is NATO still relevant?

[kallipolis]

^ I would. Nothing from the conspiracy theorists has been proven, beyond their paper theorising that appears compelling until put to the test.

 

[Tengilethos]

Mitch, Conspiracy theories can seem quite convincing, even overwhelmingly so, at first glance. It's not until the serious researcher gets all of the facts that he begins to notice flaws in the theories.

I myself was first put upon this when I began researching the very first one, the Captain Lord theory, over 20 years ago. Filled with authentic-looking graphs and arcane jargon, it seemed overwhelmingly convincing until I learned all of the known facts.

The central, devastating flaw in all of those theories is that they focus on the unknowns, while non-conspiracists focus on the known facts. Our frail human brains often go into denial; what is really a simple explanation (for example, one man really did kill JFK, all by himself), becomes unbelievable, so we begin to manufacture alternate explanations.

And this is how conspiracy theories gain traction.

Why is it so difficult to believe that one mastermind—who hated the US with a raging passion—was able to coerce a few religious zealots into blowing up two buildings, using a long-term plan?

Oddly enough, you don't find very Americans who're 9/11 conspiracists; it's most often our Allies who go into denial. Perhaps they don't understand religious zeal as well as we do, since we have it in our own back yards...

I know nobody who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and in Germany it is only covered when someone shows us again "those wacky Americans who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy".It is always with facts why the various theories don't work out. No serious person promotes any such ideas here. Every time these conspiracy theorists are reported on they are always US citizens. I am curious how you can get the impression that it is mostly Non-Americans who believe this? Because here it seems as if this was mostly a US phenomenon.

And about this religious zeal thing, we have enough Muslims in Europe to understand their particular breed of fanaticism.

 

[JayHawk]

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.

This is about the NATO countries located in the NATO mandated "freedom for Libya" who are unable to provide their own munitions. France was dropping concrete bombs for god's sake... concrete bombs... the kind of things used to test if the equipment can hold weight after repairs...not munitions.

 

[JayHawk]

BTW in Iraq and AFghanistan many well trained units showed up from various supporting allies of America. Very few were successfully employed in door kicking combat. Why? Hamstrung by their governments.

Now go to a war zone with a camera and interview people that are REMF (rear echelon Mother Fuckers) and stay 100s of miles away from the fight AND you can still die when a truck rolls over or a transport crashed. Or if a crazy local who was helping you decides he wants Allah... So the folks that went had plenty of deaths. Not one life is worth half the things we do but that is what war is...life and death. SO do I denigrate those countries military forces for being in their situation? NO not in the least. I think their leaders should be ashamed. Just as their countrymen should be ashamed of their leaders for not keeping their world in a treaty signed with other sovereign nations. It is disgraceful and purposed.

The point is if your not going to meet the lines of the contract then cancel it. It is not effective if not honored and if only a few honor the tenets of a contract then those few are being taken advantage of period.

I realize due to nationalistic fervor everyone must pound their chest and say ..our military is just as good. So there is a lot of perceived slight and ass pain going on. Thats fine.

The point i have made is logical and straightforward. There is NO argument you can possibly make that would allow for you to not meet the treaty and it be ok.

Do we spend MUCH more than 2% GDP on defense. Your damn fuckin right. However that is still zero excuse to not pay your bills.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I realize due to nationalistic fervor everyone must pound their chest and say ..our military is just as good. So there is a lot of perceived slight and ass pain going on. Thats fine.

The point i have made is logical and straightforward. There is NO argument you can possibly make that would allow for you to not meet the treaty and it be ok.

Do we spend MUCH more than 2% GDP on defense. Your damn fuckin right. However that is still zero excuse to not pay your bills.

It's pretty clear you are too close to the situation to see the other side to your point of view. Until you consider the European point of view you're no better than those you condemn / chastise.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's pretty clear you are too close to the situation to see the other side to your point of view. Until you consider the European point of view you're no better than those you condemn / chastise.

Apparently your and the "European" view is that it's okay to make agreements and not keep them.

I propose an amendment to the NATO treaty: if a member is attacked in a year during which that member has not met its commitments to the treaty, no member is obligated to participate in their defense.

 

[JayHawk]

It's pretty clear you are too close to the situation to see the other side to your point of view. Until you consider the European point of view you're no better than those you condemn / chastise.

What could be the European point of view? We will continue to make demands to this organization we belong to even though we dont fully pay our dues.

Our social welfare programs that came along after we signed that treaty are obviously more important.

The Americans will keep being the giant military force so why should we?

Please illuminate me. I can see how they might feel their domestic situation requires more effort and treasure. I can how they could feel nice and comfy after all there are never terror acts in Europe. ***COUGH COUGH COUGH****

Seriously I can concede those viewpoints. SO why is it a country that doesn't pay it's dues feel it has any fucking business arrogantly agreeing to take on a task they are unequipped to perform KNOWING that the US will not let it fail.

It is akin to a college kid moving in with Mom and Dad cause they just couldn't manage their bills.

Besides the Europeans on here, I am probably the one who has spoken at length with more Europeans over there security issues in the last twenty years than anyone here. I get them and I get the issue.

Believe me if the guys doing the work know and feel ok expressing that they are under supported and under equipped then they are - no question.

 

[kallipolis]

This is about the NATO countries located in the NATO mandated "freedom for Libya" who are unable to provide their own munitions. France was dropping concrete bombs for god's sake... concrete bombs... the kind of things used to test if the equipment can hold weight after repairs...not munitions.

No, it is not. That is your choice of words that reflects your fantasising.

France has not been dropping concrete bombs.

French aircraft have been dropping concrete bunker busting bombs.

You are remote from reality.

 

[MoltenRock III]

He's too blinded by raging hatred towards the US to be able to see the issue objectively.

@Moltenrock: man, some of the European countries aren't paying their bills!

Deadbeats. Or freeloaders.

LMAO! Yes, "raging hatred". Riiiiight.

As I've stated in this thread more than once, if the USA is so upset over it... LEAVE! But the US will not. The US has been bitching about European funding / staffing rates nearly since the inception of NATO, yet hasn't left, nor will.

The Europeans will not be contributing more than 2% by in large any time soon. In fact many of the NATO countries will be reducing their overall defense budgets given their own economic squeeze.

I simply choose not be insane about this, as Einstein who said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The US is spending nearly 5% of GDP on the military. These spending levels are not affected one way or the other on NATO partner contributions. It is what it is.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Believe me if the guys doing the work know and feel ok expressing that they are under supported and under equipped then they are - no question.

Ask any general or military man if he needs/wants more equipment, manpower, money, etc... they will always be wanting more. It's human nature to want more than you have, when your own self-interest is involved.

When I stated the "European viewpoint", I meant from the citizens, not their soldiers. You know, from the people who have to actually pay for the military.

 

[JayHawk]

No, it is not. That is your choice of words that reflects your fantasising.

France has not been dropping concrete bombs.

French aircraft have been dropping concrete bunker busting bombs.

You are remote from reality.

I stand corrected. they are using them to prevent collateral damage.

Forget the United States’ low-collateral damage Small Diameter Bomb, France has begun using concrete filled training bombs to literally crush Gadhafi’s tanks without causing massive explosions that can harm nearby civilians.
Apparently, the 660-pound “training bombs” have not been pressed into combat due to a lack of explosive munitions, as was reported earlier this month.

Quote:
From AFP:
Military spokesman Thierry Burkhard denied rumors the use of the 300-kilogram (660-pound) training devices was prompted by a shortage of real bombs. He said the first such strike crushed an armored vehicle April 26.

“The aim of this munition … is to use the effect of the impact while limiting the risk of collateral damage,” Burkhard said. “It is a very precise strike. There is no, or very little, shrapnel thrown out.”
Concrete bombs have been around for decades (the ones pictured above are from World War II) and are usually used for training. However, a 600-pound piece of concrete dropped from thousands of feet in the air can be pretty darn effective when it hits a relatively small, soft target.

Keep in mind that the bombs, while concrete, are still guided by modern technology like GPS or lasers onto their targets since a near miss with a concrete bomb won’t get you much.
This wouldn’t be the first time such weapons have been used in modern air warfare. The U.S. used laser-guided concrete bombs against Iraqi targets in the late 1990s for the same reason France says it’s using them.

Ask any general or military man if he needs/wants more equipment, manpower, money, etc... they will always be wanting more. It's human nature to want more than you have, when your own self-interest is involved.

When I stated the "European viewpoint", I meant from the citizens, not their soldiers. You know, from the people who have to actually pay for the military.

No i see their point. As was written. maybe you could only remember the last few words BUT if you read them all i truly understand.

However if you as a country full of citizens feel you should not pay for the treaty you signed and agreed to pay for then you should not open your stinking mouth and demand a fucking thing IRT that organization. Whats more is over time you should officially and vocally state you wont be paying your bills and you would like to renegotiate the treaty. Instead of hiding behind another countries skirt tales.

And your right ask anyone in a an industry and if they could have more they would. However when you see them head out on REMF security spots while the troops go fight the war in street to street, door to door fashion then that tells you their governments position on actually supporting a cause like Iraq and afghanistan.

But you see the problem is you will never get it. Your simply determined to not be wrong n o matter how fucked up what your saying sounds.

Go ahead and pay 60% of your lease for where ever your living in Kuala Lumpur and see how that goes for ya. Then come back and report your new found wisdom.

 

[kallipolis]

^If you choose to indulge in petty, frivolous gossip intended to embarrass, and abuse the French, then so be it.

 

[Tengilethos]

Apparently your and the "European" view is that it's okay to make agreements and not keep them.

I propose an amendment to the NATO treaty: if a member is attacked in a year during which that member has not met its commitments to the treaty, no member is obligated to participate in their defense.

Thanks to BostonPirate we know the relevant clause in the NATO treaty:

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.

This means that it is not clear that any member of NATO has breached the treaty. To "develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack" is highly subjective. Perhaps there is an agreement that all members have to spend 2% of GDP on defense, but at least as I see it, not doing that doesn't automatically breach the NATO treaty.

And anyway, even though I agree that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense if they are able to (that means Germany has no excuse not to do that, Greece on the other hand...), I believe that some people here are overreacting. It is not like the USA has not breached international treaties before, for example the Geneva Treaty with respect to torture. Nobody threatens to round up some Americans and waterboard them because the USA has tortured citizens of NATO states. And if someone says that you do not perceive waterboarding as torture, than perhaps we perceive our defense spending as adequate to "develop [our] individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack"?

Anyway, NATO is too great an asset to the USA, I doubt it would ever come to a withdrawal from NATO.

 

[kallipolis]

Anyway, NATO is too great an asset to the USA, I doubt it would ever come to a withdrawal from NATO.

Just imagine all those aircraft, ships, tanks, munitions, missiles etc that are enthusiastically purchased by other NATO countries.

The American armaments industry does very well out of purchases made by NATO member countries. Such purchases also ensure that investments in future military hardware is subsidised by such "foreign" purchasers.

 

[MoltenRock III]

And anyway, even though I agree that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense if they are able to (that means Germany has no excuse not to do that, Greece on the other hand...), I believe that some people here are overreacting.

Anyway, NATO is too great an asset to the USA, I doubt it would ever come to a withdrawal from NATO.

The way the 2% is written in NATO's own documents is always referred to as the "informal NATO target of 2% of GDP". As I stated before during the cold war many European allies were spending 4% or more. There is no 2% "law" or "requirement". it's only the suggested / goal / benchmark amount of money. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO! Yes, "raging hatred". Riiiiight.

As I've stated in this thread more than once, if the USA is so upset over it... LEAVE! But the US will not. The US has been bitching about European funding / staffing rates nearly since the inception of NATO, yet hasn't left, nor will.

The Europeans will not be contributing more than 2% by in large any time soon. In fact many of the NATO countries will be reducing their overall defense budgets given their own economic squeeze.

I simply choose not be insane about this, as Einstein who said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The US is spending nearly 5% of GDP on the military. These spending levels are not affected one way or the other on NATO partner contributions. It is what it is.

So you're defending freeloaders and liars. That means the "European view" is that it's okay to lie about your intentions and then sponge off your friends.


And I suspect the U.S. will not leave because they know they'll just have to turn around and go back when Europe has gone to spending even less, to the point that someone else decides to have at them, or perhaps just blackmail them into submission, seeing as how they'll have become too wimpy to stand up to anyone. It's probably cheaper in the long run to stay, and put up with people who can't be trusted to live up to their commitments.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ask any general or military man if he needs/wants more equipment, manpower, money, etc... they will always be wanting more. It's human nature to want more than you have, when your own self-interest is involved.

Funny -- generals at the Pentagon have told Congress annually for many years now that they do NOT need more, but Congress keeps shoveling it at them.

 

[Kulindahr]

^If you choose to indulge in petty, frivolous gossip intended to embarrass, and abuse the French, then so be it.

Embarrass?

I think using concrete bombs is brilliant! Hit a tank with one from 3k m and it's going to acquire a sudden resemblance to a pancake!


Go Limeys!

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks to BostonPirate we know the relevant clause in the NATO treaty:



This means that it is not clear that any member of NATO has breached the treaty. To "develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack" is highly subjective. Perhaps there is an agreement that all members have to spend 2% of GDP on defense, but at least as I see it, not doing that doesn't automatically breach the NATO treaty.

And anyway, even though I agree that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense if they are able to (that means Germany has no excuse not to do that, Greece on the other hand...), I believe that some people here are overreacting. It is not like the USA has not breached international treaties before, for example the Geneva Treaty with respect to torture. Nobody threatens to round up some Americans and waterboard them because the USA has tortured citizens of NATO states. And if someone says that you do not perceive waterboarding as torture, than perhaps we perceive our defense spending as adequate to "develop [our] individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack"?

Anyway, NATO is too great an asset to the USA, I doubt it would ever come to a withdrawal from NATO.

Reviewing (tanks to BP), I see that it isn't a hard number. I sit corrected.

Not to drift off topic, but I wouldn't mind at all if NATO adopted a protocol forbidding the use of torture.....

 

[Kulindahr]

The way the 2% is written in NATO's own documents is always referred to as the "informal NATO target of 2% of GDP". As I stated before during the cold war many European allies were spending 4% or more. There is no 2% "law" or "requirement". it's only the suggested / goal / benchmark amount of money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nice link!