Is NATO still relevant?

[furie]

With France, Belgium, and Germany's reluctance to support their allies, I'm force to ask the question, is NATO still relevant for the US? NATO was founded to help defend against communist aggression. That threat is gone. If they refuse to support us, should we continue to support them, or let Europe defend itself? I guess what bother's me the most is the utter ingratitude.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/odd.gif" width=300 height=100>
Thanks dcpete!

[Bergalad]

I am sure I will get flamed by my favorite person for even posting on this, but I do think NATO remains relevant, if only as an alternative to the UN. When I say alternative, I mean as a body that isn't afraid to step up to the plate and make things happen (ie bosnia). The current rift, although serious, I don't believe is cause to disband NATO. Germany and France have stated that if there was an immediate threat to Turkey, they would defend her as required by treaty. I support NATO because, when it comes down to it, they have the balls to do the work that the UN is too scared or hesitant to do.


Thought this was funny:
(German) Diplomats said Germany was not comfortable blocking its NATO allies and wanted to explain that its hands were tied by the Franco-German axis it celebrated so publicly just last month.

Strange to see France as an 'ally' of Germany instead of a puppet government.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 2-13-03 @ 10:59 AM

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/gordon/20030101.htm" target="_blank">Bridging the Atlantic Divide - Foreign Affairs, January 2003</a>

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigruby.jpg" >
that's tree hugging hippie freak to you

[Death Metal Moe]

The idea was to watch each other's backs.

If these pussies don't protect one of their own and the US ends up cleaning up for the pussy nations AGAIN, I say leave NATO's money on the dresser. We're done with them.

<IMG SRC=http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/njdmmoe/baconsig.jpg>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
BACON FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

[NewYorkDragons80]

NATO is much less relevant today than it was during the hottest periods of the cold war. NATO obviously has plenty left to do in places like Yugoslavia, so I do not believe it should be dissolved. However, I do not see why we should turn to an organization founded on anti-communism to support us on missions which stretch far beyond the North Atlantic. NATO is still relevant as a credible military alliance, but it has no application in Iraq.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig.
<marquee>New York Dragons HOME OPENER Sunday, February 9th at 1:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[reeshy]

NATO will probably be more important in the years to come. There are a lot of articles written about the possible (AND probable) economic and military alliance that may arise between Germany and France(outside of the now present European Union) Don't forget- France is a nuclear power and Germany has the economic might that, together, we could possibly see the rise of a united European Super-Power. Now, taking these two nations world-views in the past, this union scares the living shit out of me. Don't put it past these two countries to think that eventually they can take on the US both economically and militarially in the future. Sounds farfetched-think about it!!!! We just may need NATO to keep these two in line!!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news/archives/news/smartsounds2001/images/keith-richards.jpg>

This message was edited by reeshy on 2-15-03 @ 2:39 PM

[HordeKing1]

It's relevant only in concept if NATO signatories refuse to honor their obligations.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[NewYorkDragons80]

Well, I believe France and Germany have sent some token forces to Turkey just so they can say that they haven't completely let Turkey down.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig.
<marquee>New York Dragons HOME OPENER Sunday, February 9th at 1:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[CaptClown]

Well, I believe France and Germany have sent some token forces to Turkey just so they can say that they haven't completely let Turkey down.


We had to rake them over the coals in the press and loudly contemplate some sort of economic sanction against them to get them to do that little bit.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[CaptClown]

I really hate double posting

This message was edited by CaptClown on 2-16-03 @ 2:17 PM

[furie]

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2989023.stm" target="_blank"> Diplomatic warfare has broken out in Nato after a call by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg for the creation of headquarters and planning staff from which a purely European Union based defence might emerge. </a>

good.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[A.J.]

good.


I agree.

We'll still need some sort of forward presence in Europe (the Brits will let us stay there and probably the Italians too).

Let the Europeans defend themselves. Let's see how they handle peacekeeping in the Balkans alone.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[A.J.]

Today in Congress:

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS APPROVES NATO EXPANSION

Declaring that NATO must "grow or atrophy," the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee voted unanimously today to approve the addition of seven nations to the alliance. The protocol (Treaty Doc 108-4) would ratify expansion of NATO to include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania -- all former members of the Eastern bloc during the Cold War era. Their addition would bring total membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to 26 nations. Chairman Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., said he was confident the full Senate would approve the treaty changes, and he
predicted floor action as early as next week. The committee vote was 19-0.
Lugar said NATO needs to take a more active role in fighting terrorism, even as he acknowledged lingering hard feelings among alliance members about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. "An early test will be NATO's
contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian duties in the aftermath of
combat in Iraq," Lugar said.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[LiquidCourage]

I don't really see the point of it.

Not to mention it seems that these Western European nations are starting to gang up on us with their "Rapid Reaction Force."

[RageCage]

Nato? I don't know no Nato, I don't talk about people behind they back.

<IMG SRC="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid57/pc2c24081fff718a0f3b69a7b9b6b313c/fc6c8ca1.jpg"width=300height=100>
Kool and the mother fuckin gang.

[HordeKing1]

It will be more relevant in 10 years as an answer to a trivial pursuit question

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[DarkHippie]

AJ: a theory, could NATO be trying to admit more members to make itself a peacekeeping alternative to the UN?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[LiquidCourage]

These western Europeans are fucking punks.
Now that the USSR is gone and no longer a threat, they're basically saying "Thanks for nothing!", as if France's mighty army is what deterred a Soviet take over.

[A.J.]

AJ: a theory, could NATO be trying to admit more members to make itself a peacekeeping alternative to the UN?


Perhaps -- but are you talking about NATO with or without the U.S.?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FiveB247]

I've said it before the whole Iraq and UN debacle. NATO is the US's version of the UN to gain international approval and solidarity when the UN does not give them such approval. It is a militaristic aggressor full of preemptive bombings and war to gain peace.

NATO...new age terror organization. Coming to bomb your country soon.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

I've said it before the whole Iraq and UN debacle. NATO is the US's version of the UN to gain international approval and solidarity when the UN does not give them such approval. It is a militaristic aggressor full of preemptive bombings and war to gain peace.


When has NATO ever been an aggressor before the Iraq situation?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[DarkHippie]

Perhaps -- but are you talking about NATO with or without the U.S.?
with the US. It would makes sense to me. Since NATO is a military treaty, and America is the muscle behind it, this administraiton might want to use it as an alternative to the security council of the UN. With the added countries, france would have even less influence.

Whether this is good or bad, of course would be up for discussion, but it would make NATO very relevant in the near future.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[A.J.]

I think NATO as it was designed will evolve into something different -- maybe along the lines of what you suggested Hippie and that will make it relevant.

The Europeans have been rather keen on having their own Rapid Reaction Force. Whether that is a component of NATO or the EU remains to be seen.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FiveB247]

Here's one example of how NATO aggression helped further a problem and made it worse with bombings.
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/LYKOUREZOS-kosovofinal.htm

Not all of NATO's aggression are bombings either, some of it is simply influence, pressure and policies which further US influence and interest. The same notions are accomplished via OAS.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

So using force to try and stop war/ethnic slaughter was bad? No wonder Clinton didn't get that Nobel Peace Prize he wanted so badly.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FiveB247]

So using force to try and stop war/ethnic slaughter was bad? No wonder Clinton didn't get that Nobel Peace Prize he wanted so badly.

When the UN warned how bombings would escalate the killings, NATO and the US ignored. When NATO bombed, killings, war and ethinic slaughter rose to their highest peaks. You obviously can not blame the US for attempting to stop such on-goings (nor do I hold them liable), but the bombings directly led to more killing. So it is an important factor which NATO displaced and ignored.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

For those who might be interested, here is a recently released GAO report on NATO Expansion:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03722.pdf

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FiveB247]

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, by 12 European and North American countries to provide collective defense against the emerging threat that the Soviet Union posed to the democracies of Western Europe. Since its inception, NATO has enlarged its membership four times as changing political and strategic circumstances have warranted. Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, West Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.

This is NATO's purpose in being. All the countries in this passage joined and were members of NATO during the USSR's Communist threat.

In 1994, NATO committed to enlarging its membership to include the newly democratic states of the former Communist bloc. In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary became the first of those countries to join the alliance. At its summit meeting in November 2002 in Prague, NATO invited seven countries to join: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

This is the growth of NATO after the collapse of the USSR's communist threat to democracy.

I simply ask, why and what purpose does NATO hold in its growth? It simply isn't "defense"...cause there's no common enemy or threat like communism anymore. Especially considering that report makes it obvious most of the newly joined nations can't afford to up-keep membership, responsibilities and costs. So what purpose does this military gathering serve? For the new members, much of it has to do with aid, defense as well as aligning with the US's might. For the US...can you say the same?

NATO is the US's version of the UN to gain international approval and solidarity when the UN does not give them such approval. Except nowadays, the NATO holds policies which serve the US interests, and more importantly, carry them out via the military might, not diplomatic/ peaceful solutions like the UN attempts to. Kosovo and Iraq are just 2 examples of such.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

The Senate has approved NATO Expansion. The other member-nations need to approve it as well before the new members are accepted:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030508/ap_on_go_co/senate_nato

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[DarkHippie]

I've decided that using NATO as an alternative peacekeeping force to the UN is not a good idea. IMHO, it keeps all of the weaknesses of the security council and loses all of its strengths. it will only represent part of the world, in effect, creating a "first world military force" to "shrink the gap" where there is trouble (economically and politcally, these are the economic powers too).

But it loses the povs of the smaller countries that was an advantage of the UN, and it keeps the bickering of the EU and America.
Other countries might also see this as a threat, a military clique of sorts, and we may see a treaty build up again similar to pre-WWI

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FiveB247]

Hippie...you can put it in nice, friendly terms. But I view it is by what it does...creating an alliance of US military allies in which US interests are carried out as well as diversion and undermining of the UN.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

But I view it is by what it does...creating an alliance of US military allies in which US interests are carried out as well as diversion and undermining of the UN.


There's trouble in paradise:

"NATO has been put at great risk by hostile French obstructionism that is as dangerous as it is cynical," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "Let me be clear: I believe that the French government is pursuing a systematic campaign to undermine American leadership in Europe and the world."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29693-2003May8.html

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[furie]

NATO...new age terror organization.


fiveb, how has NATO used terror as a weapon?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

"This is historic for these seven countries, vital in continuing to strengthen the North Atlantic alliance and central to U.S. security and relationships in the world," said Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

"This is the beginning of a partnership that will produce greater world stability, greater international involvement in world affairs and a partnership with countries that will increasingly become valuable partners and allies of the United States," he said.

In debate Wednesday, senators said the new members would boost NATO's forces by about 200,000 troops and add new bases that could be used for missions worldwide. It also would encourage the seven nations - and other eastern European states wishing to become members - to continue democratic and economic reforms.

[/i]"These countries already make significant contributions that strengthen the trans-Atlantic relationship," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. "They've acted as de facto allies. In fact they've acted as better allies than some of the members that are currently in NATO."[/i]

In February, Belgium, France and Germany blocked a request by Turkey for help in strengthening its defenses ahead of a war with Iraq. The three nations said such assistance could undermine hopes of avoiding a war.

US security and relationships in the world? More like US interests and agendas through a comply or deny de facto military group. Punish those who do not comply (the likes of France, Russia, Belgium, etc) as well as remove the unanimous voting style in NATO which will virtually lead to a US controlled agenda. Yes, France had some alternative motives, but the US can simply boot a nation out of NATO cause they don't go along on every war cause the US deems necessary? If you think the US is not working under such comply or deny terms, take a look at the removal of Angola's sanctions simply cause they went along with the Iraq war. Obviously sanctions were placed and had nothing to do with US support of war...but backing them with certainly remove them, now won't it. According to the GAO report that was posted...it was made clear many of the new members would not have sufficient funds to maintain responsibilities, membership and such. And NATO is a militant organization. Troops, bases and military excursions are all parts of how they "create stability". The simple fact that NATO chooses military action over peaceful diplomacy is the largest factor of their terror; To use terror to deny or force compliance of US interests. Something that I also would mention is in the same definition as "terrorism".

[/i]Reflecting U.S. frustration over the three nations' blocking of the Turkish aid request, the Senate wants the alliance to consider dropping its requirement that decisions be unanimous.[/i] [/i]The amendment also asks NATO to consider a policy for suspending members that no longer adhere to democratic principles.[/i]

Democratic principles or simply those who do not follow the interests of the US? Doesn't sound democratic to me.

The US uses groups like NATO, OAS, the WTO, IMF, WB and others to pursue and pressure others into going along with US goals and agendas.

I would also mention not a one of you have answered why NATO is expanding. The sole purpsoe and goal of NATO is this : The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, by 12 European and North American countries to provide collective defense against the emerging threat that the Soviet Union posed to the democracies of Western Europe. So where does expansion of a military organization against a threat that does exist leave us? NATO is the US's iron hammer of international support to thrust down on "evil doers", "threats" and those who don't comply. Diplomacy isn't necessary when you can simply use pre-emptive strikes and war to solve problems...right?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[DarkHippie]

fiveb, how has NATO used terror as a weapon?
there is potential for misuse here. If you consider pre-emptive war as terrorism (not in the sense we see it, but it certainly does terrorize those being attacked), having the the strongest armies and economies in the world all allied with one another, with no governing power over them is very dangerous.

NATO has the might, and (now with the policy of pre-emptive war) the agenda to force smaller countries to fall in line with it, whether politically or economically.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FiveB247]

Hippie...you also left out the part regarding punishing those who do not comply and rewarding those who follow in line.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

so hippie, do you agree with fiveb's statement that NATO is a new age terror organization?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[DarkHippie]

so hippie, do you agree with fiveb's statement that NATO is a new age terror organization?
Terror implies "terrorism" so I would would have to say no.

however, that is not to say that NATO, If used incorrectly, can unleash as much terror as al Qaeda could ever hope to do.

As I have said before, the military is only one tool, and if you walk around swinging a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FiveB247]

This is from the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 30, 2001

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on US interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2419.htm

Can you attempt to deny that the US has not broken any of these guidelines? When NATO bombed Kosovo, they hit civilian areas as well as their bombings in Africa with full intention and knowledge of what they were doing. CIA operations have clearly killed civilians in attempts to remove a threat. It's all politically motivated as well as intended to influnece the greater audience (the world and threats who do not fall in line). You may not want to attempt to consider such terms in reference to the US, but the definitions and guidlelines they encompass do not lie, nor do the actions of NATO or the US.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 5-9-03 @ 2:08 PM

[DarkHippie]

subnational groups or clandestine agents
therein lies the difference, my friend.
You do realize that we are arguing the same point, right?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[HordeKing1]

For those who might be interested, here is a recently released GAO report on NATO Expansion

Personally, I'm much more interested in the latest Morrowind and Warcraft 3 expansions.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[furie]

however, that is not to say that NATO, If used incorrectly, can unleash as much terror as al Qaeda could ever hope to do.


well of course. That could be said about every major army on the planet. it goes without saying. we could play the IF game all day on every topic.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

Some consider the US/ NATO terrorsit organizations. Obviously it's not to say they are the likes of Al quada or Hamas that specifically target civilians, there's a large difference in such methods, but NATO does fall under some of the guidelines for terror.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

Some consider the US/ NATO terrorsit organizations.


by some, do you mean you?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[FiveB247]

No not just me, various experts in the political arena as well as commentators as well as respected people in the field.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[The Jays]

It simply isn't "defense"...cause there's no common enemy or threat like communism anymore.


Is this NATO? Hi! My name is Islamic Fundamentalism, and this is my friend International Terrorism. Today, on this beautiful September morning, We are seeking to apply for the position of Common Enemy to the World. We ask for a few hours of your time today to present and illustrate our qualifications for the position......

<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

[FiveB247]

Islamic fundamentalism? Give me a break! The vast majority of those organizations seek a Palestinian state....not destruction of the US. Comparing them to communism is a joke. the problem with them is that they lie in varying countries and can't be attacked directly cause of their mobility. Which is why the policy against terrorism is vast and vague. Islamic fundamentalism was around way before 9-11 and even helped the US in Afganistan vs the USSR. So what's your reasoning there ...hmmm?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TheMojoPin]

Which is why the policy against terrorism is vast and vague. Islamic fundamentalism was around way before 9-11 and even helped the US in Afganistan vs the USSR. So what's your reasoning there ...hmmm?

Like how the Soviets helped the US and its allies during WW2? So what's YOUR point there? Hmmmmmmmm?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

You can't so easily blame a worldwide problem on a religion. Communism and the USSR directly was a threat to the US due to the association and building up of nations under the communist expansion. They are very different notions and they were used to imply and accomplish very different goals. Islamic fundamentalism has been around for a long time and is not the generic, broad ranged threat the US wants it to be. That is the point.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[The Jays]

You can't so easily blame a worldwide problem on a religion.


Oh great, here we go. Now let's jump on the side of terrorists, saying "hey, we ain't THAT bad" and blame the US for the world's problems once again.

<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

[FiveB247]

Oh great, here we go. Now let's jump on the side of terrorists, saying "hey, we ain't THAT bad" and blame the US for the world's problems once again.

Yeah...cause that's exactly what I said ...right?!
I merely noted it's a war against terrorism...not specifically Islamic Fundamentalists. But it's ok..the US can remove only the terror groups that apply to their interests...cause that's appropriate? I never blamed the US for the world's problems. The US should freeze all assets of nations supporting and harboring terrorists...remember what Bush said, "you're either with us or against us". So I guess we're going to have to freeze our own assets, invade and remove the American regime? Cause our policies are so unbiased and clear cut? Gimme a break.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[HordeKing1]

I'm transfering this to the political forum.

Please bear in mind that discussion is fine but personal attacks are not.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[Bergalad]

But I view it is by what it does...creating an alliance of US military allies in which US interests are carried out as well as diversion and undermining of the UN.

I have been ignoring this thread for the most part since it is being used to broadcast some of the dumbest comments ever uttered. NATO is a terrorist organization? That someone could even offer that as realistic is insane. What lengths will people go to demean and attack the US?
Again, that anyone would espouse the value of the UN over NATO is laughable. What has the UN done for the United States? Seriously, what value has the UN ever had for us? Answer that with facts. Here's my facts: the UN has equivocated where NATO has shown direction. The UN actually was complicit in mass genocide in Bosnia, while NATO went in and has established a fairly stable government. The UN exists solely now as a massive welfare project for the third world. It is a corrupt, deceitful organization that rewards failure and murder. NATO isn't perfect, and it is a military-focused organization, but their performance record is much more consistant and beneficial to the world in general than the UN has been. This isn't a UN thread, but the US should completely remove all funding (thereby killing the UN) until a massive overhaul is begun, purging the Security Council of obsolete nations and revamping the insane committee selection process (among other things). It's not to make it more pro-US, but to have it make sense. With a strong, focused UN, NATO could be disbanded. But until then, there needs to me a multilateral body in existance that can and will act to make the world safer and better. NATO may eventually be made irrelevant by reform of the UN, but to blast them as terrorists is clearly inflammatory, blind rhetoric.

[FiveB247]

What has the UN done for the United States? Seriously, what value has the UN ever had for us?

This is the easiest way to descirbe the American view point regarding international policy and perspective.

The UN was not established to further US interests or any other one specific nations' interests. It is an international forum to peacefully and diplomatically provide sollutions to world problems (whether you think it works or not doesn't matter).

Anyone simply saying, "what are they doing for us" is nothing more than a selfish, self righteous and a narrow view point.

NATO does not seek peaceful methods in their diplomacy. Their are an aggresive military organization which uses force at utter means, most of time in US interests as well. NATO does not use peaceful methods or even attempt to in order to resolve problems. In typical US fashion, they simply use force to gain some sort of solution.

If you want to disregard the US state department's definition of "terrorist organization" and simply apply it to those you deem enemies, it's ok...but it would also leave out many items which are relevant and hold true of NATO.

Your mentions of "revamping the UN" are interesting. Of course the UN needs to fix some of their methods in order to find more success in international problems. But you're description clearly points to the notion that the US should be the leading and the influencial nation running the show (and that all others not in compliance should be removed). If you want US empire, just say so...but that's not what a diplomatic UN forum/ international institution is based upon or for.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bestinshow]

You can't so easily blame a worldwide problem on a religion.

Are you on drugs? Fanatical fundamentalism a religion? I guess the skinheads must have a nice little church. This movement is based entirely on terror. I guess you support terrorism if its for your cause because you are clearly sympathetic to the Islamic funadamentalists. Why do you constantly use that dodge that anyone againt fundamentalism is antimuslim? They are not the same thing.

Some consider the US/ NATO terrorsit organizations.


Oh, please. Give me a fucking break. You know the US and Nato doesn`t target civilians in any military actions. By your view any war is act of terror. This is extreme even for you. I defy you to list these "experts" that classify the US and NATO as terrorists.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Islamic fundamentalists are a sect of a religion. Their movement isn't based upon terror, they use terror..there's a difference there. Their movement is based upon an extremist version of religion and how it should be endured by each Middle Eastern state (if not the world), but mostly the Middle East.

I do find it funny how you claim I am sympathetic to these notions? Where'd you pull that one from? But it's not like the war on terrorism is targeting fundamentalists.....like the one's in Iraq? But let's see if Syria will buckle down on Hamas...highly doubtful...will the US invade then? It's fun to pick and apply notions and laws in some places and not others...isn't it?! Wait what about WMD...except for the one's North Korea holds..they are a separate issue...right? It's all half-assed policies and implementation of them.

Here's few articles, books, and resources all talking about NATO's actions during the bombing of Kosovo.

http://www.ius.bg.ac.yu/apel/materija.htm#legal

As for NATO being a terror organization, I posted the US State Dept.'s definition of terrorism. Can you attempt to deny that the US has not broken any of these guidelines? When NATO bombed Kosovo, they hit civilian areas as well as their bombings in Africa with full intention and knowledge of what they were doing. CIA operations have clearly killed civilians in attempts to remove a threat. It's all politically motivated as well as intended to influence the greater audience (the world and threats who do not fall in line). You may not want to attempt to consider such terms in reference to the US, but the definitions and guidelines they encompass do not lie, nor do the actions of NATO or the US. NATO has broken many of guidelines that encompass "terror organization". Whether it be bombings, assassination attempts, pre-emptive bombings, etc.... The US/ NATO may not directly attack civilians to the extent that al quada or a similar group does, but this previous invasion was the first in recent time that specifically went out of the way not to hit civilians (which is a rare occurrence). But their have been various occasions when civilians were mere collateral damage and an afterthought of some objective. And not to mention the impact factor as a way to pursue a point. Have a look at how Iraq was made an example of and is being used to attempt to influence Syria or other nations not in compliance of US policies. NATO uses a comply or deny de facto method which borders on mob mentality at best. It's far from the democratic ways we know or would like to see be applied.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

This is retarded. NATO is not in violation of the "definition" you listed. Here was the definition:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

First, NATO is not a subnational group, it is an international organization. It does not utilize clandestine agents of the kind meant here. Most importantly, NATO never has purposely targeted noncombatants in any way. In a military action, civilians certainly can and do get hurt. Accidental death is completely different than deliberate attack, and you can't list one act by NATO that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attack noncombatants/civilians. Are the police terrorists when,during a high-speed chase or shootout with a criminal, a "civilian" gets injured or killed? Are they? No, and don't say it's not an similar analogy.
...but this previous invasion was the first in recent time that specifically went out of the way not to hit civilians...
That comment shows you don't have a fucking clue about this. In Bosnia we went way out of our way to help any of the local population, often at great risk to ourselves. I know you weren't there with us, so you wouldn't have seen my Battalion Commander and others run across a mined grass field to try and save a Bosnian Muslim who accidently triggered a Serbian mine. This is an example of NATO targeting civilians, right? You don't know anything at all. The link you give contains some of the most one-sided and outright false opinions and lies that I have seen in quite a while. I can see where you get your fucked world view. You are completely alone on this idea that NATO is a terrorist group. I would recommend you come out of your parent's basement for once and go see what NATO really does before you believe the rantings of a Serbian Nationalist.

[FiveB247]

That comment shows you don't have a fucking clue about this. In Bosnia we went way out of our way to help any of the local population, often at great risk to ourselves. I know you weren't there with us, so you wouldn't have seen my Battalion Commander and others run across a mined grass field to try and save a Bosnian Muslim who accidently triggered a Serbian mine. This is an example of NATO targeting civilians, right? You don't know anything at all. The link you give contains some of the most one-sided and outright false opinions and lies that I have seen in quite a while. I can see where you get your fucked world view. You are completely alone on this idea that NATO is a terrorist group. I would recommend you come out of your parent's basement for once and go see what NATO really does before you believe the rantings of a Serbian Nationalist.

Get off your high horse, Rambo. It's been discussed and proven that NATO's bombing did not go out of the way to remove civilian casualties. NATO also disregarded UN and other influential input when they were told that bombings would further the killings. When NATO bombed the killings rose to their highest level. You can believe you were doing or seeing the correct thing to do...but it's more of the "following orders" notion in your scenario than anything else.

As for NATO being a "terror organization". They do use scare tactics, bombings, preemptive bombings and vigorously use influence as a method to achieve goals. Like I said previously, you may not want to apply them with such a term, but practices and actions do not lie. And as you well know, their are different types of terrorism. State sponsored terror, terror groups, local terror organizations, etc.....You can use the pick to apply here method of enforcement (or hold some terror groups liable and not others), but it doesn't take away from the actions of NATO and a definition doesn't lie.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TheMojoPin]

<img src=http://www.bah.org/~greg/images/confused.jpg>

This sure is one wacky thread.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

You can use the pick to apply here method of enforcement (or hold some terror groups liable and not others), but it doesn't take away from the actions of NATO and a definition doesn't lie.
No facts, no justification, no clue. Good work.

[FiveB247]

Yeah ok there GI Joe.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

NATO also disregarded UN and other influential input when they were told that bombings would further the killings.


and not bombing would have furthered the killings being done in the name of ethnic cleansing. So take your pick.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Bestinshow]

Islamic fundamentalists are a sect of a religion. Their movement isn't based upon terror, they use terror..there's a difference there.

This pretty much sums up your political philosophy and spin doctoring. What is scary is you equate us with them. And don`t say you don`t because you are fighting with everyone that will listen that we are a terrorist state. What is scarier is you are sympathetic to this "religion" as you call it and practically consider us satan.

As for NATO being a terror organization, I posted the US State Dept.'s definition of terrorism. Can you attempt to deny that the US has not broken any of these guidelines? When NATO bombed Kosovo, they hit civilian areas as well as their bombings in Africa with full intention and knowledge of what they were doing. CIA operations have clearly killed civilians in attempts to remove a threat.


Did Nato target civilians or hit civilians? Can you understand the difference. It sounds like you are reading the defenses of Hussein and Arafat and Bin Ladin because you basically define terrorism like they do. You know damn well that terrorism involves intent to harm civilians, not collateral damage. By your definition every war in history was an act of terrorism.

CIA operations have clearly killed civilians in attempts to remove a threat. It's all politically motivated as well as intended to influence the greater audience (the world and threats who do not fall in line).


Obviously if they were some threat than they weren`t civilians. You don`t have to be in uniform to be the enemy. Everything to you is politically motivated because you think you have a pipeline to what is necessary to national security. The CIA`s motivation is not the world audience. And threats that don`t fall in line are just that. All though you don`t seem to think it is ever justified to address threats. Whatever method we use you call halfassed.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

That's not true. NATO issued an ultimatum saying either stop all actions in compliance or be bombed. They offered no alternative method. The UN wanted to set up peace keeping forces which would have gradually increased stability and removed killings. But in typical NATO and US fashion, they ignored such methods and resorted to bombings rather than attempt a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem. The bombings led to the highest level of atrocities in Kosovo. To assume it would have occured anyways is merely a guess but holds no barring in fact.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bestinshow]

That comment shows you don't have a fucking clue about this


Berg, I don`t agree either but lets not attack him personally. This is a message board. Its supposed to be fun.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[furie]

The bombings led to the highest level of atrocities in Kosovo.


wrong

<a href="http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html" target="_blank"> click here </a> and then <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/780547.stm" target="_blank"> click here </a>

look at the numbers. your statement doesn't hold up.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Bergalad]

That's not true. NATO issued an ultimatum saying either stop all actions in compliance or be bombed.
Good. Stop raping and murdering the ethnic albanians or we will attack you? Sounds like a reasonable declaration to me.
They offered no alternative method. The UN wanted to set up peace keeping forces which would have gradually increased stability and removed killings. But in typical NATO and US fashion, they ignored such methods and resorted to bombings rather than attempt a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem.
And again, you believe we should have gone with the UN once more and let them repeat Bosnia. Did you forget the complete impotence, and some would say complicity in genocide, the UN had at Srebrenica? http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/07/F.RU.000712152656.html If going back to how the UN handled the problem is what you espouse, then you support appeasement, incompetence, and failure.
The bombings led to the highest level of atrocities in Kosovo.
I believe you have been refuted again there. You should really take a look at what the actual facts are here Five. I know it is impossible to change you opinion, and even if anyone did you would never admit it on here. NATO stopped the killings where the UN assisted in it, can't you see that? Separate yourself from you hatred for American policy for a few moments and recognize that NATO has done more for actual world stability than the UN has. The facts, which you continue to not have any of to back up your statements, are on NATO's side.

[FiveB247]

Or you can look at these...

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR700182000

http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1052839939&view=unsearch&numhitsfound=6&query=NATO%20%2B%20Kosovo&&docid=1591&docdb=pr1998&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=adj&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[furie]

ok, those websites you cited give the same info as the one I posted, so why post them? did you look at what i posted? Your 4 websites all agree that approximately 500 civilians died as a result of NATO bombing, as does the second site i posted (again, why post it if it's just repeating the same information?) And if you'll see, 11,000 is far less than 500. So I say again:

The bombings led to the highest level of atrocities in Kosovo.


wrong.

It's interesting that you only posted websites that showed one point of view, where as I posted 2 sites, each with opposing opinions.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Bergalad]

None of them says NATO purposely targeted civilians. These organizations would of course always say the NATO didn't do enough to protect civilians. Of course, without NATO killing a few civilians accidentally, the Serbians in Kosovo would have completely ELIMINATED the Albanians. Hmm, which way do you prefer Five?

On a side note about the UN, I saw this article in my local paper this morning, but no link yet, so here is the article:
UNITED NATIONS- With memories of unheeded warnings about Rwanda clearly on their minds, Security Council ambassadors discussed on Monday the possibility of inviting a foreign military force to help avert any increase in violence in the Ituri province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has called on the council members to develop "a coalition of the willing" to provide troops to end the power vacuum. Diplomats from several delegations said they hoped France would lead the effort. The French mission's spokeswoman said the French government was studying the question
Can anyone tell me what the point of the UN is they have to rely on external armies (hello again, NATO?) to enforce their policies? I couldn't believe this when I read it.

[NewYorkDragons80]

NATO has done more after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe than it ever did before. Its job is to protect the North Atlantic and they are doing a damn fine job of it. So to answer your question, yes they are still relevant.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[furie]

NATO is a military alliance. If our allies refuse to back us up, then I fail to see why we should remain a member.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[A.J.]

...But right now security even in the capital itself relies on the 4,400 mostly NATO troops deployed in Kabul in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the 8,000 U.S. troops deployed primarily to hunt down remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and to conduct some rudimentary reconstruction....

...Another hint of brightness on the horizon is the announcement by NATO last week that the alliance would take over leadership of ISAF - it remains unclear, though, whether NATO is willing to more than quadruple ISAF's troop strength in order to extend the stabilization mission beyond the capital...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,449942,00.html?cnn=yes

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.