Nato

[Jinef 2]

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Formed to prevent the USSR taking control of Europe which it did successfully and we are all grateful for it. But now all it seems to do is drag us into conflicts that are not essentially neccessary to homeland defense.

In the 'would you die for your country' post lot's of people said yes but only for the defense of themselves, their country and their family. Not for the cause of a certain country's leader having a grudge against another certain country.

America is still getting lot's of support from NATO countries in Afghanistan who do not want to be in Afghanistan but are obliged to do so because of NATO.

Now your opinions please.

[Guest]

There is still a point with NATO and that is that it prevents any of the members going to war without at least talking it through with the other member states.

I am however more for an European defense organization due to the fact that the interests of Europe and the interests of America are going separate ways more and more.

Instead of a strong NATO I would like to see a strong UN but that isn't likely to happen any time soon.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is still a point with NATO and that is that it prevents any of the members going to war without at least talking it through with the other member states.

I am however more for an European defense organization due to the fact that the interests of Europe and the interests of America are going separate ways more and more.

Instead of a strong NATO I would like to see a strong UN but that isn't likely to happen any time soon.<span id='postcolor'>

agreed with Denoir

[Jinef 2]

I agree with Ran and Denoir as well, but we are Europeans and i would like to see American opinions as well.

Thanks for contributing but i expected more replies, maybe we need to give the Americans a chance to wake up and start posting in work, lol.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am however more for an European defense organization due to the fact that the interests of Europe and the interests of America are going separate ways more and more.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is in the planning at the moment. Europe will have it´s own fusioned army and that is a big challenge for all participants. It will be one of the major players if it is etablished.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is still a point with NATO and that is that it prevents any of the members going to war without at least talking it through with the other member states.<span id='postcolor'>

Tell that to George Dubbya!

[Cloney 0]

I'd hate to see the Europeans and their new fangled 'uber-army' get into a big mess, because we all know who they are gonna ask to bail them out. None of the European armies have as much money as the American army. Less money = Less Training. If you already have very little money, how are you gonna have money to train an army as large as the "Combined European Army"?

We all saw how the League of Nations turned out... The only problem was they had no military power.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Less money = Less Training<span id='postcolor'>

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The UK spends nowhere near what the US spends, but our armed forces are some of the best trained in the world. This is partly because we cannot afford loads of posh kit to equip our soldiers with, so we compensate by cross training people in different roles.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Nov. 16 2002,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd hate to see the Europeans and their new fangled 'uber-army' get into a big mess, because we all know who they are gonna ask to bail them out. None of the European armies have as much money as the American army. Less money = Less Training. If you already have very little money, how are you gonna have money to train an army as large as the "Combined European Army"?

We all saw how the League of Nations turned out... The only problem was they had no military power. <span id='postcolor'>

Listen Cloney

Europeans were not bailed out ever... the world was actually defending itself from Europeans in the past. Germans.

Please remember, Germans are Europeans, no one rescued Europe, Europe would have taken over the world.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But now all it seems to do is drag us into conflicts that are not essentially neccessary to homeland defense.

<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps not essential to your homeland. But targeting Al'quieda (Can't believe I forgot how to spell that) was important to homeland security here in the U.S. The rest of NATO and any other country's support was well appreciated.

In the process we "liberated" Afganistan from the Taliban. So troops are to be there for a while just to make sure no more Al'quieda people can come back. But with any conflict, troops from nations who fought will stay there with the U.S.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the 'would you die for your country' post lot's of people said yes but only for the defense of themselves, their country and their family. Not for the cause of a certain country's leader having a grudge against another certain country.<span id='postcolor'>

If you are talking about Bush having a grudge against Afganistan. Wrong there, we have plent of reason to attack there. But if you are talking about Iraq. This does seem to be more of a personal vendetta he wants to take care of. No one really wants to attack Iraq. Becuase there are huge risks involved. And with the Korea having nuclear weapons programs. Well Bush is in an odd situation. Politically speaking he would have to attack one if he attacked the other. But common sense tells us all that he shouldn't do either.

Hope all this makes sense. I may not understand world politics very well, but I'm getting better at debating with you guys

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The UK spends nowhere near what the US spends, but our armed forces are some of the best trained in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

Very true. The UK does have some damn good soldiers. And the Royal Marines have one of the, if not the, best sniper programs in the world.

[USMC Sniper 0]

Not Germans, Nazis, who were mainly Germans, but did not represent all of Germany.

[bn880 5]

Of course they were Germans... I just blame the Germans. So you are saying Nazis came from other countries? Austria for sure, but they are really just Germany #2.

Either way, they were Europeans...

[USMC Sniper 0]

I read somewhere that there were Polish, Russians, and other ppl from occupied countries fighting againt the US in Normandy, I'll try to find the link but I don't remember. Anyhow, of course Germans would not be the only Nazis because there were surely ppl of other nationalities living in Germany at the time.

[Harnu 0]

Speaking of money. One of my teachers at school said that the US has about 50% of the worlds money. Is that true? I mean, I know we've got a bit, but not 50%.

And while the US may not have the best trained forces in all the areas. (But there are a few we excell in) What we do have is a lot of technology.

On while on that subject, what other stealth vehicles are there? We can't be the only ones with them. Or does all of Nato just use F-117's and B-2's?

[USMC Sniper 0]

I think they would, I mean Bill Gates and the guy who owns Wal-mart are both in the US, but I'm not sure that would could for the US's money. There are other stealth planes, the Russians have them, I think the Eurofighter has stealth technology, and maybe a few other countries have some. Not many people have them though because they are very costly to build, I heard the B2 is the most expensive plane ever.

[ale2999 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Nov. 16 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think they would, I mean Bill Gates and the guy who owns Wal-mart are both in the US, but I'm not sure that would could for the US's money. There are other stealth planes, the Russians have them, I think the Eurofighter has stealth technology, and maybe a few other countries have some. Not many people have them though because they are very costly to build, I heard the B2 is the most expensive plane ever.<span id='postcolor'>

Eurofighter is not a stealth fighter...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Nov. 16 2002,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read somewhere that there were Polish, Russians, and other ppl from occupied countries fighting againt the US in Normandy, I'll try to find the link but I don't remember. Anyhow, of course Germans would not be the only Nazis because there were surely ppl of other nationalities living in Germany at the time.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course there were other nationalities, but they were still Europeans. WW2 in Europe was Americans + Europeans against Europeans.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">None of the European armies have as much money as the American army. Less money = Less Training. If you already have very little money, how are you gonna have money to train an army as large as the "Combined European Army"?<span id='postcolor'>

It is not like America finances European military today. On the contrary, we would have more money since we would not be forced to participate in military operations that are of US interest only (like Iraq now).

However there are other considerable problems with an European allience. Contrary to popular American belief, Europe is not one homogenous country. Every country in Europe has its own agenda and interests that are not neccessarily compatible with the others.

[Badgerboy 0]

The Typhoon has a very low RCS, but it does not have true stealth capabilites.

It seems stealth is going out of fashion anyway. With new systems that can detect stealth aircraft far more easily, coupled with the extreme cost of the aircraft, cheaper, lower RCS aircraft seem to be the best bet.

The Uk has all of the US's stealth tech and research, but only under the promise that we don't share it with the rest of Europe. (Which really pissed the French off when they found out about the deal)

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not like America finances European military today. On the contrary, we would have more money since we would not be forced to participate in military operations that are of US interest only (like Iraq now). <span id='postcolor'>

Europe actually spent more money on Desert Storm than the Americans did. We didn't use as much kit, but we paid mostly for the infrastructure and logistics.

[ZIKAN 0]

I think as the world is now constantly changing politicly, there is a real need to radicaly change the way NATO operates, or form the so called 'European Army' with America playing its useful part alongside, to cut through the red tape it had thrown up when peoples lifes were at stake.

For example look at Bosnia and the Kosovo crisis, many hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered or made homeless, it was well known what happened, but because of bureaucratic descisions made in the upper echlons of NATO and the UN, it sat on its arse debating things when it should of been putting troops on the ground as soon as it could to save these people from genocide. Also when the armies of Europe and America where there, they had to refer back to NATO for approval and clearance to carry out certain actions that needed to be carried out right away, wasting time and ultimately the lives of people.

Of course in incidents like this, soldiers need to adhere to 'Rules of engagement' and of course know what their mission is and what they can and what they can not do, but there needs to be a better way in cutting through all of the bullshit and politics and save lives, which is what sadly NATO

was responsible for in some well documented cases.

[FSPilot 0]

I think yes. Even though the U.S.S.R. fell and Russia is doing more shrinking than growing lately, I still think NATO is useful. It's a peacekeeping force in a semi-volatile area.

[ralphwiggum 6]

we need NATO. because that way BIS doesn't need to change all soldier graphics from NATO to a nation.

personally, i see existence of NATO with a bit of disapproval. NATO's promary reason for existence was to make sure that communists do not take over western Europe, and now that USSR is history, there is no justification thereof. however, it is still true that Russia wants to exert its influence on eastern block, so NATO did not loose it's cause of existence.

just a rambling

[FSPilot 0]

But who's going to keep all the ethnic cleansers in line?

[red oct 2]

i would figure that would have to or should be a U.N. job, but i think its safe to say that ethnic cleansing won't happen again any time soon.

[PitViper 0]

NATO is a cold war relic which is desperately seeking a reason to exist. That is not a good thing IMO.

A European defense force is a pipe dream because the European governments have severely underfunded their militaries for the last decade and combining them to homogenous standards would require a very large influx of military funding from each country. This will not happen with the way European governments run today. The Kosovo conflict showed how poorly a combined European force worked (which the U.S had to come in and shore up).