Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Timsup2nothin]

No worries Yeekim. With two wars progressing badly, in 2012 the US came within the general election of electing someone who was committed to start a third. While he did not get elected the idea that he could get the nomination of a major political party under those circumstances with that position, and then get forty plus percent of the vote in the election, says that America will not likely turn down a genuine opportunity to go to war any time soon. And France seems sufficiently Russo-phobic that they aren't likely to just let anything pass either.

 

[REDY]

US appeased Russia hard enough, from stoping plan of radar and rocket bases in central europe, soldier withdrawal from various places, so called restart of relations, no intervention in Syria and underwhelming reaction on invasion of Ukraine.
I have heard that in recent poll is leading party in Estonia party which is more prorussian? I havent made any info check about it. Yeekim?
There are actually Russians in Donbass who are pro-Ukrainian. But they admit that its not simple when Ukranian government block them social welfare and instead bribing them on side offer nothing than bombs.

 

[Commodore]

For the people involved it's absolutely the point, and for those 1000 Kuwaitis there was definitely permanent harm done! That's not counting the major economic damage, lost homes, lost jobs, and so on - all of which would make people understandably keen to prevent such an invasion in the first place.

I get that, and I'm not saying the people of Eastern Europe are wrong to worry about Russia. I am speaking from a NATO perspective though. When it comes to NATO and the world as a whole, Russia is actually pretty incapable of causing any significant harm without using their nuclear arsenal.

And for what it's worth, Kuwait actually recovered pretty quickly considering the damage Saddam's forces caused. In fact, they are one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, and have been for over a decade now. That's pretty damn good for a post-war nation in my opinion. Granted, you can't recover from death, but what can we really do about that? And how many more would have died if the occupation had been allowed to go on for years or decades before the international community did anything about it?

Right now they're doing the exact same thing in eastern Ukraine and nobody is doing anything about it.. so..

The Ukraine is also not a NATO member and officially the Russians have not actually declared war or invaded Ukrainian territory. Even though everyone and their mother knows the Russians are supplying and training the rebels (as well as probably having some of their soldiers mixed in there fighting alongside them as well), this is still officially considered an internal matter for the Ukrainian government to deal with. Now if Russia starts providing actual military assistance to the rebels, I am pretty confident the international community will step in.

SIDE NOTE: Personally, I am of the opinion that Russia has shown it has absolutely zero interest in preserving any kind of world peace or order and should be stripped of their position on the UNSC. Replace them with a nation that actually deserves a permanent spot on the UNSC like Brazil, India, or Japan. Russia is doing nothing but acting like a rogue state, and that is not a nation that should have a permanent spot on the UNSC or hold veto power over UNSC decisions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

SIDE NOTE: Personally, I am of the opinion that Russia has shown it has absolutely zero interest in preserving any kind of world peace or order and should be stripped of their position on the UNSC. Replace them with a nation that actually deserves a permanent spot on the UNSC like Brazil, India, or Japan. Russia is doing nothing but acting like a rogue state, and that is not a nation that should have a permanent spot on the UNSC or hold veto power over UNSC decisions.

How has Russia done anything more deserving of being removed from their permanent seat than the US has?

Not that those permanent seats are in any way related to behavior, or ever have been. Those five seats are occupied by the five largest arms dealers on the planet. The primary tool of the UN is a sanction saying that member nations will not supply arms to you if you are an aggressor. If one of the big five isn't willing to go along that sanction falls flat anyway, so may as well let them veto it and save everyone the embarrassment.

 

[Commodore]

How has Russia done anything more deserving of being removed from their permanent seat than the US has?

Not that those permanent seats are in any way related to behavior, or ever have been. Those five seats are occupied by the five largest arms dealers on the planet. The primary tool of the UN is a sanction saying that member nations will not supply arms to you if you are an aggressor. If one of the big five isn't willing to go along that sanction falls flat anyway, so may as well let them veto it and save everyone the embarrassment.

The US is far from perfect, but you seriously cannot even compare what the US has done to anything Russia has done. Across the board, Russia has a far worse track record than the US. When France briefly left NATO, did the US send troops into Paris to force them to stay in the alliance? No? Guess who did do that to a Warsaw Pact member who expressed a desire to cut ties with the alliance? When was the last time the US set up labor camps for political dissidents (Japanese internment camps during WWII don't count because we didn't force them to work or try to "reeducate" them)? For something not related to the USSR: When was the last time a sitting US president had an opposition leader assassinated simply for disagreeing with him? When was the last time the US gave US passports to an ethnic minority in a nation so they would have an excuse to seize territory from another sovereign state? In fact, when was the last time the US annexed any territory at all? When was the last time the US tampered with an election or referendum vote in a nation (proven incidents only, no conspiracy theory crap)?

But no, you're right, governments in Moscow haven't acted any worse than US administrations at all. C'mon man, you have some serious anti-US blinders on if you can't see how Russian government has consistently acted in bad faith, both domestically and globally. The US government may take a lot of misguided actions, but at least most of the time we do it in good faith.

 

[Unicorny]

Current Russia is a shadow of the former Soviet Union and does not stand a chance against NATO in a conventional weapons wars. Nukes on the other hand are a different story.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But no, you're right, governments in Moscow haven't acted any worse than US administrations at all. C'mon man, you have some serious anti-US blinders on if you can't see how Russian government has consistently acted in bad faith, both domestically and globally. The US government may take a lot of misguided actions, but at least most of the time we do it in good faith.

Present document with wording security council members question as 'a possible trap' that could be misinterpreted as the Security Council authorizing unilateral action. Assure other members that is not a valid interpretation and would never be considered. Return to Security Council demanding authorization to take action. Be summarily turned down. Take action anyway, claiming the language of the previous document, which you claimed could not and would not be interpreted that way, gives you the authorization you just asked for and did not receive. Force the Security Council to acknowledge that that is indeed what the previous document actually meant in order to avoid the embarrassment of sanctioning you, which when you ignore it as you most certainly would leads inevitably to the dissolution of the UN.

Yeah, I can see how it is just my 'anti-US blinders' that make that appear to be acting in bad faith, at a level the Russians wouldn't consider, and in fact couldn't consider.

 

[Ajidica]

The US is far from perfect, but you seriously cannot even compare what the US has done to anything Russia has done. Across the board, Russia has a far worse track record than the US.

Saying Russia has a poorer track record than the US is like a 50 year old porn actress that she is classier than the 51 year old hooker. Technically true, but neither are particularly classy.
If we want to go down the Cold War rabbit hole we can, but I don't feel it is particularly relevant.

When France briefly left NATO, did the US send troops into Paris to force them to stay in the alliance?

To nitpick, France never actually left NATO. Rather, they removed their troops and nuclear weapons from NATO military structure in 1966, with re-integration only occurring in 2009 I believe. A few years after 1966 France and America signed a secret agreement that established exactly how French forces would re-integrate into NATO in event of war.

 

[Agent327]

Attention to details, grasping at straws and inability to get the general idea usually indicates lack of intelligence. If you want to answer to my critics of covert governmental programs in USA, answer to it, instead of searching for missing commas in my texts.

Logical fallacy means your argument is built on quicksand. Ranting about 'missing commas' doesn't save you from quicksand.

 

[Tahuti]

Current Russia is a shadow of the former Soviet Union and does not stand a chance against NATO in a conventional weapons wars. Nukes on the other hand are a different story.

Use of nukes to destroy cities by Russia would be pretty suicidal. They wouldn't be able to use it against the EU since in peacetime, Russia would depend on the EU to buy their stuff. The USA could be a target, though if I were Russia I would reserve nukes against invading troops, not cities (especially not cities in the EU).

 

[red_elk]

Logical fallacy means your argument is built on quicksand. Ranting about 'missing commas' doesn't save you from quicksand.

So, not only you did not understand my argument, but also throwing around terms like "logical fallacy" without understanding what it actually means.

But you still can try to answer to my argument about secret governmental programs and CIA prisons. Claiming it is built on a quicksand doesn't qualify as a valid counterargument.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The US is far from perfect, but you seriously cannot even compare what the US has done to anything Russia has done. Across the board, Russia has a far worse track record than the US. When France briefly left NATO, did the US send troops into Paris to force them to stay in the alliance? No? Guess who did do that to a Warsaw Pact member who expressed a desire to cut ties with the alliance? When was the last time the US set up labor camps for political dissidents (Japanese internment camps during WWII don't count because we didn't force them to work or try to "reeducate" them)? For something not related to the USSR: When was the last time a sitting US president had an opposition leader assassinated simply for disagreeing with him? When was the last time the US gave US passports to an ethnic minority in a nation so they would have an excuse to seize territory from another sovereign state? In fact, when was the last time the US annexed any territory at all? When was the last time the US tampered with an election or referendum vote in a nation (proven incidents only, no conspiracy theory crap)?

But no, you're right, governments in Moscow haven't acted any worse than US administrations at all. C'mon man, you have some serious anti-US blinders on if you can't see how Russian government has consistently acted in bad faith, both domestically and globally. The US government may take a lot of misguided actions, but at least most of the time we do it in good faith.

Man, you need to look up some history. Porto Rico was anexed by US so was Florida, California, New Mexico etc.
There are still disabled babies born in Vietnam. Several functional countries has been put to ruins quite recently. And who has trained most terrorist all over the globe? Its all thanks to US. Its almost like USA depends on conflict and war...
The noticable thing is how USA was able to keep good image for a long time due to several factors. But that seems to change....

Also you call US actions misguided and done in a good faith but how sure you are of that? You could be just a subject of well done propaganda. I dont think Russians think of themselves as evil...

 

[Agent327]

So, not only you did not understand my argument, but also throwing around terms like "logical fallacy" without understanding what it actually means.

But you still can try to answer to my argument about secret governmental programs and CIA prisons. Claiming it is built on a quicksand doesn't qualify as a valid counterargument.

As usual, your conclusions do not follow. Making an argument apparently isn't your forte. Perhaps you should stick with posting news.

 

[Commodore]

Man, you need to look up some history. Porto Rico was anexed by US so was Florida, California, New Mexico etc.

See that's my point. To find the last time the US forcibly seized territory from a sovereign nation you have to go back over a century. The US also hasn't done anything like that since they have been a member of the UN. You also have to take time period into account when determining how morally reprehensible those annexations were. It is simply not fair to apply modern standards of morality to actions the government took in the 1800s. Back then, annexation of territory was still seen as morally acceptable. That attitude ended with the conclusion of WWII and the creation of the UN.

Russia on the other hand? Everything I listed in my response to Tim they have done within the last 50 years and while they have been a member of the UN. They took these actions during a time period when, officially at least, those types of actions were considered morally unacceptable and they continue to do it unashamedly.

I fully admit that the US is far from perfect and that we aren't always on the right side of history, but ask yourself this: If the decision were yours and yours alone, and you absolutely had to chose one or the other; who would rather have as the dominant force on the planet: the US or the Russian Federation?

Several functional countries has been put to ruins quite recently.

Several things I need to ask here before I respond to this:

1. Define "functional country". Because I wouldn't consider any country the US has taken military action against since the Korean War as truly functional.

2. Define "quite recently". What time frame are we operating on here? The last decade? 20 years? 30 years?

3. List what "functional countries" you think the US has "put to ruins".

Present document with wording security council members question as 'a possible trap' that could be misinterpreted as the Security Council authorizing unilateral action. Assure other members that is not a valid interpretation and would never be considered. Return to Security Council demanding authorization to take action. Be summarily turned down. Take action anyway, claiming the language of the previous document, which you claimed could not and would not be interpreted that way, gives you the authorization you just asked for and did not receive. Force the Security Council to acknowledge that that is indeed what the previous document actually meant in order to avoid the embarrassment of sanctioning you, which when you ignore it as you most certainly would leads inevitably to the dissolution of the UN.

So...Iraq? That's all you got? One disingenuous action from what is almost universally regarded as one of the most corrupt administrations in US history. That does not indicate a pattern of acting in bad faith and doesn't even hold a candle to the crap Russia has consistently pulled and continues to pull. When the US annexes Juarez and fabricates some BS referendum that shows the citizens of Juarez having 99% support for the action to give such a criminal land grab "legitimacy", and then continues to fuel a civil war in Mexico to set themselves up for future land grabs, then you MIGHT be able to say the US acts in bad faith at the massive magnitude at which Russia acts.

 

[red_elk]

As usual, your conclusions do not follow. Making an argument apparently isn't your forte. Perhaps you should stick with posting news.

If you can't answer to my argument, no need to make irrelevant comments.

 

[Agent327]

So why are you making such comments then?

 

[red_elk]

So why are you making such comments then?

I made an argument about CIA programs and Snowden files, it is you who is trying to refute it by making irrelevant comments.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So...Iraq? That's all you got? One disingenuous action from what is almost universally regarded as one of the most corrupt administrations in US history. That does not indicate a pattern of acting in bad faith and doesn't even hold a candle to the crap Russia has consistently pulled and continues to pull. When the US annexes Juarez and fabricates some BS referendum that shows the citizens of Juarez having 99% support for the action to give such a criminal land grab "legitimacy", and then continues to fuel a civil war in Mexico to set themselves up for future land grabs, then you MIGHT be able to say the US acts in bad faith at the massive magnitude at which Russia acts.

First off, has there been any action by the US to atone in any way for the actions of this 'outlier' corrupt administration? No. So why should the US be allowed to use that as an excuse?

Has there been any action taken to prevent the occurrence of an administration just as, or even more, corrupt? No. So why should the US not be regarded as an imminent risk of being a repeat offender?

So yeah, 'just' Iraq seems sufficient.

Meanwhile...you want to talk Crimea. What makes you think the overwhelming support had to be fabricated? They are 60% ethnic Russians. They rejoined a country that anyone over the age of thirty was born into. All of their primary industries do business with Russia, so anyone employed in those industries is going to see it as beneficial in their workplace conversation. They voted overwhelmingly for a pro Russian president. So overwhelmingly that their one region and a couple others produced a margin that overmatched the entire western half of the country which was strongly opposed (clearly the western part of the country needed to impose some sort of electoral college system there). There is no indication whatsoever that the support in Crimea was 'fabricated', nor is there any reason to think that it would have needed to be fabricated.

 

[Commodore]

First off, has there been any action by the US to atone in any way for the actions of this 'outlier' corrupt administration? No. So why should the US be allowed to use that as an excuse?

Has there been any action taken to prevent the occurrence of an administration just as, or even more, corrupt? No. So why should the US not be regarded as an imminent risk of being a repeat offender?

So yeah, 'just' Iraq seems sufficient.

Meanwhile...you want to talk Crimea. What makes you think the overwhelming support had to be fabricated? They are 60% ethnic Russians. They rejoined a country that anyone over the age of thirty was born into. All of their primary industries do business with Russia, so anyone employed in those industries is going to see it as beneficial in their workplace conversation. They voted overwhelmingly for a pro Russian president. So overwhelmingly that their one region and a couple others produced a margin that overmatched the entire western half of the country which was strongly opposed (clearly the western part of the country needed to impose some sort of electoral college system there). There is no indication whatsoever that the support in Crimea was 'fabricated', nor is there any reason to think that it would have needed to be fabricated.

The Obama administration has started to atone by making it a primary goal early on to begin withdrawing our forces from Iraq, which he did. His administration has also taken a very hands-off approach to the current situation in the Middle East since the world has sent a very clear message they do not want us to intervene anymore.

On the other hand, Russia has been told by the international community repeatedly to get out of Crimea and stop interfering in Ukrainian politics. Despite this, Russia laughs heartily and continues molesting former Soviet republics like some sick pedophile uncle.

Also here's a little something about the results of the Crimea referendum:

Official Kremlin results: 97 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 83 percent, and 82 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

President’s Human Rights Council mid-point estimate: 55 percent of polled voters for annexation, turnout 40 percent, 22.5 percent of total Crimean population voting in favor.

But no, you're right, Putin was TOTALLY honest about the referendum results. You say you haven't seen any evidence the results were fabricated? Well that's probably because you actually have to have your eyes open to see something. Seriously, take off the anti-US blinders.

EDIT: And this is assuming the Russian government even had the authority to hold such a referendum, which they didn't. Crimea is still sovereign territory of Ukraine so saying Russia has the right to hold a referendum there would be like saying the Canadian government has a right to hold a referendum in North Dakota or Montana.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You do realize that your own quoted polling results are in favor of annexation, right? So Putin overblows the margin. Honest question; so what?

As to 'the international community' telling Russia to 'back off'...did that take place in the UN security council, which is what this conversation started off being about? No, it didn't. Now, the original topic was 'who has more egregiously defied the UNSC and thus theoretically deserves to lose their permanent seat?' Near as I can make out with 'just Iraq' I am a clear one up.

Meanwhile, back at atonement. The US has 'atoned' for toppling a foreign government by removing their troops from the chaos of the civil war that unsurprisingly resulted. Good on them, I guess, though it carries far more of a 'well, that didn't work, oh well let's go home' smell than any sense of remorse. Cleaning up the mess they made is certainly not in the American interests.

Since you added it in an edit I left this to last...if Montana held a referendum and it showed a majority preference to bail out and join Canada... That is more the example that has a genuine parallel with Crimea.

I suggest you take a realistic look at Ukraine. It is a country that is falling apart. It was poorly conceived to begin with, because it was laid down as national borders along what had been designed and intended to just be state lines. It would likely have fallen apart if it were allowed to operate in some sort of magic vacuum with no external pressures applied at all, but of course such a magic vacuum does not exist. Ultimately, under pressures from all sides, not just Russia, it has fallen apart. That's life. Now it is just a matter of cleaning up the mess.