The Guardian: Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
So NATO is really a feudality.

Yes, NATO is a typical form of vasselage. The US pledges to protect us, while we pledge obediance on a variety of IR aspects.

[RGBVideo]

So far, this thread has been a great source for my ignore list. Keep it up guys.

[Tripledoc]

The process is called "Finlandization". You may want to google it up

What about the Helsinki accords. As I understand they called for human rights to be more adhered to in the USSR. Many believe that this dialogue forced Russia to give more political freedom to its citizens, while of course downplaying social freedoms.

So if these accords were signed in Helsinki in the late 70s I don't understand what you mean by finlandization.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
Look what you're proposing to do to your poor people. They're starving while you are turning plowshares into swords.

Why should leaving NATO mean that the EU should spend more money on military. It is quite the contrary. Leaving NATO would mean less money spent on military.

Europe does not need a military.

[DanS]

It's not quite a typical vasselage. NATO still is a guarantor that the entirely "made in Europe" ghosts of the past stay ghosts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
You have to give the Guardian credit for persistance.

Anyway why is NATO important now?

Collective security is always a good idea because who knows when the next danger will arise. Some of the things NATO can still do is work together against Islamic terror, work against international crime like the majia, provide a stablizing influence in the newly democratic eastern European states, and continue to enforce law and order (think Bosnia 1992-6 and Kosovo 1999) on rogue regimes.

It's been less then 5 years since the last war in Europe and already the optimists are claiming there is no need for collective security?

[RGBVideo]

Threat? No
Obsolete? Probably

War never becomes obsolete.

Oerdin

[Pekka]

VJ, right, but when people with short attention spans and half a brain reads Finland was allied with Germany in WWII, and they don't know anything about the war up here in North, they WILL get the wrong idea. When you are talking and discussing that topic, you need extensive knowledge on surrounding situation and all these things, previous war, and basically it takes time to be able to see it. No, it's not 'reading enough so you can twist it', but to say that FInland was allied with Germany, while it might be a technicality, the real effects of it, the reasons behind that and the motivation IS real, and to judge Finland for it is the same as to Judge the US for helping SU while Germany was pounding the gates of Stalingrad.
They say realpolitiks, they way it went down, well, pretty much same here, that's the way it went down, and it had little or no ideological similiarities what so ever and went down because it was pretty much necessary for us, and that our cause was our own separate cause, while the Nazi cause was a whole different thing. To deny this is very much oversimplefying it to a level were the truth IS twisted .

And as for Finlandization, it still has some effects on this country, mostly middle aged bastards, who won't face the truth taht they were SU b1tches and loved it. Now that they are waking up, it's ugly and they don't want to face the fact but rather laugh at it, and deny the cold facts and what they supported. And what that cost to other people, and still costs. It's a very serious thing, and should be never forgiven. The war should be forgiven, Finlandization? Never.

[Tripledoc]

To Dan S

You mean Nato is a safeguard against facsism?
I would believe that if it was not the fact that NATO has trained Fascist paramilitaries in Turkey (the grey wolves) to exterminate the Kurds. Also NATO supported the Albanian KLA, another fascist organisation.

[DanS]

More a safeguard against militarism and nationalism, not facism. The US uses World War I in our equations as well.

[Pekka]

"Collective security is always a good idea because who knows when the next danger will arise. Some of the things NATO can still do is work together against Islamic terror, work against international crime like the majia, provide a stablizing influence in the newly democratic eastern European states, and continue to enforce law and order (think Bosnia 1992-6 and Kosovo 1999) on rogue regimes.

It's been less then 5 years since the last war in Europe and already the optimists are claiming there is no need for collective security?"

Yes I would very much agree with this. EU military, like I said I think it's a good idea. Anti-US hippies and EURONITES who don't want anything to do with the US, adn grow their own virtual penises by belonging to 'a superstate' just want to have their own game where they can be the masters. I just dont' see what the point is. Like you said, collective security. That's a good thing. No need to cripple anything because of some new thing. It should INCREASE security, not REPLACE security. And NATO can face new challenges, what the EU one is not ready to face for a longer time. Besides, while EU is a key player when world security or any issues are debated and solved, the US is too, so we need to be in the same table, not have our own separate kiddie tables. And that's why the EURONITES are not uniters but deviders and no better than any other imperialist ****er.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MikeH
That's a comment piece, it's not intended and shouldn't be read as a factual story. As are most of the guardian pieces that get posted here. They do sometimes show other viewpoints as part of their commentary. They had a Republican blogging as part of their US election coverage.

I'd be interested to know what you think of their news coverage. For instance here's their news story about the current Falluja offensive:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1347650,00.html

The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and you were bombing the people of Vietnam, so despite you not liking the inference they chose to make with them those were both factually correct reports?

Do you think that as a principle news shouldn't be reported if people of political persuasions you don't agree with could use it to support their positions or interpret the actions of a government in a negative way?

News sources and political groups of all types 'interpret' the way they report the news in the way that shows their own ideas most positively.

Didn't Madonna just say that she wanted our troops out of Iraq because we were bombing the people of the Iraq? Here is what she said,

“I just don’t want American troops to be in Iraq, period,” the singer said on BBC Radio. “My feelings are ‘can we just all get out? . . . Global terror is everywhere. Global terror is down the street, around the block,’ she said. ‘Global terror is in California. There’s global terror everywhere and it’s absurd to think you can get it by going to one country and dropping tons of bombs on innocent people.”

Now that phraseology demonstates exactly what Kerry and others meant by dropping bombs on "the people of Vietnam." The Guardian article has the same intent, to suggest that the US is assaulting Iraqi cities indiscriminately, killing friend and foe alike.

As to the so-called "majority" of the people of Iraq being opposed to the US assaulting Iraqi cities indicrimnately and dropping bombs on innocent people, I would be shocked if they were not opposed. I, however, think you would get a different answer if you were to ask whether they supported the Iraqi government restoring Falluja to control of the Iraqi people so that the people of Falluja could vote in the upcoming election.

[GhengisFarb™]

Has anyone made the obligatory
Europe is a threat to NATO and must be disbanded
comment?

[Kuciwalker]

Disbanding Europe think of all the shields!

[Cruddy]

It's a logical argument - no more Warsaw Pact so why have NATO?

I'm personally very annoyed at the idea but I can't really argue with the logic.