The role of NATO

[Arlekino]

I am sick of crimes from NATO I should open, why are they so powerful, why other nations can't stop it. How funds are created?
There is good article about NATO but still not clear.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-06-2012/121483-questions_nato-0/

[Arlekino]

Nobody hates NATO?:(:(:(

[svenne]

You kind of linked Pravda.

"The notion that NATO started as a defensive organization is bullshit because it has always been essentially a belligerent, offensive organization while the Soviet Armed Forces at the time were essentially defensive." pretty much says it all. "essentially defensive", as in "let's put an even bigger army than NATOs in Eastern Europe". Both The Warzaw Pact and NATO had both defensive and offensive components. It's also pretty cute calling the WP defensive, then beating the crap out of the invasion of Afghanistan (by NATO), while seemingly forgetting that the Soviet Union spent a couple of years in Afghanistan. This piece is mostly an apology for russian/Soviet crap, and not a good attack on the NATO. It's crap, to be honest.

Can't say that i like NATO, however.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You kind of linked Pravda.

"The notion that NATO started as a defensive organization is bullshit because it has always been essentially a belligerent, offensive organization while the Soviet Armed Forces at the time were essentially defensive." pretty much says it all. "essentially defensive", as in "let's put an even bigger army than NATOs in Eastern Europe". Both The Warzaw Pact and NATO had both defensive and offensive components. It's also pretty cute calling the WP defensive, then beating the crap out of the invasion of Afghanistan (by NATO), while seemingly forgetting that the Soviet Union spent a couple of years in Afghanistan. This piece is mostly an apology for russian/Soviet crap, and not a good attack on the NATO. It's crap, to be honest.

Can't say that i like NATO, however.

I'm no fan of the former Soviet system in general, but I think you're equating two circumstances here which shouldn't be equated. In one case the Americans were covertly supporting a bunch of religious extremists in a country bordering the Soviet Union, against a Soviet-backed government that, for all its flaws, did bring some good things to Afghanistan in the decades-long relationship prior to that Afghan war---certainly more than the government that followed due to American interference.

In this current case, you have Americans backing a warlord government halfway across the world. Obviously neither the PDPA nor the Taliban are the kind of government that a stateless communist system should have, but to equate the Soviet and American wars there isn't really a fair comparison.

Overall, though, yeah, the WP and NATO were both offensive and "defensive", and NATO still is.

[RebelDog]

NATO was set up to defend the western hemisphere against the Soviet Union. So when the Soviet Union collapsed a rational person might have reached the conclusion that NATO would thus disband. What did it do? It expanded. So the Soviet excuse was a pack of lies. NATO is effectively a foreign legion for the US and it has basically decided that it can use force anywhere it pleases, usually using the pretext of 'humanitarian intervention' or 'R2P' (responsibility to protect).

[svenne]

I'm no fan of the former Soviet system in general, but I think you're equating two circumstances here which shouldn't be equated. In one case the Americans were covertly supporting a bunch of religious extremists in a country bordering the Soviet Union, against a Soviet-backed government that, for all its flaws, did bring some good things to Afghanistan in the decades-long relationship prior to that Afghan war---certainly more than the government that followed due to American interference.

In this current case, you have Americans backing a warlord government halfway across the world. Obviously neither the PDPA nor the Taliban are the kind of government that a stateless communist system should have, but to equate the Soviet and American wars there isn't really a fair comparison.

Overall, though, yeah, the WP and NATO were both offensive and "defensive", and NATO still is.

Yeah, the marxist-leninist period of Afghan history was propably the most progressive part of Afghan history, ever, so i can't say i disagree with you there. However, my point is that the WP wasn't just an defensive pact, but also an offensive pact - the same as NATO, today, and yesterday. It's also pretty obvious, when you look at the number of dead people, that the Afghans neither want russian/soviet nor american soldiers on their soil (at least today).
I really don't think we're on opposing sides of the issue, but rather that my somewhat bad english (it's my second language, learned in school...) makes it a tad hard to understand what i'm saying sometimes.

[Hexen]

NATO is basically the western imperialist block.