Should Nato be expanded?

[RSS News]

Nato has decided not to admit Georgia and Ukraine yet to the alliance but invited Croatia and Albania to join. Do you agree?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[spartan]

Well of course we as leftists dont agree with it but what difference does the inclusion of these countries make anyway?

The Russian opposition to these measures is hardly progressive as it is simply because they are losing countries that were once in their "sphere of influence" to their former cold war enemy the US.

This is primarily an inter-Imperialist struggle and any leftists taking sides in this is doing so not because one side is more progressive than the other, but because they quite simply prefer one of the countries to the other (All the stupid nostalgic idiots for the USSR who see Putin as the new Stalin, Russophiles, Slavophiles, etc).

All in all this doesnt really effect the left as it is an inter-Imperialist struggle between two Capitalist superpowers.

[Psy]

Does the Warsaw pact still exist? The sole purpose of NATO (according to NATO) was a counter balance to the Warsaw pact, that western powers must stand together against the "red menace", so the question shouldn't be if NATO should expand but why do they still exist.

[Psy]

Well of course we as leftists dont agree with it but what difference does the inclusion of these countries make anyway?

The Russian opposition to these measures is hardly progressive as it is simply because they are losing countries that were once in their "sphere of influence" to their former cold war enemy the US.

The US and Russia are still enemies as proven by the fact the US and Russia still has ICBMs at hair trigger alert pointed at each other and if one side farts the wrong way the standard operation procedure still is for them to launch all their ICBMs at the each other side.

Both the US and Russian military violently opposed to the very idea of taking their ICBMs off hair trigger alert for fear the other side would launch a sneak nuclear attack.




This is primarily an inter-Imperialist struggle and any leftists taking sides in this is doing so not because one side is more progressive than the other, but because they quite simply prefer one of the countries to the other (All the stupid nostalgic idiots for the USSR who see Putin as the new Stalin, Russophiles, Slavophiles, etc).

All in all this doesnt really effect the left as it is an inter-Imperialist struggle between two Capitalist superpowers.

It does effect us, as the closer NATO gets to Russia the more paranoid the Russian military will get and the higher odds of a accidental nuclear launch.

[RedAnarchist]

It does effect us, as the closer NATO gets to Russia the more paranoid the Russian military will get and the higher odds of a accidental nuclear launch.

I doubt any country would fire a nuclear missle unless it was their very last resort.

[jake williams]

Russia ain't exactly progressive, and Putin's hardly a comrade (though that doesn't mean as much as some people seem to think - while the USSR wasn't meaningless and did do some legitimate things for the world's left, it was a pretty poor attempt at "communism" and even near the end of it the restrictions on a lot of freedoms were in my opinion totally unacceptable. I don't think we should get into this argument here though).

But inviting the Ukraine into NATO is hard to see as much else than a deliberate "Fuck you, Russia". This is standard policy of the Empire - you provoke countries who voice opposition, and when doing so causes them to up their opposition, you declare them tyrants and dictators and new Hitlers and terrorists and demons, and fabricate an "international community" to fight a diplomatic war against them. The semi-imperialism and Russian-nationalism/Soviet-nostalgia behind the feeling that some how Russia retains a right to its border states is not something I think one should get behind, but that doesn't mean that the provocation is acceptable.

[Ferryman 5]

Well of course we as leftists dont agree with it but what difference does the inclusion of these countries make anyway?

The Russian opposition to these measures is hardly progressive as it is simply because they are losing countries that were once in their "sphere of influence" to their former cold war enemy the US.

This is primarily an inter-Imperialist struggle and any leftists taking sides in this is doing so not because one side is more progressive than the other, but because they quite simply prefer one of the countries to the other (All the stupid nostalgic idiots for the USSR who see Putin as the new Stalin, Russophiles, Slavophiles, etc).

All in all this doesn't really effect the left as it is an inter-Imperialist struggle between two Capitalist superpowers.

Which of the "two Capitalist superpowers" is the biggest, in the deepest economic crisis, is most aggressive and most dangerous to the international proletariat and the rest of the population of the world at present? You chose, because that is the one you should be attacking. If by any remote chance you decide that it is the US/NATO gang that fits this bill then you can begin to operate the Leninist strategy of defeating your own ruling class, can't you?

[jake williams]

Which of the "two Capitalist superpowers" is the biggest, in the deepest economic crisis, is most aggressive and most dangerous to the international proletariat and the rest of the population of the world at present? You chose, because that is the one you should be attacking. If by any remote chance you decide that it is the US/NATO gang that fits this bill then you can begin to operate the Leninist strategy of defeating your own ruling class, can't you?
This sort of false dichotomy is ridiculous. It is perfectly possible to have two world superpowers which are both repulsive and impossible for any moral person to accept. What's even more possible is that different governments and systems each have some positive parts and some negative parts, and faced with that maybe you decide to "pick", but I don't know if that's really necessary - to me it makes way more sense to be honest about it, good and bad. The USSR had plenty of beneficial effects, but it also had a lot of horrible ones. The Empire has been a brutal and oppressive imperialist power for its history, and it's completely unacceptable, but we can't just mumble away the fact that it does have some political and personal freedoms and that these are good. They happen to be not extended to the rest of the world, but they do exist, and we can't pretend they don't - the same with the huge things wrong with the USSR on all sorts of levels.

[Sentinel]

Should Nato be expanded?

This is more appropriate for OI than Politics, might become an echo chamber otherwise.. :lol:

Moved.

[Ferryman 5]

Russia ain't exactly progressive, and Putin's hardly a comrade (though that doesn't mean as much as some people seem to think - while the USSR wasn't meaningless and did do some legitimate things for the world's left, it was a pretty poor attempt at "communism" and even near the end of it the restrictions on a lot of freedoms were in my opinion totally unacceptable. I don't think we should get into this argument here though).

But inviting the Ukraine into NATO is hard to see as much else than a deliberate "Fuck you, Russia". This is standard policy of the Empire - you provoke countries who voice opposition, and when doing so causes them to up their opposition, you declare them tyrants and dictators and new Hitlers and terrorists and demons, and fabricate an "international community" to fight a diplomatic war against them. The semi-imperialism and Russian-nationalism/Soviet-nostalgia behind the feeling that some how Russia retains a right to its border states is not something I think one should get behind, but that doesn't mean that the provocation is acceptable.

These moves are all more imperialist war preparations as you correctly suspect. Our task is to expose the war preparations and begin the work of organising defeat for our own ruling class as Lenin recommended and carried out. To say that it is not our business as some here do, is a complete collapse to imperialist chauvinism in the same way that the Second International betrail before voting war credits the "there own ruling class".

[Dejavu]

Should Nato be expanded?

NO.

It should be dismantled.

[Psy]

I doubt any country would fire a nuclear missle unless it was their very last resort.

The problem is the nature of nuclear defence, you have to have all your ICBMs airborne by the time the enemies ICBMs near the silos in order to survive the enemies ICBMs nuclear blasts. Meaning you have to launch before you really get hit thus before you can be positive you are under attack. You have to trust your radar, satellites and computers.

For example in 1983, Russian computers thought they saw a missile launch from the US, the live video from spy satellites proved inconclusive as they couldn't see the silos with all the distortion from the setting sun. The computer was telling them to launch a full nuclear strike against the US as the computer thought the USSR was under attack by the USA, yet the operators seeing no missiles on their radars decided to wait and eventually it was found out it was all due to malfunction of satellites that misinterpreted high altitude clouds for missiles. This decision to wait was not SOP, and was done by lower officers being cautious before they push the button (and the computers would have allowed them to launch everything at the USA at that time since the computer thought the USSR was under attack)

[Ferryman 5]

This sort of false dichotomy is ridiculous. It is perfectly possible to have two world superpowers which are both repulsive and impossible for any moral person to accept. What's even more possible is that different governments and systems each have some positive parts and some negative parts, and faced with that maybe you decide to "pick", but I don't know if that's really necessary - to me it makes way more sense to be honest about it, good and bad. The USSR had plenty of beneficial effects, but it also had a lot of horrible ones. The Empire has been a brutal and oppressive imperialist power for its history, and it's completely unacceptable, but we can't just mumble away the fact that it does have some political and personal freedoms and that these are good. They happen to be not extended to the rest of the world, but they do exist, and we can't pretend they don't - the same with the huge things wrong with the USSR on all sorts of levels.

"...impossible for any moral person to accept".? "Moral people" like you have been accepting the slavery, abuse, robbery and violence of class society ever since it came into existence and have been useless commentators treasuring their "personal freedom" at the expense of the "personal freedom" of the slaves who prop up their "personal freedom".

One person's "personal freedom" is a thousand an other's personal slavery under capitalism.

Edit: Who produces the essentials and luxuries for your life? Now tell us about their "personal freedom"?

[Ferryman 5]

British clothing industry exploits Bangladesh
When it comes to low wages, poor working conditions and horror stories of human rights in the manufacturing sector, the finger usually points to places such as china. The BBC have revealed that Britain is potentially no better, with textile workers in Bangladesh getting paid five pence an hour to make cheap clothes for our home-grown companies Tesco, Asda and Primark. A report stated that female workers are exploited to work 80 hours weeks in appalling conditions, nicknamed "potential death trap" factories, according to anti-poverty group War On Want. Tesco, Asda and Primark all strongly denied the allegations.

"NATO" and "personal freedom" , you're having a laugh.

[Bud Struggle]

Should Nato be expanded?

NO.

It should be dismantled.


I agree. It has served it purpose. No more Soviet Union, no more Warsaw Pact then no more NATO.

[Ferryman 5]

I agree. It has served it purpose. No more Soviet Union, no more Warsaw Pact then no more NATO.

Dream on Tomk. What purpose have "they" served? Please explain.

[Psy]

Dream on Tomk. What purpose have "they" served? Please explain.
The complete destruction of the Warsaw pact.

[JazzRemington]

NATO is still around?

[careyprice31]

NATO is still around?


"Nato has decided not to admit Georgia and Ukraine yet to the alliance but invited Croatia and Albania to join. Do you agree?"

next year will be nato's 60 anniversay of its founding.

and Stephen Harper of Canada and GW Bush of the US both want ukraine to be in NATO, despite the fact that polls show that more than half of Ukrainians oppose it.

I think NATO should be disbanded and we should have like just the UN. I think there are people still around freakin nutbars Oh well. USA is still acting like there's a cold war, many of the actions they have taken since 9/11 are very similar to those cold war US administrations have done. Guess the US needs a new enemy now that there is not USSR to fight.

I suspect that NATO thrives on finding new enemies. and thats why NATO still exists.

These freakin nutbars still dont know the cold war's over.

Jeez......

I think the USA should get a life instead of always on the lookout for new enemies.

[JazzRemington]

I knew NATO still existed, I just meant that I don't understand why they still are, since the Warsaw Pact is pretty much done for (at least on paper, anyway. Russia still claims territorial rights over the former members of the pact).

But, just because the Soviet Union fell doesn't mean the cold war is over. Russia and the US are still engaged in some political and military maneuvers against one another; especially over the Caspin Sea region (Russia claims ownership of the area and are fighting with the US and the States of the area over control and even whether it's an sea or a lake, which relates to a treaty in the UN over ownership of some hundred miles or so off the coast of a country). Not to mention the fact that China is beginning to develop militarily and performing maneuvers in the South China sea, a major oil producing region in the Asia-Pacific area, which the US doesn't seem to like.

[jake williams]

"...impossible for any moral person to accept".? "Moral people" like you have been accepting the slavery, abuse, robbery and violence of class society ever since it came into existence and have been useless commentators treasuring their "personal freedom" at the expense of the "personal freedom" of the slaves who prop up their "personal freedom".

One person's "personal freedom" is a thousand an other's personal slavery under capitalism.

Edit: Who produces the essentials and luxuries for your life? Now tell us about their "personal freedom"?
I'm aware of the existence of oppression and exploitation and I don't accept it. But the world isn't infinitely zero sum and there are freedoms that exist in our part of the world, like freedom of speech, that do not rely on oppression and are critically important.

[Sendo]

Is this some way for the US and Western Europe to exercise influence over others, provoke Russia, and command a rearguard for US imperialism* like in NATO?

Since Warsaw is done, these are the only reasons I can see for its existence.


*(US imperialism which, by the way, on average, was/is far worse and destructive than USSR at ANY time)

[jake williams]

*(US imperialism which, by the way, on average, was/is far worse and destructive than USSR at ANY time)
I think this is pretty obvious to anyone.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Of course not, I'd like to see the EU expanded though.

[careyprice31]

Is this some way for the US and Western Europe to exercise influence over others, provoke Russia, and command a rearguard for US imperialism* like in NATO?

Since Warsaw is done, these are the only reasons I can see for its existence.


*(US imperialism which, by the way, on average, was/is far worse and destructive than USSR at ANY time)

don't forget the us breaking the salt treaty of 1972 by making those anti missile defence thingies

and the ussr no wasnt really too bad internationally, Roosevelt appeared to be getting along with em just fine until fuckin Truman the military freak came along

I hate that twerp

and George F Kennan with his 1947 X article claiming the goals of the ussr were to take over the world militarily, a claim that Kennan admitted in his old age that he was wrong and the ussr was not like Hitler.

Compare that to what the USA had done and no, the ussr internationally was not really that bad. At least not until Truman/Kennan and then the ussr began to use their military might.

[spartan]

*(US imperialism which, by the way, on average, was/is far worse and destructive than USSR at ANY time)

Yes but the USSR is gone now and the country that has more or less taken its special place in the international community is Russia who are now Capitalist with Imperialist ambitions just like the US.

Whoever comes out on top in this inter-Imperialist struggle wont really make a difference to the left as this isnt a Capitalist versus Socialist struggle.

It is a Capitalist inter-Imperialist struggle with one side (The US) trying to expand its sphere of influence into the other sides (Russia who just happen to be the US's former cold war enemy) traditional sphere of influence (Eastern Europe) to weaken them.

A leftist shouldnt be supporting either of the sides in this as neither are more progressive than the other and are highly unlikely to start enacting progressive things that we could point to as reasons for supporting them.

[Bear MacMillan]

I think NATO will be around as long as they can find something to declare war on (Terrorism, drugs, etc..) They'd declare war against the sun if they ran out of enemies just to keep it around.

[careyprice31]

I think NATO will be around as long as they can find something to declare war on (Terrorism, drugs, etc..) They'd declare war against the sun if they ran out of enemies just to keep it around.

Haha.

yes they would.

[pusher robot]

I think NATO should be disbanded and we should have like just the UN. I think there are people still around freakin nutbars Oh well. USA is still acting like there's a cold war, many of the actions they have taken since 9/11 are very similar to those cold war US administrations have done. Guess the US needs a new enemy now that there is not USSR to fight.

No, it's not that. The reason that NATO is still kept around is because it's the closest thing we have to a "UN" that actually works. The actual UN is so utterly dysfunctional the only real way to get constructive action done is to work outside it, and NATO is the main vehicle for that.

[Leonid]

Here, in Ukraine MSM and authorities try to portray NATO as some kind of philantropical organization which tries to save poor "post-communist" heathens and convert them into "holy faith" of neo-liberalism and "eurointergration". They succeeded in brainwashing a half of population into support for the EU but luckily, they failed concerning NATO. However, we Ukrainian Marxists openly reject the theory of "two evils" considering Putinist Russia. Today. a lot of Ukrainian enterprises assets are owned by Russian oligarchs who have close ties with Russian government and keep bullying Yuschenko and his clique into support for more and more privatizations. Besides, Gasprom - one of the largest energy monopolies controlled by Putin's buddies - pushes for more and more gas price increases and this profoundly affects standarts of living of Ukrainian proletariat. Yes, a lot of population of South-East (Donetsk, Kharkiv, etc.) which is mostly industrial support pro-Russian forces (such as pseudo-leftist Progressive Socialist Party and neo-liberal Party of Regions, the latter one personally controlled by the billionaire Rinat Akhmetov), but that arises more from deep cultural ties with Russia rather than from some kind of love to Putinist regime.

[careyprice31]

No, it's not that. The reason that NATO is still kept around is because it's the closest thing we have to a "UN" that actually works. The actual UN is so utterly dysfunctional the only real way to get constructive action done is to work outside it, and NATO is the main vehicle for that.

I know bush would like to think the un is dysfunctional, i dont really know if it is or if its not. I heard of some instances where UN could have done better jobs than it did, but people like Bush, I think even if it were functional bush wouldnt have listened anyway even he attacked iraq in 2003 against UN wishes and rulings he went unilaterally. You mean work outside it like the US has done? If thats what you mean they have done a pretty poor job of showing NATO can do a better job than the UN.

and its true that if there were no enemies to fight there would be no need for NATO. It thrives on looking for enemies, I think Ive already said that the USA's actions about the war on terror and after 9 11 are quite similar to the way it acted during the Cold War age.

[Psy]

No, it's not that. The reason that NATO is still kept around is because it's the closest thing we have to a "UN" that actually works. The actual UN is so utterly dysfunctional the only real way to get constructive action done is to work outside it, and NATO is the main vehicle for that.

NATO is far more useless then the UN, NATO is geared for World War III and not peace keeping. You can see this in Iraq, where US troops with zero peace keeping training and they don't how to interact with local population at all. The US military bureaucracy doesn't even know how to go about occupying Iraq thus US troops simply wander around with no clear mission other then to kill the enemy, yet the US military bureaucracy is even more vague on who the enemy is then they were in Vietnam.

[pusher robot]

I know bush would like to think the un is dysfunctional, i dont really know if it is or if its not. I heard of some instances where UN could have done better jobs than it did, but people like Bush, I think even if it were functional bush wouldnt have listened anyway even he attacked iraq in 2003 against UN wishes and rulings he went unilaterally. You mean work outside it like the US has done? If thats what you mean they have done a pretty poor job of showing NATO can do a better job than the UN.

and its true that if there were no enemies to fight there would be no need for NATO. It thrives on looking for enemies

You're just taking a far too simplistic view of things. NATO is not just a military coalition looking for a fight, it is an ideological alliance. The goal of NATO is to defend and promote liberal democracy, for both strategic and also humanitarian reasons. The UN is not capable of doing this. It is nothing more than an international parley.


I think Ive already said that the USA's actions about the war on terror and after 9 11 are quite similar to the way it acted during the Cold War age.Similar in some ways, but radically different in other ways. The fundamental shift in thinking that occurred was the realization that containment was no longer a viable strategy, and traditional deterrence wasn't much better. The focus shifted to a combination of incapacitation and rehabilitation.

[Zurdito]

You're just taking a far too simplistic view of things. NATO is not just a military coalition looking for a fight, it is an ideological alliance.

Ideological and economic alliance.


Similar in some ways, but radically different in other ways. The fundamental shift in thinking that occurred was the realization that containment was no longer a viable strategy, and traditional deterrence wasn't much better. The focus shifted to a combination of incapacitation and rehabilitation.

Well it's no coincidence that this increasingly aggressive foreign policy went hand in hand with the western powers increasingly chasing more and more of the markets of the third world (see aggressive expansion of loans to the third world since the 1970's for example) and, eventually, the ex stalinist states.

[Psy]

You're just taking a far too simplistic view of things. NATO is not just a military coalition looking for a fight, it is an ideological alliance. The goal of NATO is to defend and promote liberal democracy, for both strategic and also humanitarian reasons. The UN is not capable of doing this. It is nothing more than an international parley.

The goal of NATO is to defend the current imperialist order. The US has made it very clear it will not tolerate any competition to its empire regardless of if it a democracy or not.



Similar in some ways, but radically different in other ways. The fundamental shift in thinking that occurred was the realization that containment was no longer a viable strategy, and traditional deterrence wasn't much better. The focus shifted to a combination of incapacitation and rehabilitation.
In other words total world domination by NATO. Meaning NATO is doing what NATO was accusing the Warsaw Pact of planing, while the Warsaw Pact for the most part stayed in its zone of influence which was agreed on before the end of World War II. Meaning the USSR honoured its end of the deal far better then the west.

[Bud Struggle]

NATO is far more useless then the UN, NATO is geared for World War III and not peace keeping. You can see this in Iraq, where US troops with zero peace keeping training and they don't how to interact with local population at all. The US military bureaucracy doesn't even know how to go about occupying Iraq thus US troops simply wander around with no clear mission other then to kill the enemy, yet the US military bureaucracy is even more vague on who the enemy is then they were in Vietnam.

It's an interesting thing to what US troops are geared to do. It seems that in Iraq there always was a secondary motive to all the "peacekeeping". It was training US soldiers to be a combat trained, combat ready fighting force. The US military is now the only large fighting force in the world that has ever seen combat. America has trained hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. And when it comes to training troops for combat there is nothing like the real thing.

The other fact of Iraq that keeps getting ignored is that the US OWNS Iraq. Yea, there's a bit of fighting on the streets and yea, not everything is peaceful and settled, but to a large extent that's Iraq's problem not America's. And while the Iraqi oil fields are far from being fully productive--they are in America's care until they are needed.

[pusher robot]

The goal of NATO is to defend the current imperialist order. The US has made it very clear it will not tolerate any competition to its empire regardless of if it a democracy or not.

Well, yes, even a liberal democracy that tries to really hurt the US will not be tolerated. The salient point is that this has never happened, and there are ideological reasons to believe it never will happen.


In other words total world domination by NATO. Meaning NATO is doing what NATO was accusing the Warsaw Pact of planing, while the Warsaw Pact for the most part stayed in its zone of influence which was agreed on before the end of World War II. Meaning the USSR honoured its end of the deal far better then the west.
It wasn't the "Empire" part of "Soviet Empire" that the West had a real problem with.



Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

[Demogorgon]

The goal of NATO is to defend and promote liberal democracy, for both strategic and also humanitarian reasons.

In what way did-for instance-fascist Spain resemble liberal democracy? Yet it was admitted.

[Psy]

It's an interesting thing to what US troops are geared to do. It seems that in Iraq there always was a secondary motive to all the "peacekeeping". It was training US soldiers to be a combat trained, combat ready fighting force. The US military is now the only large fighting force in the world that has ever seen combat. America has trained hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. And when it comes to training troops for combat there is nothing like the real thing.

There are growing minor mutinies amoung US troops in Iraq as US troops become growing frustrated with the incompetence of the US military bureaucracy like US troops did in Vietnam (just happening much slower in Iraq due to the lack of a draft). Like in Vietnam troops suicides are sky rocketing as troops take their own life as they can't deal with being involved with US war crimes in Iraq (like following orders to fire on Iraqi fire fighters simply because they are putting out fires after the curfew, or witnessing their officers raping innocent Iraqi women) and take the easy way out by taking their own life. What is missing is them taking the lives their officers like US troops did in Vietnam, that happened as US troops in Vietnam were far more loyal to themselves then to the US military and would happily lie to the US military to cover the fagging of a officer that the unit didn't like anyway.

Add the crap treatment of troops returning from Iraq and all Iraq is doing is demoralizing the US military.



The other fact of Iraq that keeps getting ignored is that the US OWNS Iraq. Yea, there's a bit of fighting on the streets and yea, not everything is peaceful and settled, but to a large extent that's Iraq's problem not America's. And while the Iraqi oil fields are far from being fully productive--they are in America's care until they are needed.
That is like saying the Nazi's controlled Italy (after the Italy revolutionary army crushed Mussolini's army) and Greece late in World War II when most production in Greece and Italy was going to the revolutionary armies and not the Nazi's.

Most Iraqis support the insurgency thus must of Iraq's production supplies the insurgency.

[Psy]

Well, yes, even a liberal democracy that tries to really hurt the US will not be tolerated. The salient point is that this has never happened, and there are ideological reasons to believe it never will happen.

Nope, if you read The Project for the New American Century, they clearly state that the US is the world only super power thus must use it powers to maintain its position at all costs from all competitors, meaning that if say the EU grows larger the US then the Project for the New American Century states the EU should be invaded.



It wasn't the "Empire" part of "Soviet Empire" that the West had a real problem with.

Actually it was, long before the red scare the US being an empire and trying to block all other world powers from expanding.

[pusher robot]

In what way did-for instance-fascist Spain resemble liberal democracy? Yet it was admitted.

Spain has a constitution with liberal guarantees. It has a democratic election process. How do you classify it as fascist?

[Demogorgon]

Spain has a constitution with liberal guarantees. It has a democratic election process. How do you classify it as fascist?
We are not talking about contemporary Spain, hence I made it clear I was referring to Franco-era Spain. Spain was a fascist dictatorship when it first associated with NATO. Granted it did not formally join until after the death of Franco, but it was a De Facto member long before. To save that controversy though, I guess I should have pointed to Portugal which was a founding member in 1949 and remained a fascist dictatorship, like Spain, until the mid seventies.

I could refer to other countries as well that have had a questionable claim to "Liberal Democratic". Greece was a member all through the time it was ruled by a military Junta. Turkey has similarly also been a member through periods when it was definitely not a Democracy.

[pusher robot]

Nope, if you read The Project for the New American Century, they clearly state that the US is the world only super power thus must use it powers to maintain its position at all costs from all competitors, meaning that if say the EU grows larger the US then the Project for the New American Century states the EU should be invaded.

Cite? Not that I don't believe you, but...well, actually, yeah, I don't believe you.



Actually it was, long before the red scare the US being an empire and trying to block all other world powers from expanding.
You're just making this stuff up.

[pusher robot]

I could refer to other countries as well that have had a questionable claim to "Liberal Democratic". Greece was a member all through the time it was ruled by a military Junta. Turkey has similarly also been a member through periods when it was definitely not a Democracy.
Well of course it is true that NATO will, under certain conditions, aggressively recruit member nations who are on the bubble in order to "bring them into the fold." If it believes that membership will result in a movement in the membership nation toward liberal democracy - as has usually been the case - then it will often offer membership.

[Demogorgon]

Well of course it is true that NATO will, under certain conditions, aggressively recruit member nations who are on the bubble in order to "bring them into the fold." If it believes that membership will result in a movement in the membership nation toward liberal democracy - as has usually been the case - then it will often offer membership.

Ah come on. Portugal joined as a full founding member nearly thirty years before its dictatorship fell and there looked to be no signs of it falling. Greece joined as what we are referring to as "Liberal Democracy" but suffered no sanction from NATO after the military coup, in fact as it happens after the fall of the Junta it left again for a while. Turkey similarly has been entirely tolerated when it goes through one of its undemocratic phases.

There has been no NATO commitment to Democracy. It certainly has an ideological base-Capitalism, but certainly no particular inclination towards Democracy.

[Psy]

Cite? Not that I don't believe you, but...well, actually, yeah, I don't believe you.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

From PNAC

"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"


Keyword is favourable to American interests, the interests of imperialist powers are to expand their power.

Another quote from PNAC

"If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests"

Challenges to US interests? So the US shouldn't even allow anyone to challenge its interests, translation in a capitalist world were every state is competing against the interests of other states, is PNAC calls for total world domination by the US so other states don't compete with the US as competition is bad.

If you go to PNAC's website the WIki links to you'll see even more talk of US world domination.



You're just making this stuff up.
I take it you never heard of the US-Spain war.

[Bud Struggle]

There are growing minor mutinies amoung US troops in Iraq as US troops become growing frustrated with the incompetence of the US military bureaucracy like US troops did in Vietnam (just happening much slower in Iraq due to the lack of a draft). Like in Vietnam troops suicides are sky rocketing as troops take their own life as they can't deal with being involved with US war crimes in Iraq (like following orders to fire on Iraqi fire fighters simply because they are putting out fires after the curfew, or witnessing their officers raping innocent Iraqi women) and take the easy way out by taking their own life. What is missing is them taking the lives their officers like US troops did in Vietnam, that happened as US troops in Vietnam were far more loyal to themselves then to the US military and would happily lie to the US military to cover the fagging of a officer that the unit didn't like anyway.

Add the crap treatment of troops returning from Iraq and all Iraq is doing is demoralizing the US military.

There is an increase in suicides, etc. to be sure, but for the most part the US soldiers are the most aggressive part of the American electorate when it comes to staying and fighting in Iraq.

The soldiers rather be unleashed to do a more complete job. The American presence in the Middle East is there to stay.



That is like saying the Nazi's controlled Italy (after the Italy revolutionary army crushed Mussolini's army) and Greece late in World War II when most production in Greece and Italy was going to the revolutionary armies and not the Nazi's.

Most Iraqis support the insurgency thus must of Iraq's production supplies the insurgency.

First of all, Italy's and Greece's revolutionary armies were just historical abberations till legitimate govenments took over. And no, the US is in control of Iraqi oil, production is low because of the troubles there but there is no need to produce more at the present time. The oil Iraq produces funds Iraq's economy just fine. The US could shut off the oil at any time--on the other hand Iraq like almost ALL of the oil producing countries in the Middle East does NOTHING besides sell oil. It has almost no domestic production of goods, in a way it's a idle country that just happens to have large amounts of cash from it's natural resources.

The United States isn't interested in Iraq getting cash rich from production--they rather keep things flowing, but without anything incedent that might change the balance of power.

[Psy]

There is an increase in suicides, etc. to be sure, but for the most part the US soldiers are the most aggressive part of the American electorate when it comes to staying and fighting in Iraq.

The soldiers rather be unleashed to do a more complete job. The American presence in the Middle East is there to stay.

Actually the average US solider in Iraq are already very cynical toward the US military and growing more cynical as the occupation goes on. There is a growing view amoung Iraqi veterans that the US military bureaucracy is their largest enemy and not the insurgency. SNAFU (Situation normal, all fucked up) has once again became the common term US troops use to describe the US military bureaucracy and once again joke that military intelligence is a oxymoron like they did in Vietnam. The average US solider just want to get back alive, they are well aware the US military shafts returning veterans exploiting their scarifies to make a quick buck, they are well aware the US military doesn't give a shit about Iraqis and simply a imperialist occupation force (and a totally incompetent one at that). Inside the military they even don't try to hide the corruption, incompetence and racism so it is right in the face of US troops.



First of all, Italy's and Greece's revolutionary armies were just historical abberations till legitimate govenments took over. And no, the US is in control of Iraqi oil, production is low because of the troubles there but there is no need to produce more at the present time. The oil Iraq produces funds Iraq's economy just fine. The US could shut off the oil at any time--on the other hand Iraq like almost ALL of the oil producing countries in the Middle East does NOTHING besides sell oil. It has almost no domestic production of goods, in a way it's a idle country that just happens to have large amounts of cash from it's natural resources.

Again since most Iraqis support the insurgency, most local production goes to the insurgency (food, water, ect).

[Sky]

NATO, the successor to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Pact, has always posed an immense threat to international peace. The states of NATO are only out to destroy those people that try to preserve an independent existence, as the terroristic bombing campaign against Yugoslavia demonstrated. NATO crrently maintains a brutal occupation in Afghainstan in which the sovereignty and independence of people are cruelly violated. To say nothing of the occupation of Iraq where many member states of NATO are indiscriminately massacring Iraqis.

The Russian Government should take any step necessary to protect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of its country. For NATO to tread Russia's borders can at the least be interpreted as aggressive, war-like maneuvres that greatly endanger the national security of that country. For the Russian Government to not retaliate against these threats to the country's sovereignty by NATO would be criminal irresponsibility.

[Bud Struggle]

NATO, the successor to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Pact, has always posed an immense threat to international peace. The states of NATO are only out to destroy those people that try to preserve an independent existence, as the terroristic bombing campaign against Yugoslavia demonstrated. NATO crrently maintains a brutal occupation in Afghainstan in which the sovereignty and independence of people are cruelly violated. To say nothing of the occupation of Iraq where many member states of NATO are indiscriminately massacring Iraqis.



Do dee do do
Do dee do do
Do dee do do
Do dee do do

You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!:D

[careyprice31]

"Nope, if you read The Project for the New American Century, they clearly state that the US is the world only super power thus must use it powers to maintain its position at all costs from all competitors, meaning that if say the EU grows larger the US then the Project for the New American Century states the EU should be invaded."


OMG ! Have you seen that Project for a New American Century website? my friend Hector (Comrade Hector on RL) showed me that site....oh man.

That site gives me the creeps. :scared:

[Psy]

"Nope, if you read The Project for the New American Century, they clearly state that the US is the world only super power thus must use it powers to maintain its position at all costs from all competitors, meaning that if say the EU grows larger the US then the Project for the New American Century states the EU should be invaded."


OMG ! Have you seen that Project for a New American Century website? my friend Hector (Comrade Hector on RL) showed me that site....oh man.

That site gives me the creeps. :scared:

Yep, they are insane of course, they state the US military should be geared to win decisively in multiple simultaneous major theaters of operations. They ignore this have never happen in the history of empires, even Rome that didn't have any real challenger became so overstretched that they really didn't have many forces to spare.

[careyprice31]

Yep, they are insane of course, they state the US military should be geared to win decisively in multiple simultaneous major theaters of operations. They ignore this have never happen in the history of empires, even Rome that didn't have any real challenger became so overstretched that they really didn't have many forces to spare.

no rome didnt last neither did either of the other empires, the ottoman empire fell, and so on and so on.....

I see NATO as a dominating force and the us still trying to extend its influence and its brand of 'democracy' WhatEVER. They dont have real democracy I think most of the world is starting to realize that its funny how they still pretend they have real 'democracy'

I do think we should get rid of NATO for all the reasons already mentioned here.

[Bud Struggle]

OMG ! Have you seen that Project for a New American Century website? my friend Hector (Comrade Hector on RL) showed me that site....oh man.

That site gives me the creeps. :scared:

FWIW: the Project for a New American Century is a bit of a nutcase organization. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I'm a first rate American Conservative and I think they are WAY off base.

Neo-Cons are wacko hard line idealogues, they are to Conservatives what Stalinists are to Communists.

[Psy]

FWIW: the Project for a New American Century is a bit of a nutcase organization. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I'm a first rate American Conservative and I think they are WAY off base.

Neo-Cons are wacko hard line idealogues, they are to Conservatives what Stalinists are to Communists.
Lets look at the key members of the Project for a New American Century:

Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Eliot Cohen (Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board)
Lewis Libby (Cheif of Staff for the Vice President) (2001-2005)
Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) (2001-2006)
Peter Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security) (2001-2007)
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense) (2001-2005)
Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State) (2001-2005)
Richard Perle (chairman of the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee during the initial years of the Bush admin)

And there are more link between the Bush admin and Project for a New American Century.

[Psy]

no rome didnt last neither did either of the other empires, the ottoman empire fell, and so on and so on.....

I was pointing to PNAC's idea that the US should be able to win decisively on unlimited fronts, meaning PNAC has the same sanity as the Nazi's went it comes war planning. Like Hitler PNAC doesn't seem to understand how vast the world is when you're marching armies across it.

[Bud Struggle]

Lets look at the key members of the Project for a New American Century:

Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Eliot Cohen (Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board)
Lewis Libby (Cheif of Staff for the Vice President) (2001-2005)
Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) (2001-2006)
Peter Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security) (2001-2007)
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense) (2001-2005)
Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State) (2001-2005)
Richard Perle (chairman of the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee during the initial years of the Bush admin)

And there are more link between the Bush admin and Project for a New American Century.

Oh, I agree...and that's why Bush is something like 29% in the popularity polls. The Bush administration is BY FAR not the ideal judge of what America should be.

Too much government, too big of a government. I'm no fan of George Bush or his neo-con friends. He's quite the worst thing that happened to American Conservatism in the last fifty years.

The business of America is BUSINESS--not ruling the world.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Oh, I agree...and that's why Bush is something like 29% in the popularity polls. The Bush administration is BY FAR not the ideal judge of what America should be.

Too much government, too big of a government. I'm no fan of George Bush or his neo-con friends. He's quite the worst thing that happened to American Conservatism in the last fifty years.

The business of America is BUSINESS--not ruling the world.


Business rules the world though, Doesn't it?

Since the rise of capitalism 200 years ago in europe, Business leaders, Military leaders and politicians have been pretty much joined at the hip.

And most of those 200 years have been spent waging wars for profit and by extention: power

The best way to get ahead in business is by cheating and lying through your teeth (much like as in politics and warfare) don't think that'll stop If you put a slip of paper in a box.

[Bud Struggle]

The best way to get ahead in business is by cheating and lying through your teeth (much like as in politics and warfare) don't think that'll stop If you put a slip of paper in a box.

There are business people that do--and those that don't. There are honest Capitalists and there are honest Communists. There are also Capitalists that cheat and there are Communist that cheat.

Political ideology and ethical behavior are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

There are business people that do--and those that don't. There are honest Capitalists and there are honest Communists. There are also Capitalists that cheat and there are Communist that cheat.

Political ideology and ethical behavior are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.

But the very nature of the Capitialist system means those who don't lie and cheat (the Politicians and business leaders who would better the world) will sink to the bottom.

[Bud Struggle]

But the very nature of the Capitialist system means those who don't lie and cheat (the Politicians and business leaders who would better the world) will sink to the bottom.

Same could be said about any "politic." Calm down: ethics has nothing to do with economics. Pol Pot was a Communist, he murdered MILLIONS. Was he an "ethical" Communist?

The bureaucracy of the Soviet Union was THEFT to the working man. Same with that of Communist China. Is that any different than Capitalistic theft?

I think not.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Same could be said about any "politic." Calm down: ethics has nothing to do with economics. Pol Pot was a Communist, he murdered MILLIONS. Was he an "ethical" Communist?

The bureaucracy of the Soviet Union was THEFT to the working man. Same with that of Communist China. Is that any different than Capitalistic theft?

I think not.


pol pot wasn't a communist

bureaucracy is bad: agree
CCCP and PRC were/are bodge jobs of nations.

You're admitting capitalist theft?

W00t i win 1000 internets!

It's 25 past midnight here and I had better stop argueing with people I dont know over stuff I dont understand.

[Bud Struggle]

pol pot wasn't a communist

Yup, he was a Scottish leprechaun. All agreed, there.



bureaucracy is bad: agree
CCCP and PRC were/are bodge jobs of nations.

No question.


You're admitting capitalist theft?

Yup.


W00t i win 1000 internets!

Indeed you do.


It's 25 past midnight here and I had better stop argueing with people I dont know over stuff I dont understand.

As every good Communist should.

Sleep tight. But I guess that is one thing that is assured in this world. :D

[careyprice31]

Pol Pot was a cannibal. Sawa documentary about him and cambodia. The guy ate some of his victims. He was no where near a communist. If hes a communist, might as wellsay Dr Lector was a communist.

[Bud Struggle]

Pol Pot was a cannibal. Sawa documentary about him and cambodia. The guy ate some of his victims. He was no where near a communist. If hes a communist, might as wellsay Dr Lector was a communist.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Pol Pot

Saloth Sar aliases Brother Number One, Pol, Pouk, Hay, Grand-Uncle, '87', Phem, '99, and best known as Pol Pot,was the leader of the communist movement known as the Khmer Rouge.

I have no intention saying that he represented any real "Communist" ideals. He was a psycho mass murderer. But he also was a Communist.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't understand what the point of NATO is now that the warsaw pact no longer exists. As for Al Quaeda, its pretty much useless against that sort of organisation.

Perhaps the Russians are right to be 'paranoid', if NATO doesnt regard them as a potential enemy why the need to keep this 'western boys club?'

[Sky]

All in all this doesnt really effect the left as it is an inter-Imperialist struggle between two Capitalist superpowers.
Russia today does not fit the preqrequisites of an imperialist power. I am not aware of any country where there is significant Russian capital dominating the economy.