The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

is NATO still relevant?

The Cold War has ended and it was the only reason for NATO's existence.

Time to dissolve the organization.

Especially since it's now hellbent on killing Libyans.
 
NATO was made as balance to Warsaw Pact.

It was made as defending organization.

What NATO does nowadays is brutal agression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... in a serve to the USA interests or ex colonial powers to prove they are "something" (read: France).

I would say, there's no need for NATO to exist any longer. There's no Warsaw Pact, so no need for this brutal agressive organization to exist.

Plus, I expect NATO member states to pay damages they made and responsible ones to be on trial for war crimes.

I.e. the one who killed civilians in Serbian city of Nish including pregnet woman during 1999., who order "Shoot" onto international train Belgrade - Athens
NATO-VOZ---99.jpg
(except Greece, the only NATO member state which stepped out of bombing against Serbia) as well as for other 3 000 civilians killed by NATO during bombing 1999. and for bombed hospitals, schools, markets, and other civilian targets. Shouldn't forget NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade, saying it was a mistake (ROFL... how good and smart NATO bombs were so didn't bomb US or UK embassy mistakely, right?:rolleyes: )

Hey, I argued for just sealing those borders and letting the lot of you kill each other, but common sense doesn't always prevail. :cool:
 
@ youve stopped making sense posts ago, keep on grumbling, i'm still waiting on figures. Please dissolve NATO already, if it'll stop your b/s it will be more then worth it.

that means you still dont want to say that your nation does less to contribute to its military defense than we do.

You cant answer the questions I have asked.

It is beyond you. You seem to know more about what the USA pays for your defense than your own nation.

Don't you find that, amongst so many other things, a bit troubling as a citizen?
 
You sure as shit don't know what you are talking about in regards to military spending and where it goes.

LMAO! This coming from you who stated the US was spending "$680 trillion dollars" per year earlier in this thread?

I know facts are inconvenient for you and others but if your demands for other countries to "spend more" are to be considered, why then did our European and Asian allies, who had similarly high military budgets during the cold war (which ended 2+ decades ago) as the US did, cut them? It wasn't because they thought "oh, the USA will protect us", no. But rather they saw a massive reduction in any power that might or would attack them. Only the USA, has continued its high spending. Why? Arguably, to promote its status as the sole "superpower" and/or its “military industrial complex” was able to convince the public to maintain it.

Much if not all of the world has moved beyond simple "military strength" as a goal, given the USA's overwhelming dominance. Instead, they've focused on "economic strength" which has given them a measurable leg up over the USA, as well as helped their own citizens in the process lead more productive lives. Which is better? *shrug* Time will tell.
 
Hey, I argued for just sealing those borders and letting the lot of you kill each other, but common sense doesn't always prevail. :cool:

Trying to figure out a peaceful settlement of the Balkans issue, and/or the Israel/Palestine issue is futile. One might as well beat his head against a wall, as it would be a more useful exercise. ..|
 
Yeah, the facts are damnable aren't they? :rolleyes:

But you, as many Americans in this debate only focus on the deployment costs of US armed forces. You and those who think like you are demanding that because the USA is spending a TRILLION per annum on a bloated, economy crushing, uber-nationalist defense program, covering every corner of the Earth, that those fucking Euro pigs need to stop spending money on their own citizens and instead divert those monies to a US style defense stance, YET in the same breath expecting them to take a backseat to whatever the USA wants.

Do you realize how hypocritical you and your ilk sound to Europeans? The USA demanded that our allies come along for Afghanistan, and in most minds, rightfully so. Many allies came along. Many even came along for Iraq, where they were massively opposed but yielded due to allied connections NATO and otherwise. And NOW, because of Libya all of a sudden Americans are wanting to balance nickels and dimes? Come on!

Since you and BP, and others are DEMANDING that Europeans spend more money on defense because the US is, and if not "you'll" leave. Fine! Leave! As I've said above, nothing is stopping the USA from slashing its own defense spending. NOTHING. Yet every year it goes up and up and up. Why is that? So how is it you feel you are entitled to demand Europe to spend such an unhealthy amount of money for USA's global ambitions?

There are two points: one, Europeans have committed themselves to participation in a defensive treaty and for the most part are not living up to their commitments; two, the current operations in Libya bring that out into the light of day and also show that many NATO members think it's a free ride on the backs of whoever will pay.

Your twisting of those merely shows that BP has been right: you're just indulging more anti-USA rhetoric.
 
LMAO! This coming from you who stated the US was spending "$680 trillion dollars" per year earlier in this thread?

I know facts are inconvenient for you and others but if your demands for other countries to "spend more" are to be considered, why then did our European and Asian allies, who had similarly high military budgets during the cold war (which ended 2+ decades ago) as the US did, cut them? It wasn't because they thought "oh, the USA will protect us", no. But rather they saw a massive reduction in any power that might or would attack them. Only the USA, has continued its high spending. Why? Arguably, to promote its status as the sole "superpower" and/or its “military industrial complex” was able to convince the public to maintain it.

Much if not all of the world has moved beyond simple "military strength" as a goal, given the USA's overwhelming dominance. Instead, they've focused on "economic strength" which has given them a measurable leg up over the USA, as well as helped their own citizens in the process lead more productive lives. Which is better? *shrug* Time will tell.

you really are bothered by this, aren't you?

So you're saying that the NATO nations have no part in asking the USA for cash? you better figure out that answer fast.

clue...

why do you think the dept of defense was telling them they need to start upping spending on their own military.
 
So you're saying that the NATO nations have no part in asking the USA for cash? you better figure out that answer fast.

clue...

why do you think the dept of defense was telling them they need to start upping spending on their own military.

Cash? Dubious....

But they've asked for munitions, because they didn't have enough to support the operation they voted themselves into.

Which is why I suggested that one thing NATO ought to do is turn a few present US bases into NATO bases dedicated to keeping up a respectable supply of all the things that get expended in fighting -- and not just a 90-day supply, either; a year at a minimum.

I'll add that I mean not just bombs and such, but planes and ground vehicles of all kinds, so when some get blown up/away, there are replacements at hand.
 
Cash? Dubious....

But they've asked for munitions, because they didn't have enough to support the operation they voted themselves into.

think about that though... they don't have enough supplies to run this minor Libyan mission on their own without us.

What would happen if a real "boots on the ground" war occurred?

we could sell them our bases and as NATO partners, they would be expected to let US use what they paid for. Do you think they would want a say in what the mission was and how it happened if they paid for this?

its easier to just bitch and take our support.
 
think about that though... they don't have enough supplies to run this minor Libyan mission on their own without us.

What would happen if a real "boots on the ground" war occurred?

we could sell them our bases and as NATO partners, they would be expected to let US use what they paid for. Do you think they would want a say in what the mission was and how it happened if they paid for this?

its easier to just bitch and take our support.

Sell -- I like that.

It's exactly what we should do. I searched a bit on line, and it seems we have over fifty bases in Germany! As CIC, Obama could order bases abandoned; he should pick the dozen smallest and tell Germany and NATO that the bases will be up for sale in six months... and if not bought, we'll knock it all down before we go, or maybe auction them to rich folks who want interesting "estates".
 
Sell -- I like that.

It's exactly what we should do. I searched a bit on line, and it seems we have over fifty bases in Germany! As CIC, Obama could order bases abandoned; he should pick the dozen smallest and tell Germany and NATO that the bases will be up for sale in six months... and if not bought, we'll knock it all down before we go, or maybe auction them to rich folks who want interesting "estates".

why do we need fifty bases in germany still. I had no idea we still maintained that many. The family that just left that was staying with me, the dad is going for ranger I think, they lived in germany for a few years, and the mom said that they seldom left the base. she even had a part time job at the commisary. So they are large enough to support an entire community without leaving.

thats a nice piece of real estate
 
Ignore history at your peril. NATO had 16 member countries at the fall of the Iron Curtain but now has 28, with planned additions. The USA was a staunch supporter of enlarging NATO. NATO as a defensive force has been successful. Europe has more soldiers than the USA, but are built upon maintaining a "line" against Soviet/other invasion, whereas the USA was built as a expeditionary warfare force.

The problem does not lie within NATO itself, or its original intent, but rather transforming a purely defensive organization into a power projecting one. NATO was built around holding Europe, not launching endless wars / military adventures around the globe.

'Nuff said.
 
Ignore history at your peril. NATO had 16 member countries at the fall of the Iron Curtain but now has 28, with planned additions. The USA was a staunch supporter of enlarging NATO. NATO as a defensive force has been successful. Europe has more soldiers than the USA, but are built upon maintaining a "line" against Soviet/other invasion, whereas the USA was built as a expeditionary warfare force.

The problem does not lie within NATO itself, or its original intent, but rather transforming a purely defensive organization into a power projecting one. NATO was built around holding Europe, not launching endless wars / military adventures around the globe.

'Nuff said.

this is the treaty in its entirety....
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.​
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
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 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
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.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
  • The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
  • On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
  • The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

Article 3....by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

have the member states in Europe lived up to resorting to self help to build a capacity to resist armed attack?

with less than three months munitions amongst ALL of them combined in the libyan mission, you are telling me the NATO treaty obligations are being upheld by the USA's NATO partners?

no they aren't. And when the USA WAS ATTACKED, and the taliban needed to be fought, what happened?

did all of them come to our defense? Brittain even sent one of its princes, and canada was helpful, but the response ranged from muted to token, by and large, from the rest of the group.

Hell under deGaulle, France withdrew completely from NATO's military structure for decades.

The damage done to Anglo-American relations by the Suez crisis was quickly repaired but, in the case of France, the situation was more complex. The Alliance, in being for more than ten years, had inevitably changed. Europe had grown both economically and militarily more powerful and was now less dependent on the United States. The Soviet Union had substantially improved its nuclear capability, underlined by the launch of the Sputnik. Thus not all Europeans were reassured by a US nuclear umbrella that depended on a concept of massive retaliation which foresaw the early use of nuclear weapons in response to aggression.

In the light of such developments as these, France had expressed reservations about the direction of Allied policy and, following his election as President in 1958, General de Gaulle, in particular, made clear his dissatisfaction with aspects of the US leadership role, as well as, more specifically, with NATO's nuclear policy and integrated command structure.

In 1966, France announces that it will no longer assign its forces to NATO and that it will withdraw from the integrated military structure with the consequence that Allied forces and military headquarters must leave the country. This should be completed by 1 April 1967.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/60-69/1966e.htm
 
It is much less expensive to operate a Destroyer or Cruiser where you perceive the threat.

On the other hand there was an article in the newspapers recently that China is fast developing really scary anti-naval rockets that could even sink an aircraft carrier relatively cheaply. You cannot sink a land base but you can sink these destroyers. Who would stop China from selling these weapons to Iran for example? Or to North Korea, to let them challenge the US Navy in the Chinese Sea?

On the point of Libya, the French and Brits may have run out of bombs, but if all NATO members in Europe had participated this would not have happened this fast or perhaps the bombs would last the entire war. This is just the problem that the division in NATO has exposed.

think about that though... they don't have enough supplies to run this minor Libyan mission on their own without us.

What would happen if a real "boots on the ground" war occurred?

we could sell them our bases and as NATO partners, they would be expected to let US use what they paid for. Do you think they would want a say in what the mission was and how it happened if they paid for this?

its easier to just bitch and take our support.

This is just ridiculous. The NATO members perhaps didn't have the forces to achieve air supremacy in Libya, but you can win a war even with air parity. The European NATO members have the single biggest ground forces in Europe by far, and NONE of our neighbours can challenge us there. If we could have used our ground forces this war would be over by now, but because that is politically impossible we have to use air forces, in which the US is considerably better equipped. This is a relic of the cold war were Europe was mostly responsible to bring the "boots to the ground" as you said and the US (and to a certain extent Britain) were responsible for the navy and air force. Again, please don't pretend like we couldn't defend ourself if someone tried to invade us.

Number of troops per NATO member: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Europe without Turkey: 1,868,519 troops
Europe with Turkey: 2,379,119 troops
Russia: ca. 1,200,000 troops

Should anybody in Europe feel threatened?

I don't see a reason to argue anyway. Please reduce your defense spending to acceptable levels, close the majority of bases in Europe and redeploy your forces where they are more useful. Kulindahr has a good idea with this ranking system. And I have no problem with the cost for these bases being paid by NATO, which everybody has to contribute as a share of... population? GDP? Something like that.

Really, reduce NATO to a defense tool. As Kulindahr said, only for operations in direct proximity to it's members, or if another STATE attacks a NATO member. And right now I think NATO has all necessary resources to do just that, even without the Europeans increasing their defense spending, and with the US reducing its military budget.

You just have to find/create a new tool to defend The Wests interest in the world (like Afghanistan/Iraq/Somalia 92-95?) , but I believe that would be off topic.
 
I think MoltenRock is focusing on the fact that the US uses (used) NATO as a weapon of imperialism.

And the Republicans are using NATO as a way of spending boo-coo $$ on the military, because they're war-hawks.

He is right.

But (turns to face MoltenRock) that's not what we're talking about, exactly.

We're saying that the US can no longer to afford to disproportionally prop up NATO.

And for that reason only, either Europe has to step up to the plate...
....or NATO needs to be disbanded.

That's all we're saying.

I just disagree. What is wrong with NATO being a defense tool, and not something to invade foreign countries that have not attacked NATO members directly? Perhaps it would be better to reduce the Alliance to its original purpose, and find something else to "use it as a weapon of imperialism", some other organization with perhaps the US and UK as core members? And it would not be just the US defending Europe against a threat that might never come. Right now I read many comments describing China as the next and most important economic and military threat for the USA. But China would first attack the US before it invades Europe through Russia or something like that, and then Europa could repay the favor that America has given us by defending us against the Soviet Union.
 
we meant to help.

Does anyone see a trend here?

I agree with you, Z- Banana. The USA ought not be in NATO any longer. ..|

To help?

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, don't help anymore, please :) We were just fine when the USA hasn't help and was far away. Your helphand in Iraq is so obvious. They live worse and worse every day. Even Iraqi girls got rapped by US soldiers.

You know, like pyroman set up the fire and then comes to help to stop the fire by putting oil.
:rolleyes:

I agree too. USA out of NATO, NATO out of present time. But it will never happen. I mean, the USA will never allow peace in the world. Ur economy lives from wars and instability world wide.

USA are the only country which USED nuclear bombs and now tell us how we should be awared of Iran to get nuclear weapon. No, I am affraid of the USA which already used it. I want to see USA without nuclear bombs, coz you are dangerous. You used it once, you will use it again.:help::help::help:
 
Hey, I argued for just sealing those borders and letting the lot of you kill each other, but common sense doesn't always prevail. :cool:

You know, just put ur nose out of woirld's bussiness and we will be fine. Believe me :)

I will give u a hint:

SFR of Yugoslavia was a federation of 6 states with legal Yugoslav people army. In 1991. Croats started separation with LOTS OF WEAPONS and paramilitar forces (u know, imagine Mexicans in California, Texas, New Mexico to have bunch of guns and start separation fighting US military) ... So, what do you think, who SOLD guns to them?:rolleyes: Grow on fields like pop corn or some western industry earned cash?:rolleyes:
 
everyone remembers last month when the French president was all, "no, US, please leave Libya alone. their civil war doesn't need your bombs meddling in it."

NATO policy on Libya encourages Libyans to liberate themselves from the current regime, rather than repeat the Iraqi fiasco, with the United States, and the United Kingdom (Christian Crusader nations) liberating Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship and then continuing to occupy Iraq years after its liberation from Saddam.

That France, and the United Kingdom ensure, by occasional military interventions that the revolutionary forces are encouraged, and emboldened is sufficient NATO influence to ensure the ultimate victory of the rebel forces by their own efforts. And also ensures that Libyans do not have to face occupation by foreign forces after their victory over Gadaffi's regime.
 
Back
Top