I am not arguing that leaving NATO means war against the ex-member. There are many other (subtle)ways to suck up. I am saying that if you dont suck up to certain lobby you are facing prospects of being either striped off your liberties, sanctioned to oblivion or placed on the terrorist list.
Is there any point in keeping NATO around?
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
LamaGT
Emperor
Legally, no, but it would suddenly become a despotic government acting against the will of the people or something (preventive work towards this was also done, Operation Gladio).
The sheer fact that everyone believes NATO to be rainbows and flowers and peace makes it a perfect hegemony tool. It's actually quite impressive how this was pulled off.
I really don't think that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Ukraine were in the interest of Europe and especially Turkey. The only one which might have had a bit of that was Libya, but considering how it ended up it also wasn't at all a plus for Europe. Was there ever a NATO invasion started by Europe?
Well of the conflicts you mentioned, only Afghanistan had the collective defense clause invoked (by France, not the US) meaning members were obligated to come along. That means participation in those other operations was completely voluntary.
Also, there were many NATO members who chose not to participate in the Iraq war due to objections to the legitimacy of the conflict. France and Germany were the most notable ones. So while the US is definitely the leading member of NATO, we most certainly do not force every member to go along lockstep with all of our actions.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
I can easily prove that leaving the Warsaw Pact or rebelling against Russian hegemony resulted in violent retribution. Can you prove that leaving NATO or remaining within it but proving "disobedient" resulted in any of the same?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I'm guessing sarcasm here. Because NATO did bomb Belgrade.
It was kind of a messy situation, and it's a job to know what else NATO might have done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
Still, I thought it was hilarious when some of the civilian inhabitants of Belgrade occupied one of bridges with targets pinned to their chests.
How effective the bombing actually was in getting Milosevic to agree to a peace deal though is another matter. Just as effective, if not more so, was the Russian's withdrawal of support for him.
It was kind of a messy situation, and it's a job to know what else NATO might have done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
Still, I thought it was hilarious when some of the civilian inhabitants of Belgrade occupied one of bridges with targets pinned to their chests.
How effective the bombing actually was in getting Milosevic to agree to a peace deal though is another matter. Just as effective, if not more so, was the Russian's withdrawal of support for him.
A newsflash: Warsaw Pact was voluntarily disbanded by USSR.
Its more subtle and refined than that of course. To make an example: whats the difference between Iran and Pakistan? How come one can have liberty of nuclear program/defense and the other not? There are some 30(insane) US military bases in the area surrounding Iran with armies ready to bring democracy if necessity demands which keeps ruthless regime of Sauds in power who in turn supress liberties and development of its own population. All that just to have the economic interests of the West (NATO) being served.
Yes, not being in NATO or not sucking up to the unipolar leader can have its dire consequences.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It wasn't tenable anyway - how weird would have a Warsaw pact without the country where Warsaw is located - or most other members?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
I don't think you know what NATO is. It's not the West. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do not have NATO membership and never will.
I've given you clear examples of the Soviet army violently crushing rebellion against its rule. Even you can't bring yourself to disagree with that. Thus abandoning Gambit #1 of the Russian apologist, denial. So you wiggle and squirm and move to Gambit #2, Whataboutism, saying that NATO would crush dissent, too. I challenged you to prove it, and you said that, okay, maybe NATO wouldn't and didn't roll tanks through the streets of Paris, but look over there, Iran! Which has literally *nothing* to do with NATO membership or exiting NATO. You have no argument left, so you're trying to distract us from that fact.
If you can find a single example of NATO launching an armed invasion of a member state that attempted to leave, do it. Otherwise, you haven't countered my point at all.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
By the way, today is... is it the 14th where you live yet, no? it is here... So this day 70 years ago Prague was bombed by Americans killing 8 times more people than those died in the event you imply and causing incomparable devastation.
So should I mention an impotent talentless government asking its alliance to intervene in the internal matters or we stop here?
You know you can send your tanks to some country or send money and material to support some fascist rebel faction in foreign country to overthrow a goverment which doesnt suck up to your business interests. Whats the difference? There are bound to be lots of mothers crying for their lost children and their lost future. NATO has helped to bring couple countries to the ruins in last decade and half for faulty reasons. Do you see what I am trying to say here?
So, your argument is that NATO is purely defensive alliance, because all the countries invaded by USA were not NATO members?
What you are trying to prove so eagerly?
I'm not sure there's a big difference between invading Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Except that latter led to much more deaths.
On the other hand only a minority of current Nato members have an exit/proximity to the Atlantic ^^
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I count 13 that touch the Atlantic and 13 that don't.
NATO has 28 members, so my counts are obviously wrong, but either way it seems that it's about 50/50 or something similar.
So I see your point, but it's not like NATO is called Lake Baikal Treaty Organization. That's a lot closer to being a "Warsaw pact without Warsaw" equivalent I think.
So, your argument is that NATO is purely defensive alliance, because all the countries invaded by USA were not NATO members?
What you are trying to prove so eagerly?
I'm not sure there's a big difference between invading Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Except that latter led to much more deaths.
And when did this mysterious 'invasion of Yugoslavia' happen? In 1990 Yugoslavia effectively ceased to exist.
An invasion involves the forcible seizure and continued occupation of one nation's sovereign territory by one or more foreign powers. This did not happen in 1999. The only ground troops deployed in that campaign were deployed in a defensive posture to secure airfields in Albania from which the air campaign was launched. The air campaign was also defensive in nature since its objective was to halt the Yugoslav military invasion of Kosovo. The bombing of bridges and other critical infrastructure within Yugoslavia was not meant to destroy the nation, but instead to make it impossible for Yugoslav forces to wage offensive operations against Kosovo.
The bombing campaign in 1999 could not, in any way, be considered a military invasion of Yugoslavia and it is extreme hyperbole and gross intellectual dishonesty for you to present it as such.
Similar threads
