is NATO still relevant?

[JayHawk]

Yeah, the facts are damnable aren't they?

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?

I dont demand anything of them. EXCEPT that they honor their word. If they can not then dissolve the agreement. It really is that simple. That and my country does not exist to subsidize socialist nations so they can have 30 hour work weeks and a month of vacation. SO if they can't meet their needs then they need to not have a voice at the NATO table or NATO goes away.

As the articles (multiple) say continuously, this has been broken for a long time. It is time to grow up and acknowledge it.

Out of curiosity back in Pyongyang do your people honor their word or is that an American thing?

 

[The_Reaper]

Personally, I think NATO has gone a little past its prime...

But Americans can't attack the organization and their allies for being understaffed and under-equipped, given that no other nation is spending the kind of cash America spends on their defence budget. Furthermore, I remember watching the first few days of coverage when Libya was being air raided by NATO members, and CNN was quick to point out AMERICAN leadership within the organization and applauding AMERICAN Generals who played roles.

I mention this because CNN, and the Generals and other experts they had on, were talking about how NATO should step up and let someone other than America take the reigns during a combat operation...

BUT, at the same time they were also suggesting that America had the right to lead and should lead.

That's the real problem here: America likes being the 'world's policeman' and will fight to the death to keep that title and power for themselves, but at the same time they'll complain and suggest that their allies are not swinging their full weight and can't step up to the plate to command.

Of course allies can't step up to take command if you won't back out of the spotlight despite complaining about how bright it is...

But, I digress...Getting back to NATO itself...

Now that former Soviet Bloc states are involved in NATO, and even Russia has limited involvement, the founding principles of the organization have changed. Furthermore, membership does not have quite the privileges it used to. The war theatre has changed in the world, and threats are rarely coming from nation states...but from radicals within those states.

NATO is not equipped to operate in that kind of atmosphere, especially given that members would likely oppose surrendering parts of their sovereignty to allow NATO operations in such situations.

As such, NATO is not an organization of this century.

Furthermore, alliance programs are complicated. Apparently WWI taught us nothing about having as many alliances as possible...

 

[JayHawk]

Mr Reaper it is not just a whine when it is convenient. We paid their military bills for a long time although it was agreed that each country would spend 2% GDP on their military. If that was even remotely close to being met ...as they agreed to do...then they could bring their own bullets to war with them.

The Americans stated from the word "go" on Libya that they would help start things but wanted a limited role for obvious reasons. No country willingly fights on multiple fronts. Well we are at four or five now. Everyone has limits.

It is simply ridiculous for another sovereign nation to say "YES WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF THOSE PEOPLE, WE WILL LEAD IT, WE MUST DO THIS" then not bring bullets... I mean are you fucking kidding me?

That screw up on their part was the straw that broke the camels back. Our military AVOIDS interaction with NATO units and ships because it usually cost us our budget. That is not conducive to training a cohesive defense force or anything else cohesive. We have simply allowed it to go on too long.

 

[kallipolis]

It is simply ridiculous for another sovereign nation to say "YES WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF THOSE PEOPLE, WE WILL LEAD IT, WE MUST DO THIS" then not bring bullets... I mean are you fucking kidding me?

That screw up on their part was the straw that broke the camels back. Our military AVOIDS interaction with NATO units and ships because it usually cost us our budget. That is not conducive to training a cohesive defense force or anything else cohesive. We have simply allowed it to go on too long.

Name those countries that participated in the Iraqi campaign, and the Afghanistan campaign that did not equip their respective armed forces, with munitions?

American ships, aircraft and foot soldiers regularly participate in NATO military exercises, alongside the forces of other NATO countries.

Note NATO exercises for 2011 which in most cases includes American participation:

http://home.tiscali.nl/mysteryship/exercises/comingexercises.html

 

[JayHawk]

Oh we play. However there is a level of interaction you can have. I am sure when your out there doing it you see what I mean. Oh wait..... you dont do you. I have operated with NATO and I have operated with the JMDF... which do you suppose gets our full involvement and consideration?

If you hadnt noticed this conversation STARTED around LIBYA.

U.S. Supplying Allies With Bombs for Libya Campaign

"We have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150," Gates said. "Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country - yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the United States, once more, to make up the difference."

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/14/3699371/editorials-on-nato.html#ixzz1PLYN6DS1

NATO committed to Libya and Afghanistan. They need to honor those commitments. They need to fund them as well. All of the NATO partners. Not just a handful.

^^^^^^^ That one is from HUFF post... one of the liberal rags that is more pro-europe than pro-america

Prolonged Libya effort unsustainable, warns Navy chief

^^^^ That is from the UK


Isnt it funny that no one in the countries that aren't pulling their weight is talking about their failure to supply their folks and yet the people footing the bill in the US and UK seem to think it is important.

ODD, donchathink?

 

[kallipolis]

Oh we play. However there is a level of interaction you can have. I am sure when your out there doing it you see what I mean. Oh wait..... you dont do you. I have operated with NATO and I have operated with the JMDF... which do you suppose gets our full involvement and consideration?

If you hadnt noticed this conversation STARTED around LIBYA.

U.S. Supplying Allies With Bombs for Libya Campaign




^^^^^^^ That one is from HUFF post... one of the liberal rags that is more pro-europe than pro-america



^^^^ That is from the UK


Isnt it funny that no one in the countries that aren't pulling their weight is talking about their failure to supply their folks and yet the people footing the bill in the US and UK seem to think it is important.

ODD, donchathink?

The UK Navy chief is playing politics to avoid losing more ships to budgetary cuts. All three UK armed services are now fighting for a greater share of a shrinking military budget

You have not answered my questions:

Which countries participating in the Iraq, and Afghanistan campaigns failed to provide their forces with munitions?

That is a simple question.

Both France, and the United Kingdom buy weaponry, and munitions from the United States. This military hardware/munitions etc is not a gift from the United States. The United States supplies and sells its aircraft, missiles and munitions to such countries as France, and the United Kingdom.

 

[zelenabanana]

NATO policy on Libya encourages Libyans to liberate themselves from the current regime

To laugh or not to laugh

It's wonderful way to liberate someone by killing him/her

So, member states of NATO are so lovely, wonderful and dear to spend billions just to "help" Libyans. Oh, how lovely you are. You like to invest into others. Thou in your own countries, i.e. USA, brutal capitalism ask from people to give last cell of power for the salary and when they get old if they don't have money, they can die, coz health is expensive thing in the USA and by last recession many people suicide coz they couldn't find a job and feed a family... but, how great you are, you love to spend cash to help Libyans.

So, do you see something FISHY? It's not about help, you don't care for Mexicans or Afro Americans in the USA or Native Americans who live like in prisons but to care for some Libyans, most of you can't point in the map.

Leave Libya in peace and hands off Libyan oil. We all know that Libyan oil is VERY quality and makes up 10% of world's production.

Also, when the USA is so fair and justice... Why mr. Obama don't say a word for brutal regime in Saudi Arabia? Ah yes, I forgot they are your mates, so like Israeli you have to clap and blink.

Hypocrites and hypocritical politic of yours. Make me sick and tired.

If we speak about North Africa regimes, leet us speak about Saudia Arabia and Jordan.... but no, Obama has to support those two

 

[kallipolis]

To laugh or not to laugh

It's wonderful way to liberate someone by killing him/her

So, member states of NATO are so lovely, wonderful and dear to spend billions just to "help" Libyans. Oh, how lovely you are. You like to invest into others. Thou in your own countries, i.e. USA, brutal capitalism ask from people to give last cell of power for the salary and when they get old if they don't have money, they can die, coz health is expensive thing in the USA and by last recession many people suicide coz they couldn't find a job and feed a family... but, how great you are, you love to spend cash to help Libyans.

So, do you see something FISHY? It's not about help, you don't care for Mexicans or Afro Americans in the USA or Native Americans who live like in prisons but to care for some Libyans, most of you can't point in the map.

Leave Libya in peace and hands off Libyan oil. We all know that Libyan oil is VERY quality and makes up 10% of world's production.

Also, when the USA is so fair and justice... Why mr. Obama don't say a word for brutal regime in Saudi Arabia? Ah yes, I forgot they are your mates, so like Israeli you have to clap and blink.

Hypocrites and hypocritical politic of yours. Make me sick and tired.

If we speak about North Africa regimes, leet us speak about Saudia Arabia and Jordan.... but no, Obama has to support those two

You are rather confused. I am not an American.

The revolutionary forces approached France, the United States, and the United Kingdom for practical military assistance, to overthrow the Gadaffi dictatorship.

NATO is involved in providing some military support in favour of the revolutionary forces, that they may liberate themselves from a dictatorship.

Need I list the involvement of Gadaffi's regime in countless acts of terrorism, over very many years?

I note that your Serb tribal propaganda has failed to ignite any support on this forum.

 

[zelenabanana]

International Court. This process has been, and continues to process those indicted for human rights crimes. There should be no exceptions.

Hague Tribunal is so "fair"... It liberates Muslim Naser Oric who has killed 3 500 Serbs on orthodox Christmas 1993. in Srebrenica as well as Albanian Ramush Haradinai who wrote in his book how he personally killed 200 Serbs by knife. Also whitnesses against Ramush Haradinai have been killed just few days before going to hague. Fishy? But he was liberated. This court is not fair.

And aderfe mou, you will see when the USA turns back to you too, how does it look like. I am affraid they already let you in trouble with this crises, long time, they support Macedonia with the name issue (and it's all about "divide and rule" ) and you have about 800 000 Albanians who wanna north of Greece... If it starts down, you will see what propaganda is. You can notice it is the same... Serbia - Iraq - Libya... One side is sooooo bad and other is so innocent... I am sick and tired when I hear "Gadaffi kills own civilians"... I see ARMED BANDITS AND REBELS not some grannies with kids. But CNN repeat Obama's word "civilians"... "civilians"... and people on forum are brain washed and keep the line... "poor civilians"...

 

[kallipolis]

Hague Tribunal is so "fair"... It liberates Muslim Naser Oric who has killed 3 500 Serbs on orthodox Christmas 1993. in Srebrenica as well as Albanian Ramush Haradinai who wrote in his book how he personally killed 200 Serbs by knife. Also whitnesses against Ramush Haradinai have been killed just few days before going to hague. Fishy? But he was liberated. This court is not fair.

And aderfe mou, you will see when the USA turns back to you too, how does it look like. I am affraid they already let you in trouble with this crises, long time, they support Macedonia with the name issue (and it's all about "divide and rule" ) and you have about 800 000 Albanians who wanna north of Greece... If it starts down, you will see what propaganda is. You can notice it is the same... Serbia - Iraq - Libya... One side is sooooo bad and other is so innocent... I am sick and tired when I hear "Gadaffi kills own civilians"... I see ARMED BANDITS AND REBELS not some grannies with kids. But CNN repeat Obama's word "civilians"... "civilians"... and people on forum are brain washed and keep the line... "poor civilians"...

I limit my posts to those who I believe are sufficiently open minded to want to learn something, worth learning.

Your posts consistently represent an angry, hostile, narrow minded, tribal view of the world, that has nothing to do with reality.

I reject tribalism, and all the horrors that are associated with such blind obsessiveness, with the imagined superiority of one people, over others.

 

[Telstra]

zelenabanana, all i noticed is you speak for Russia.

 

[zelenabanana]

nationalistic propaganda.

Ok, just reply me this:

1. Albanians started separatism in Serbia in Kosovo province (imagine Mexicans to do that with Texas or California). Serbia defended, NATO created mass propaganda and started bombing Serbia and supported separatists.

2. Few Arabs hit one building in the USA. USA goes OUT of the USA and start several invasions and agressions. You all wore US flags in t-shirts, wore them in the houses. In the medias US is good, God bless America. No mentioning of Native Americans who were first there.

If I try to speak out of it I am nationalist? You have right to attack any state you think it's responsible for crashing one building. And Serbs didn't have right to defend in own state from separatists? I wish to see something like that in Texas or California so you to be pacifist, not a patriot. And plus would like to see dunno... Iran, India, Venezuela, China... Alliance ...to bomb you if you start to defend the USA from i.e. Mexican separatists and then we can meet again so to see your points of view.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Both France, and the United Kingdom buy weaponry, and munitions from the United States. This military hardware/munitions etc is not a gift from the United States. The United States supplies and sells its aircraft, missiles and munitions to such countries as France, and the United Kingdom.

I did read in 3 (maybe 4) different newspapers that Gate's tirade was more about increasing America's $32 billion per year weapons export business, than any news issues with NATO, which I don't really agree with but it certainly plays a part.

One of the other things I found enlightening was a few antecedents. The first, a quote by Eisenhower, when he said; "Because we had our troops there, the Europeans had not done their share. They won’t make the sacrifice to provide the soldiers for their own defense.” Even during the Nixon administration Kissinger stated; "Europe would unite in order to share our burdens or that it would be content with a subordinate role once it had the means to implement its own views." Later he said, "Europe had grown economically strong and politically united, Atlantic cooperation could not be an American enterprise in which consultations elaborated primarily American designs."

During the early 1970's Senator Mike Mansfield introduced 8 bills that would cut European / NATO funds and forces deployed in Europe. One bill demanded a 50% reduction in forces because the USA couldn't afford them during the "dollar crisis" of the early 70s. As many of you probably can recall in the 1980s when Reagan wanted to deploy Pershing cruise missiles in Europe there was a huge European backlash, which resulted in the usual NATO / Euro questioning and navel gazing by Americans.

In 1985, the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management published a report titled: Managing the NATO alliance: Congress and burdensharing. The abstract reads; Congressional perpectives have been substantially influenced by the desire to limit the U.S. share of the NATO burden. In recent years, U.S.—European differences over East—West relations, Third World security requirements, and other issues have intensified the burdensharng debate. Now some members of Congress are once again using the threat of unilateral U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe—the main source of congressional influence on the alliance—to pressure the Europeans to increase their defense efforts.

So for all the dire predictions of America pulling out of NATO, or Europe, or any other significant shift of any kind in this regards are over-blown, rehashed, warmed-over, redux of America wanting its way with its allies. It's nothing new, and nothing will change. *shrug*

 

[zelenabanana]

zelenabanana, all i noticed is you speak for Russia.

Hahaha, nope. Russia is a way closer to us as Slavs, orthodox, but as a matter of fact, during history, Russia never strongly helped Serbia.

Our only true friends are Greeks (thou not like Kallipolis, if he is Greek at all )

 

[BostonPirate]

Z- Banana, I think people are saying you really haven't shown why us why you aren't just head cheerleader of your side.

Your sources are questionable, and your theme without fail is always anger over the Whole serb croat thing.

It was settled for the international community. Now you guys need to fix your nation, and stop complaining about who you think put you in a bad spot.

Activism.. go make your home a better place. Why tear them down when you can build yourself up instead.

Regain the trust of the world community by rebuilding a kind just nation, and then when you have the wisdom of that endeavor, you may not need to hate the other guys soooo much.

 

[zelenabanana]

You know, I have over 200 foreign friends including Americans, Croats and Muslims. I hate nobody.

I don't get why you don't like if someone points your mistakes.

Do you think your hands are clean? And do you think Serbia didn't have right to defend into Serbia by Albanian separatism? If we didn't have. What make USA to have right to go around the Globe to "defend" own state? Please, just give me answer compairing those two.

Thanks you

 

[zelenabanana]

And also, one more thing which I am highly interested to know... and noone answers... Do you think CIA or the USA are not somehow involved into 9/11? In a way... If you were Al Q'Aida and CIA didn't work properly and was so not ready (my feet, but ok...)... would you took first plain and crash on WQhite House when Bush was inside and made a mass or you would crash into Twin Towers and after FEW hours kindaaaaa sent anther plain to the White House and Pentagon with no damage... I mean it is so very fishy. As well as Obama support to brutal Saudi Arabian regime bt against Gadaffi. What's the difference between those two. As you can see, it is not about Serbia - Croatia... There was war Croats - Muslims, Did you forget Croats crashing UNESCO famous Muslimbridge in Mostar, Bosnia and that Mostar is the splittest town of Europe on Muslim and Croatian part?... but about world same repeating scenario. Mass media create someone as a bad guy and wooohhllaaa, there's the USA appear "to help", means to bomb, make own military industry works, employe soldeirs and make that state weak, crash infrastructure and industry and then go to the next target. Who is next North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? Or you wait Castro to die so to attack Cuba ?

 

[Tengilethos]

Interesting back and forth here.

My comment at the moment is that when there has been talk of closing bases in Europe, by far the loudest protests come from Europe -- but not the only ones.

The biggest reason the bases are where they are today is inertia: it's where they were put for Cold War reasons, and especially with economic tentacles into the communities by them, there they stay. There are few good reasons to have such a concentration of bases in Germany, but the local politicians scream any time there's a hint one might be closed, because they're a big boost to the economy, and some politicians in the U.S. scream for obscure reasons.

NATO military staff should sit down, no politicians present and decide which US bases in Germany make sense any more, and whittle the number down to at most six. It would probably make sense to have some in Romania -- but they shouldn't be U.S. bases, they should be joint NATO bases .


In conjunction with this, all the cheating members who aren't meeting their treaty agreements should be sanctioned and required to shape up. Maybe their governments can be taken to court -- in the U.S., treaties are law, and if a treaty says you have an obligation, it's at least theoretically possible to sue the government to make it meet its obligation.

Well, you can't blame the local politicians to protest any withdrawal, but they are ultimately not your representatives, why care about them? To avoid that, leaving the decision to military technocrats sounds about right.

But I wonder now, do some people here confuse getting out of NATO with a general massive reduction of the US military? If I get the figures right, then about 80,000 of the 1.4 million US soldiers (no reserve personnel included) are stationed in bases in European NATO countries. A much bigger share are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, or stationed in various other US bases around the world. Now it seems to me like BostonPirate for example wants to bring back home nearly all of your forces and equates US withdrawal from NATO with this goal. But NATO has nothing to do with US operations in the Pacific or the American forces in Bahrain or the Indian Ocean. And somehow I don't see the US politicians being willing to fall back to American Isolation, and perhaps there isn't even a majority for that in the general population?

And how much sense does it make to withdraw from NATO anyway when you want to prevent us from free-riding on your defense spending? If nations in the Middle East do some kind of oil embargo on any nation in The West, the first target will always be the United States, because you are a little bit unpopular there, while Europe nearly always gets better numbers in popularity polls. Not to mention that something like that would hit Israel too, whose protection by you is independent of NATO. So if Iran blockades the Straits of Hormuz you would feel the need to open them again regardless. If you have NATO allies you surely would be able to convince them to help. If not then we would profit from your actions regardless without contributing anything.

There should surely be steady pressure of the US to make all NATO members bring their spending to the 2%, and the multinational force that Kulindahr proposed sounds like a good idea. Trying to reform NATO so that members are punished if they don't meet their targets is a good idea as well. But still NATO seems to be the best deal you can get as long as you want to retain your power in the world. And nothing stops you from reducing your military spending to sustainable matters even if you remain in the Alliance.

Oh and edit @ BostonPirate: I'd say most Europeans don't want the US out of Europe, but if you guys can no longer afford the bases, many of whom are not needed where they are but should be relocated more in direction of the Middle East, then we can see the wisdom in that and don't complain about it. You are still our biggest ally in the world with whom we share most of our values.

 

[kallipolis]

Hahaha, nope. Russia is a way closer to us as Slavs, orthodox, but as a matter of fact, during history, Russia never strongly helped Serbia.

Our only true friends are Greeks (thou not like Kallipolis, if he is Greek at all )

You presume far too much upon the thought that all Greeks, as a result of being Orthodox are automatically pro Serb.

In my case, the issue is not one of being pro, or anti Serb but of being anti tribalist.

 

[kallipolis]

I did read in 3 (maybe 4) different newspapers that Gate's tirade was more about increasing America's $32 billion per year weapons export business, than any news issues with NATO, which I don't really agree with but it certainly plays a part.

That's about it. We Greeks also buy American aircraft, tanks and missiles. We also possess Patriot missile launchers. Most of our warships have been bought from the Americans. Our more modern warships are German built, or designed. We also have bought many German tanks, trucks, jeeps and of course our civilian population adores Mercedes, and BMW,

I use public transport, and my legs. A car is far too expensive a dream.