Log in

View Full Version : What's up with NATO?



Rasta Sapian
30th March 2004, 22:55
Most recently US president George W. Bush welcomed 7 more nations to the group of allied nations whose intent it is to eliminate global terrorism. Most noteablly in Iraq, Will the new eurasian, most of which were previously apart of the USSR, support the war in Iraq, and send troops in support?

It seems like the Americans are once again leading the developed world toward their own direction, this is a conflict that does not seem to be going away. In combination, France, Germany, and Spain are opposed to the occupation, leaving many other nations stuck somewhere in the middle.

Could we possibly see an overall weekening of NATO, and could this in turn lead to the parting of allies or the NATO altogether?

for more info check this link: http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/Article...onal/TopStories (http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040330/WORLDREPO30/TPInternational/TopStories)

peace yall

elijahcraig
31st March 2004, 22:59
I'm not sure it matters.

I would say no.

The US really has no need for NATO other than to make it appear they have some legitimacy in the world war they're conducting. But, considering the massive nationalism of the American populace (and general disinterest in public affairs), I don't think NATO's dissimissal would effect much. The US would most likely keep it around with a few allied countries (dictators), in order to control China and the emerging markets of several "opposing" nations. India is extremely right-wing right now, so that will give the US a place to bond to (much like Israel) over in that part of the world.

New Tolerance
1st April 2004, 00:04
I would say that politically, NATO is now actually weaker than it used to be. Since the more members you add to the discussion table the harder it actually is to make a decision, since there's more people that you have to appease and compromise with. It is now harder (to a certain degree) for NATO to get something done.

God of Imperia
1st April 2004, 13:31
I think the Nato should be replaced by a european one, because it's only use was to protect europe against Stalin, but there is no need for that anymore.

Robert Edward Lee
3rd April 2004, 23:41
A European version exists, its the 'EU'.

The problem being that the EU can't decide what sandwiches to have for lunch, let alone foreign policy.

The former Warsaw-Pact countries are too pro-American for France and Germany to stomach and as was shown in the Balkans, the EU (and the UN) is sickeningly unable to intervene in her own backyard.

It fell to NATO to halt the ethnic-cleansing in that theatre, I wouldn't disband it until an organisation capable of taking up the cause has emerged

canikickit
4th April 2004, 01:24
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 4 2004, 01:41 AM
A European version exists, its the 'EU'.
Are you aware that Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom for example, are all members of NATO?
For the record the are also members of the EU.

Do you know that the EU has, for the most part, its own currency?

The European Union and NATO are two entirely different things. The EU is not a "European version" of NATO in any way.

Robert Edward Lee
4th April 2004, 09:48
And are you also aware that were any member of the EU be attacked by foreign State, all member states would respond with force, exactly as with NATO?

God of Imperia's statement was that NATO was designed to protect Europe against the USSR and that a European version should now exist. If the EU is not an organisation providing mutual military support (amongst other things), then nor is any other alliance on Earth. Therefore, for all intents and purposes of this particular strand of debate, the EU is exactly like NATO.

Of course, with NATO France wouldn't respond with Force, as Charles de'Gaulle withdrew all military support in 1966.

AC-Socialist
4th April 2004, 11:58
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 4 2004, 12:41 AM
A European version exists, its the 'EU'.

The problem being that the EU can't decide what sandwiches to have for lunch, let alone foreign policy.

The former Warsaw-Pact countries are too pro-American for France and Germany to stomach
Ok, you belive thisif you want...


The thing is, most americans are scared of the potential of the EU to emerge as a super-state, and keep kidding themselves that this will never happen becuase "most of europe is pro-american" which is, as we all know is rubbish.

It has also been proved that most europeans trust the EU more than the UN and NATO, and as for your jab at the eu not being able to make up decisions, they are far more efficient than UN!!!

God of Imperia
4th April 2004, 12:24
What I was trying to say that there should be something which controls all the armies of every country in the EU, without the interference of the US, something that actually could do things. Not that any of the country's would just hand over their armies, I wouldn't, but in the future, we need one Europe, not what it is today, what we have today is just ridiculous.

El Tipo
4th April 2004, 12:31
There is a reason why I wont join the army and its just the fact that finland is going for nato soon. As some officer here said that he will rip hes uniform the day we join, but everyone knows that we will join the nato sooner or later for sure and that suck's. "Finnish _defence_ forces" yeah right. :angry:

Robert Edward Lee
4th April 2004, 16:13
The EU may well be more efficient than the UN, the UN is quite possibly the most inefficient debating forum on the globe, so it's nothing much to shout about.

What parts of Europe are actually anti-American? Certainly not the 2004 accension countries. It was their pro-US stance that led to Jacque Chirac issuing his infamous "shut-up" comment when Eastern Europe declared it's support for America. Also, my post clearly high-lighted the stance of the former Sovet satellites, not 'all' of Europe.

God of Imperia,
I see what you mean now, I misunderstood you before. I actually agree that there should be some form of centralised control for European armed force, although the variation in training and equipment capabilities may be a problem

elijahcraig
4th April 2004, 17:21
the UN is quite possibly the most inefficient debating forum on the globe

What do you expect when the US vetoes every resolution which can actually make some sort of progress (ie, anti-US Imperialism)?

Rasta Sapian
4th April 2004, 18:37
So, do we agree that Americanization has once again found its way into International justification?

Impirialism is taking over the world, our world, NATO means nothing to me anynmore! :(

Robert Edward Lee
4th April 2004, 22:22
It is not only the US that vetoes resolutions, indeed, one of the early justifications the US offered for aiming for war with Iraq was because France swore to veto any such motion before it had even been debated!

SittingBull47
4th April 2004, 22:33
Originally posted by New [email protected] 1 2004, 01:04 AM
I would say that politically, NATO is now actually weaker than it used to be. Since the more members you add to the discussion table the harder it actually is to make a decision, since there's more people that you have to appease and compromise with. It is now harder (to a certain degree) for NATO to get something done.
I agree. There is too much American diplomacy involved.

On a side note, i read that Russia has been complaining that NATO has taken an "anti-russian agenda" :huh:

AC-Socialist
5th April 2004, 01:59
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 4 2004, 10:22 PM
It is not only the US that vetoes resolutions, indeed, one of the early justifications the US offered for aiming for war with Iraq was because France swore to veto any such motion before it had even been debated!
Ok then, lets have a look...I think its quite possible that we can attribute the failing s of the UN to one country...

US, UN Vetos, See a pattern?

The American Double Standard

Year -----Resolutions VETOED by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
2003 Demands Israel, the occupying power, to drop any effort to deport the elected president of the Palestinian Authority and cease threatening his security."

heres the url

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/...p?theme=default (http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/15840.php?theme=default)

Robert Edward Lee
5th April 2004, 10:48
We most certainly can blame it on one country, it's the USSR.



Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five.




During the Cold War the Soviet Union used to veto UN resolutions almost as a matter of course



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2828985.stm


If you want to be pedantic and go since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has used it twice and the USA (going by your statistics) 7 times. This brings a pre-1991 veto count to:

USSR - 118
USA - 69

Game, set and match, I believe.

Saint-Just
5th April 2004, 12:26
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 5 2004, 10:48 AM
We most certainly can blame it on one country, it's the USSR.



Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five.




During the Cold War the Soviet Union used to veto UN resolutions almost as a matter of course



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2828985.stm


If you want to be pedantic and go since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has used it twice and the USA (going by your statistics) 7 times. This brings a pre-1991 veto count to:

USSR - 118
USA - 69

Game, set and match, I believe.
Compared to the majority opinion of the advanced capitalist nations the U.S. has hindered progress through the UN. Obviously the USSR was an entirely different system to those countries and so it is not surprising it would VETO many resolutions when the other countries were actively seeking to detsroy it.

Robert Edward Lee
5th April 2004, 14:53
Obviously the USSR was an entirely different system to those countries and so it is not surprising it would VETO many resolutions when the other countries were actively seeking to detsroy it.

Fair point, but it cuts both ways. The USSR was also actively seeking to destroy those countries (or at least destroy their systems)

AC-Socialist
5th April 2004, 18:53
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 5 2004, 10:48 AM
We most certainly can blame it on one country, it's the USSR.



Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five.




During the Cold War the Soviet Union used to veto UN resolutions almost as a matter of course



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2828985.stm


If you want to be pedantic and go since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has used it twice and the USA (going by your statistics) 7 times. This brings a pre-1991 veto count to:

USSR - 118
USA - 69

Game, set and match, I believe.
lol, how cocky and arrogant do you want to be?

I am anti-american, does that make me pro-ussr? i know its a CRAZY thought..

Robert Edward Lee
6th April 2004, 00:04
Cocky and arrogant?

Your assertion that the US was the greatest contributer to the failings of the UN was wrong. Plain and simple. I merely used comparative facts (as you should have done) to highlight this mistake.

Also, I did not suggest you were pro-USSR, my main aim was to prove that the USA did not use it's veto the greatest number of times. Maybe it's just irony that that dubious honour falls to the Soviets.

Wenty
6th April 2004, 00:16
The amount of power the U.S has is wholly unprecedented in history. Economically and Militarially it is immense; their shortcomings are obviously that more focused. When the only superpower left is so hypocritical the mistakes have to be shown.

I remember hearing from one of the ex-head of weapons inspecting that he thought the power to veto was one of the biggest abuses of power hes ever seen. It was set up so a country could stop a resolution passing through that could start war on them.

Robert Edward Lee
6th April 2004, 00:28
When the only superpower left is so hypocritical the mistakes have to be shown.


That's a fair point for the modern era, but at the height of the Cold War when the majority of US vetoes were made, it was not the only superpower. Perhaps economically she could claim that title, but certainly not militarily. Indeed, if it never came to nuclear war (everyone loses) then in a conventional conflict, the sheer power of the Warsaw-Pact war machine would almost certainly prevail.

Saint-Just
6th April 2004, 11:05
Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 5 2004, 02:53 PM

Obviously the USSR was an entirely different system to those countries and so it is not surprising it would VETO many resolutions when the other countries were actively seeking to detsroy it.

Fair point, but it cuts both ways. The USSR was also actively seeking to destroy those countries (or at least destroy their systems)
That is true. However, the point was that America had hindered the path of the U.N. and progress that the U.N. was seeking to make through international agreements. Although, the U.S. has never concealed the fact that it has some different aims to the other liberal democracies in the U.N. and that it will use methods not sanctioned by the U.N.