Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[red_elk]

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

It must be approved by UN then. Otherwise anyone could claim they are preventing genocide, or illegal WMD production, to justify bombings.

 

[Yeekim]

True. On the other hand, there is this thing called Security Council, where certain nations (ahem) have veto powers... which sometimes have been used prudently, sometimes less so.

 

[red_elk]

True. On the other hand, there is this thing called Security Council, where certain nations (ahem) have veto powers...

And this is a good thing. Otherwise all nations would become de-facto subordinates of one nation, which doesn't hesitate to use military power abroad.

 

[Hygro]

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.

France has neutron bombs.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

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.

Germany has best technology Russia most resources. You dont need to be Einstein to figure out these two should cooperate and not fight for huge mutual benefit.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Germany has best technology Russia most resources. You dont need to be Einstein to figure out these two should cooperate and not fight for huge mutual benefit.

France has neutron bombs.

And that takes care of that.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well perhaps closer to reality its the German cancelor who decides how to use French bombs. And again its the Germans more than anyone else who can make closer cooperation of Russia and EU a reality.

 

[kronic]

Well perhaps closer to reality its the German cancelor who decides how to use French bombs. And again its the Germans more than anyone else who can make closer cooperation of Russia and EU a reality.

Germany most certainly does not decide over the use of French bombs. In fact, Germany is totally dependent on the US and France (and to a lesser extent the UK) as far as its security is concerned. Pretty sad.

But it is true that Germany and Russia would fit very well together. Certainly nothing the US likes...

 

[Unicorny]

Of course there is. World Wide Terrorism (ironically known as the "War on Terror")

There is an agenda set for the Middle East. 4-Star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans about invading 7 countries in 5 years after 9/11 - it all planned in 2001:


Link to video.

America needed a new Pearl Harbor and it got one in 9/11. Planned, staged control demolition of the World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 buildings; the latter of which collapsed by itself.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Germany most certainly does not decide over the use of French bombs. In fact, Germany is totally dependent on the US and France (and to a lesser extent the UK) as far as its security is concerned. Pretty sad.

But it is true that Germany and Russia would fit very well together. Certainly nothing the US likes...

What I mean is Germany is the most active member in EU including its foreign policy and this influence can be decisive what conflicts EU may be involved in...

 

[Borachio]

There is an agenda set for the Middle East. 4-Star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans about invading 7 countries in 5 years after 9/11 - it all planned in 2001:

Well, how many do you make it? Afghanistan, Iraq, and what else? I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you Libya as well (though that wasn't an invasion and it wasn't within 5 years), but where's the other 4?

Link to video.

America needed a new Pearl Harbor and it got one in 9/11. Planned, staged control demolition of the World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 buildings; the latter of which collapsed by itself.

I'm not sure they needed another Pearl Harbor. But it's true they got one.

I doubt the US couldn't have invaded Iraq without it, if they so chose. Don't forget the First Gulf War, will you?

And yet, the fundamental point in the video is a good one. The on-going interest in the Middle East of the US is concerned with oil. Pure and simple.

And if you've got a good military, you're simply going to want to use it.

 

[Agent327]

What I mean is Germany is the most active member in EU including its foreign policy and this influence can be decisive what conflicts EU may be involved in...

Well, so far the EU hasn't been and isn't involved in any conflicts.

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?

In case you are unaware, a country's domestic policies are generally related to its foreign policies.

It wasn't answered by you, only Commodore said his opinion.

His 'opinion' was correct.

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.

You seem to have trouble reading answers, so I will repeat it for you: No, it is not unless there is a UN mandate. (Something which you might have easily known if you had been following world news for the past years - or simply googled it.)

Which brings us back to the more relevant question: what on Earth is Russia trying to accomplish by invading and destabilizing a neighbour country? (I don't recall any UN mandate being given for such actions.) This alone would already be sufficient to answer the OP question affirmatively.

 

[Flying Pig]

And if you've got a good military, you're simply going to want to use it.

In all seriousness, I think part of the reason we were so keen to get involved in the various Iraq wars was to ensure that we kept operational experience now that Ireland and the Cold War were at an end. From that point of view it certainly worked - you can quite justly view the wars of the last decade-and-a-half as an extremely expensive but incredibly effective field training exercise.

 

[red_elk]

His 'opinion' was correct.

You seem to disagree with it - he said he doesn't consider Iraq invasion as a crime.
And you just said that invasion without UN mandate is illegal.

 

[EgonSpengler]

True. On the other hand, there is this thing called Security Council, where certain nations (ahem) have veto powers... which sometimes have been used prudently, sometimes less so.

And this is a good thing. Otherwise all nations would become de-facto subordinates of one nation, which doesn't hesitate to use military power abroad.

...a role at which the Security Council has been such a shining success, a beacon for all mankind.

Amnesty calls on UN powers to lose veto on genocide votes
BBC.com
25 February 2015

Amnesty International has urged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to give up their power of veto in cases where atrocities are being committed.

In its annual report, the rights group said the global response to an array of catastrophes in 2014 had been shameful.

Richer countries were guilty of taking an "abhorrent" stance by not sheltering more refugees, Amnesty said.

The outlook for 2015 was bleak, the group added.

Saying that 2014 had been a catastrophic year for victims of conflict and violence, Amnesty said world leaders needed to act immediately to confront the changing nature of armed conflict.

'Miserable failure'

Shameful, abhorrent, catastrophic, miserable. They're going to need to switch to French soon, as they're running out of words to describe the situation in English.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The purpose of Security Council Permanent Membership is to keep the UN from falling apart. The five biggest arms dealers in the world are the five security council permanent members. If the security council says "we must stop arms sales to this transgressor" it won't work unless all five of them go along anyway. But if the UN called for it and one of them said "that's a good customer so screw you" we would have the UN in a position where they would have to sanction them, they would then really say "screw you", and the UN would come apart at the seams. So those five get to arbitrarily veto things that they wouldn't comply with anyway.

Better to have the UN not working really well than to not have it at all.

 

[red_elk]

...a role at which the Security Council has been such a shining success, a beacon for all mankind.

It's much better than complete lawlessness.

 

[FriendlyFire]

France has neutron bombs Quislings.

Fixed for France.

There is an agenda set for the Middle East. 4-Star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans about invading 7 countries in 5 years after 9/11 - it all planned in 2001:

Yeah, Iraq was going to be a Jeffersonian Democracy and reconstruction would pay for itself, Tax cuts would boost the economy, and deregulating the stock market would lead to a boom.
Thats what happens when you vote the crazies into power with there delusional ideas.

 

[Agent327]

France has neither neutron bombs nor quislings. (Even Norway has no quislings anymore; they're outdated.)

You seem to disagree with it - he said he doesn't consider Iraq invasion as a crime.
And you just said that invasion without UN mandate is illegal.

NATO did not invade Iraq. (And I'm not 'disagreeing' with anything; I just repeated what he said about invading and mandates.)

 

[Hygro]

Oh, did they demolish theirs?