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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by laurentius
People in most Nordic countries oppose NATO,

Let's see... we have Denmark, Norway, and Iceland in NATO and we have Sweden & Finland not in NATO but still using all of NATO's standards on their equipment. Yep, I can see how everyone in the North hates NATO.

millions and millions of German, French even british people hate NATO partly because of the Euro missile scandal.

I truly don't know what the Euromissile scandal is. Can you please tell me?

Half of Balkans hate NATO, especially the serbs.

Is that why most Balkan states are in NATO and the few that aren't are lining up to join? Even Serbia.

[chequita guevara]

Neither conservatives nor liberals get it. The purpose of NATO isn't to protect Europe. It is to keep Europe's ilitary subordinate to ours, thus preventing the rise of a rival military superpower. That was the main purpose behind the Kosovo War, as Clinton accidentally admitted once.

[Sava]

NATO, what is it good for? absolutely nothing... good god yall... whooo!

[Tripledoc]

To Oerdin

You said something awhile back that NATO helps against terrorism.

To my mind the only effective way to combat the root causes of terrorism is to introduce more overview of innternational money transfer and off-shore money laundering. Then the financing of terrorism would dry up. This would also have the effect of curbing other forms of criminal activity such as drug trafficking and trade in women for prostitution. It should also be considered if financial derivitive speculation should be outlawed. Then it would not be possible to speculate in future catastrophies.

Unfortunately this would, should it be effective, diminish the global money circulation by 5 percent. So I can see that there will be intense lobbying against it by the people who make a living from that sort of business.

[Odin]

I thought NATO was obsolete, then Putin started turing Russia into a one-party oligarchy...

[Sandman]

NATO serves no useful purpose, and should be abolished. As quietly as possible, of course.

Europe should continue to maintain a powerful defensive military. There's no point in getting soft.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Britain did pretty well before the US entered and I doubt Germany could have invaded even if the Soviets or Americans didn't join in the war.

Not my point. My point was that they survived in large part because of Lend-Lease - meaning that even if American troops weren't fighting, it's not really accurate to say that Britain was "on its own".

[BlackCat]

It seems that people forget that there are two parts in the NATO treaty. One is to protect each other, the second is that you don't attack each others. Many of the new NATO countries sees NATO as a protection against an aggresive russia, but also a mean to diminish the risk of quarrels with more humble neighbours.

If you only look at the first point, then the purpose of NATO is less than earlier, but not totally irellevant. Baltic states and a couple of eastern europe coutries feel a lot more secure under the NATO umbrella.

I find the second point more interesting. The more countries in an alliance the less chance of local fights.

I can't rember who it was that claimed that russia never could be a NATO member, but why not ?

Many of the statements Mr. Steele make are really weird, but some are strictly rediculous :

The last time Europe was in dire straits, as Nazi tanks swept across the continent in 1939 and 1940, the US stayed on the sidelines until Pearl Harbor.

I admit he is right, but if i'm not wrong, NATO was first created after WWII and US had no treaties pre WWII with any euorpean contries, so they had no obligation to do anything.

It is true that Nato is unlikely ever again to function with the unanimity it showed during the cold war.

This is a direct lie. Because of internal political quarrels (the social democrats lost an election and changed their mind on what they earlier had agreed to), Denmark made the double decision troublesome (if you (soviet) dont stop deploying SS20 rockets, then we start deploying some of our own).

But it is wrong to be complacent about Nato's alleged impotence or irrelevance. Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure. Europe is automatically expected to tag along in going to war, or in the post-conflict phase, as in Afghanistan or Iraq. Who knows whether Iran and Syria will come next? Bush has four more years in power and there is little likelihood that his successors in the White House will be any less interventionist.

US might or might not do any of this, but if they do, that will be on their own and it will be up to the single member of NATO if they want to join or not.

[RGBVideo]

Yes. The Guardian's "opinion" seems to be the same as Madonna's. Both are so far out there as anyone should instantly recognize the extreme bias in the statements. The problem comes from the fact that so many of the Hollywood and liberal crowd, here in the US, and the European public actually seem to believe this lunatic view of the world.

Cokehead Hollywood limousine liberals with their "war is not nice" -comments

I truly don't know what the Euromissile scandal is. Can you please tell me?

Sounds like something from the early 80's. Do the European kids of these days even remember who Reagan was?

I thought NATO was obsolete, then Putin started turing Russia into a one-party oligarchy...

(1) Putin has significantly reduced the power of the oligarchs.
(2) This might amaze you, but there is more than one political party in Russia.

It is to keep Europe's ilitary subordinate to ours, thus preventing the rise of a rival military superpower. That was the main purpose behind the Kosovo War, as Clinton accidentally admitted once.

Just when I thought that there were sane commies in the world, you start throwing this kind of insane conspiracy theories around...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Oerdin
Britain did pretty well before the US entered and I doubt Germany could have invaded even if the Soviets or Americans didn't join in the war.

Not my point. My point was that they survived in large part because of Lend-Lease - meaning that even if American troops weren't fighting, it's not really accurate to say that Britain was "on its own".

Actually, the USN was sinking UBoats in international waters prior to Pearl Harbour. There were a few reasons Hitler didn't think a DoW on the US was a big deal.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and to the people who think the US was neutral...

[Ted Striker]

The Guardian is gay

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh, and to the people who think the US was neutral...

That was my analogy. Finland was not "neutral" by a long shot, it was an ally.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Oerdin
Britain did pretty well before the US entered and I doubt Germany could have invaded even if the Soviets or Americans didn't join in the war.

Not my point. My point was that they survived in large part because of Lend-Lease - meaning that even if American troops weren't fighting, it's not really accurate to say that Britain was "on its own".

Oh, and no, Britain was never on its own. There were the 'small' contributions from India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Canada to be factored in.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That was my analogy. Finland was not "neutral" by a long shot, it was an ally.

As far as I know, German soldiers were in and fighting from Finland. Not many, but some.

I can see they want to dissavow that. Wouldn't you?

TBH, I'm surprised Stalin didn't flatten the place in 1946. I have no idea what stayed his hand.