Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Flying Pig]

When another country declares airspace to be in its area of interest, flying military aircraft into it is not a neutral act.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know that anyone is entirely bent about the ''come at me bro'' other than noting that it's being done. Which seems rather the point. Which is better than totally ignoring it, since then the action would need to be stepped up in volume until note was taken.

 

[Agent327]

Oh, you mean all Putin ratings are result of conspiracy of poll agencies. And in reality he has no support of Russian citizens. Interesting symptoms.

No, I meant exactly what I said. Perhaps you have a problem with unpleasant facts being mentioned?

Russia can't fly planes over neutral waters? But it's OK if NATO invades and bombs another country?

With a proper mandate, they can. Military planes with transponders turned off cannot be seen by civilian air planes, therefore endanger civilian air traffic.

Mr Putin must be very happy with such completely uncritical supporters...

Summing up, it seems this thread has shown solid reasons to keep NATO firmly in place.

 

[red_elk]

No, I meant exactly what I said. Perhaps you have a problem with unpleasant facts being mentioned?

If you didn't mean Putin's rating is faked, then your response was irrelevant to my post.

With a proper mandate, they can.

Who gave NATO countries mandate to bomb Iraq in 2003?

 

[Commodore]

Who gave NATO countries mandate to bomb Iraq in 2003?

Well seeing as the Iraq War in 2003 wasn't a NATO operation, I would say no one could give NATO a mandate even if they wanted to.

 

[red_elk]

So, if we established that mandate wasn't given, we can return to the previous question then - is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

 

[Commodore]

So, if we established that mandate wasn't given, we can return to the previous question then - is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

That's not for me to say and my opinion would be a bit biased seeing as I served in the US military and did a year deployment to Iraq. So I am obviously not going to concede any point that could portray my service as contributing to one giant war crime.

As far as I am aware the UN and the ICC are still debating the legality of the Iraq War, so we'll have to see what they eventually decide. Of course, I doubt they will ever reach that decision given that the nation in question is the largest contributor in just about every way to the UN.

 

[Agent327]

If you didn't mean Putin's rating is faked, then your response was irrelevant to my post.

It was, in fact, very relevant - as opposed to your funny 'anti-war' video. Putin's ratings, on the other hand, have very little to do with the right or wrong of Russia's actions.

Who gave NATO countries mandate to bomb Iraq in 2003?

Your google doesn't work? There was no NATO bombing of Iraq, for one.

So, if we established that mandate wasn't given, we can return to the previous question then - is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

So your question has been asked, but you just would like to repeat the question? Interesting.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your google doesn't work? There was no NATO bombing of Iraq, for one.

Which is not what was asked. The question is about bombing by NATO members. While 2003 is, in my opinion, mostly dead past, there is something notable in this question.

How does NATO, as a nominal defensive pact, relate to aggression on the part of member states? If NATO member [aggressor nation of choice] attacks someone who turns out to be willing and able to stomp them, is NATO obligated to bail them out? If so, does that imply NATO as an organization has some entitlement to tell member states "No, you cannot go attacking other countries," which would seem the only logical course?

 

[dosed150]

Which is not what was asked. The question is about bombing by NATO members. While 2003 is, in my opinion, mostly dead past, there is something notable in this question.

How does NATO, as a nominal defensive pact, relate to aggression on the part of member states? If NATO member [aggressor nation of choice] attacks someone who turns out to be willing and able to stomp them, is NATO obligated to bail them out? If so, does that imply NATO as an organization has some entitlement to tell member states "No, you cannot go attacking other countries," which would seem the only logical course?

i'm not sure how relevant this is, but i'm fairly sure NATO's powers are restricted to events in north america and Europe, the Americans didnt want to be drawn into colonial trouble, so i guess NATO only has a responsibility to defend a member nation if they are attacked in those areas, so a failed offensive by a NATO country wouldnt force NATO to bail them out if it took place outside europe or north america, it would get trickier

 

[red_elk]

It was, in fact, very relevant - as opposed to your funny 'anti-war' video. Putin's ratings, on the other hand, have very little to do with the right or wrong of Russia's actions.

My statement was "There is no point in provoking NATO aggressiveness for internal purposes. President's and government approval is good enough in Russia."

Your reply was essentially bashing Russia's internal policies - in the thread about NATO. How it's relevant to my point?

Anti-war video was posted in another thread, making absolutely different point. Are you following conversation at all, or just trying to attack me for no good reason?

Your google doesn't work? There was no NATO bombing of Iraq, for one.

I asked, is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

That's not for me to say and my opinion would be a bit biased seeing as I served in the US military and did a year deployment to Iraq. So I am obviously not going to concede any point that could portray my service as contributing to one giant war crime.

Fair enough.

 

[Yeekim]

NATO Charter

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 7

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In other words, the US not only blows off their agreement with the UN, they blow off their agreement with NATO at the same time.

 

[Tahuti]

I asked, is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

Of course it is! They are the good guys, the others are the BAD guys!111!

 

[Commodore]

In other words, the US not only blows off their agreement with the UN, they blow off their agreement with NATO at the same time.

Well being able to do whatever you want is one of the perks that comes with being the leading member of both organizations.

 

[Agent327]

My statement was "There is no point in provoking NATO aggressiveness for internal purposes. President's and government approval is good enough in Russia."

Your reply was essentially bashing Russia's internal policies - in the thread about NATO. How it's relevant to my point?

Again your reply is as irrelevant as can be. Why are you even quoting my? You're not responding to anything I said.

Secondly, I'm not 'bashing' anything - unless you think pointing out facts amounts to bashing; then there's really nothing I can do about it.

Anti-war video was posted in another thread, making absolutely different point. Are you following conversation at all, or just trying to attack me for no good reason?

Not attacking you, just pointing out fallacies.

I asked, is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country?

Which was answered.

In other words, the US not only blows off their agreement with the UN, they blow off their agreement with NATO at the same time.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. In fact, it's more or less the reverse of recent proceedings.

 

[FriendlyFire]

What you seem to miss is that any really big mistake Germany makes could as well be its last....

Thats why Germany should be allowed to work out is genetic violent tendencies every once it a while, this is to avoid the danger of Germany repressing there urges and launching another world war.
Now that Germans can no longer vacation in Crimea, get drunk and brawl Russians, they will need a new way to unleash pent up violence.

I can see France and Poland getting scared right now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow at all. In fact, it's more or less the reverse of recent proceedings.

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Admittedly, 2003 isn't really "recent", but clearly when the US blew off the UN they also blew off NATO.

 

[red_elk]

Again your reply is as irrelevant as can be. Why are you even quoting my? You're not responding to anything I said.

So you don't want to answer the question?
What was the purpose of your statement about Russia's internal policies and how it's relevant to anything I said in this thread?

Which was answered.

It wasn't answered by you, only Commodore said his opinion.
And you are desperately trying to avoid answering to the question, is it ok for NATO members to invade and bomb another country. Yes or no would be enough.

 

[Borachio]

No.

How about that?

But what if bombing could prevent or hamper an attempted genocide?