatants. The civil war in Sierra Leone is one of the most horrible things happening in the world today, bar none.
No, we don't need NATO. NATO itself is a toothless, useless alliance as it is. It injects itself with a wonderful show of weaponry and manpower that has no ammo and no truly coherent person in ultimate command. Instead, the NATO forces must answer to politicians from all over the globe, so they cannot effectively do their job. You simply can't accomplish a soldierly mission and still make it look good on CNN. The other problem with NATO is that it is limited in scope and range. There is a nasty little civil war going on in Mexico, but NATO isn't doing a thing about it. Like Sparky said, until more countries join in it, and it's given enough clout to accomplish whatever mission it's been given, we don't need it.
Of course, there is the fear that if NATO were an effective force, it would make policy for it's member nations, not enforce policy. Rather like the European Union appears to be doing from this side of the Pond.
Yes, we need NATO.
No, we don't need NATO.
We need it because it fills the need of mediating and peacekeeping during war. I know the pacifistic rhetoric that armed soldiers and weaponry aren't "peace." Let's skip that okay? No purely pacifist state exists, they are always subjugated by some neighboring territory. You may look upon the example of Tibet. The current problem with war, particular civil ones, is that they are being fought against non-combatants. The civil war in Sierra Leone is one of the most horrible things happening in the world today, bar none.
No, we don't need NATO. NATO itself is a toothless, useless alliance as it is. It injects itself with a wonderful show of weaponry and manpower that has no ammo and no truly coherent person in ultimate command. Instead, the NATO forces must answer to politicians from all over the globe, so they cannot effectively do their job. You simply can't accomplish a soldierly mission and still make it look good on CNN. The other problem with NATO is that it is limited in scope and range. There is a nasty little civil war going on in Mexico, but NATO isn't doing a thing about it. Like Sparky said, until more countries join in it, and it's given enough clout to accomplish whatever mission it's been given, we don't need it.
Of course, there is the fear that if NATO were an effective force, it would make policy for it's member nations, not enforce policy. Rather like the European Union appears to be doing from this side of the Pond.
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Need NATO?
Funny thing...those were NATO operations in Bosnia and many of the planes were from NATO countries who would have much rather NOT been involved in bombing a country so close to their own borders. Relatives, friends, and business associates were still in the country when the bombing started. Europe, whether you want to dice it and julienne it into east, west or whatever, is still a very homogenous civilisation and, you may be aware, Bosina (whatever name you want to call it) has been the flint for two world wars. Still, the concept of NATO allowed a shared responsibility for the action.
Having served many years in the US sixth fleet I'm all too aware of the immense military power of the US, but I'm also aware that through NATO that power was magnified by the ability to operate with other fleets, share intelligence, share staging and logistics stations, and gain easy permission to fly over non-combatant countries. Walk out of NATO and suddenly many of those benefits become more ensnarled in red tape. Since the US has chosen to not be a colonial power (wise move in my opinion), the relationships within NATO give many of the advantages without a lot of the drawbacks.
Funny thing...those were NATO operations in Bosnia and many of the planes were from NATO countries who would have much rather NOT been involved in bombing a country so close to their own borders. Relatives, friends, and business associates were still in the country when the bombing started. Europe, whether you want to dice it and julienne it into east, west or whatever, is still a very homogenous civilisation and, you may be aware, Bosina (whatever name you want to call it) has been the flint for two world wars. Still, the concept of NATO allowed a shared responsibility for the action.
Having served many years in the US sixth fleet I'm all too aware of the immense military power of the US, but I'm also aware that through NATO that power was magnified by the ability to operate with other fleets, share intelligence, share staging and logistics stations, and gain easy permission to fly over non-combatant countries. Walk out of NATO and suddenly many of those benefits become more ensnarled in red tape. Since the US has chosen to not be a colonial power (wise move in my opinion), the relationships within NATO give many of the advantages without a lot of the drawbacks.
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
The simple fact is this.
NATO provides the most effective and cohesive (everything being relative) multi-national military presence in the world.
Although it is somewhat constrained by treaty ad the politics of its member nations as a member of a "western society/nation state" it is a comforting presence.
Some would suggest that the UN could handle many of its tasks and responsibilities.
These people are fools with absolutely no idea of how a UN military mission "works". That whole statement of a UN military mission working is in fact an oxymoron.
NATO provides the most effective and cohesive (everything being relative) multi-national military presence in the world.
Although it is somewhat constrained by treaty ad the politics of its member nations as a member of a "western society/nation state" it is a comforting presence.
Some would suggest that the UN could handle many of its tasks and responsibilities.
These people are fools with absolutely no idea of how a UN military mission "works". That whole statement of a UN military mission working is in fact an oxymoron.
