dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
Restraint
-
military ships to protect cruise vessels? did i understand u right? do u have any idea how badly that would hurt that industry if it had to have armed escorts w/ em everywhere. people go on cruises to relax, not look out and see small military ships guarding em
-
I’m talking about dismantling NATO. Why was America invovled in Bosnia? Couldn’t The French, Italians, Spanish, British of handled it?
HOwabout we will intervene in acts of aggression/genocide/etc. in North America. Other continents can handle themselves.
The idea that we need these troops and bases to protect oil/etc. is stupid. We need to become more self-sufficient, not protect imperialism.
If we feel guilty wee can increase the foreign aid budget with some of the tens of billions we will save.
-
YB,
What advantage would it be for us to pull out of Nato? Nato is the strongest alliance the world has ever known.
Bosnia, yes the European powers could of handled it themselves. But they would of had a harder time doing it. Same with the war on terror. Without Nato, we could still make progress, but any victory will be much more costly.
A War in Iraq is an offensive war. Regardless whether it is Pre-emptive, or whether Iraq is a legitimate threat. Nato’s charter specifically warns against offensive wars.
The Europeans learned their lessons from Imperialism. I am begining to think America has not.
-
lets see NATO- U.S. spends tens of billions a year to defend Western Europe from a country which no longer exists…
-
So, we can’t get rid of the troops in Germany (110,000 troops) without pulling out of Nato?
-
military ships to protect cruise vessels? did i understand u right?
Oh, Puleez! NOBODY’s talking escort, just in the vicinity for PRESENCE.
I see Y_B_'s point, but I believe we ought to reconsider how NATO is tructured and used. When regions are left to decide if they can handle a problem themselves or request help. European forces would get a little more experience and the USians( :) ) wouldn’t be so quick to complain about carrying the load.
-
Besides, that would leave us more $ to
imperialize :roll: and colonize :wink: Africa and S. America :evil: ! -
We no longer have any reason to be in NATO. Give a good reason for us to stay in it.
-
Because the future is uncertain. Its hard to remake an alliance that took so much to put together in the first place.
-
Keep your friends and try to make more. Who knows what benefits will come from networking? 8)
-
Because the future is uncertain. Its hard to remake an alliance that took so much to put together in the first place.
I think it was George Washington who cautioned us to stay out of entangling alliances?
-
I think it was George Washington who cautioned us to stay out of entangling alliances?
Yes, he did. NATO however is different. NATO provides an open forum for 26 countries, which is less entangling and capable of more action than the United Nations. I believe we should expand it as much as possible, even adding Russia into the organization.
-
So instead of entangling allainces you prefer US-dominated alliances ?
Or no alliances at all - if I ever suggested any such “US-dominated alliances.”
Yes, he did. NATO however is different. NATO provides an open forum for 26 countries, which is less entangling and capable of more action than the United Nations.
Less entangling as in? Yes… my history is dumb… :oops:
-
Well, what Washington was really warning against was an involvement in the affairs of Europe. At the time, we were a young, weak nation who barely pulled through a war. France and Britain both tried to absorb us into their own alliances. Washington warned against a conflict with Britain, as we might not win a second war with them. He also warned that an alliance with France would lead to a conflict with Britain. Many of his supporters were in favor of an alliance with Britain, though Jefferson and others warned that this would lead to British domination of the Americas, us becoming a colony once again.
-
That wasn’t exactly what I was asking. :)
-
OOPS! :oops:
Restraint!
What’s that? :-?Maybe the leaders who met in the Azores represent the
Permanent Members of the Security Council of the
New World Order! -
Spain… #3 Power. 8)
-
Interesting that Americans want to once again slash down their military and pull out their troops. I guess it’s the American isolationist ideas kicking in.
-
NATO has acted only once, and it was in Bosnia/Kosovo, and that was the U.S. cleaning a mess up Europe was unwilling to deal with. Dismantling will force the Europeans to fend for themselves. They’re big boys. :)
-
Dismantling NATO would mean a reduction in anti-terrorist movements in Europe. The French, Germans, Italians, and British have all arrested scores of terrorists, and in some cases even put them on trial.
We’re not defending Europe, because they are not threatened. Nato is a way to keep the European countries united and talking. the EU is too young to do this.
Not to mention, leave Nato and the entire state department will have a fit. Sean Hannity (or was it Rush, can’t remember) predicted the entire senior leadership of the State Department would resign.
Suggested Topics
