Nato

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 18 2002,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 19 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">time for you to play computer games while on duty?  LOL <span id='postcolor'>

Did I miss something?  <span id='postcolor'>

you mentioned how you were playing OFP while in Kosovo

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 19 2002,05:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you mentioned how you were playing OFP while in Kosovo <span id='postcolor'>

Not in this thread But yes, and then I refer to Bals. answer: laptop

[Akira 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/opinion/17FRIE.html

In case it hasn't been mentioned.

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/opinion/17FRIE.html

In case it hasn't been mentioned.<span id='postcolor'>

Errr. You need a login and password to read New York Times articles now? What's this world coming to? Everone is just looking for ways to track your movement. Soon enough one won't be able to access google.com without creating a mandatory online profile. So much for "freedom".

Anyway from the article:

...I watched the preparations for next week's NATO summit in Prague, which will expand the alliance from 19 to 26 countries, adding ... Slovakia...

Woohoo, so my poor little corrupted birth place is getting into nato? i heard they don't even conscript new soldiers as the military budget is bascially non existent. But oh well...

Good job Club Nato.

[Akira 0]

To save everyone the trouble of having to login or create an account:

The New Club NATO

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

f you want to get a feel for how far ahead the U.S. military is from any of its allies, let alone its enemies, read the fascinating article in the November issue of The Atlantic Monthly by Mark Bowden about the U.S. air war over Afghanistan. There is one scene that really sums it up. It involves a U.S. F-15 jet fighter that is ordered to take out a Taliban truck caravan. The F-15's co-pilot bombardier is a woman. Mr. Bowden, who had access to the communications between pilots, describes how the bombardier locates the truck caravan, and with her laser guidance system directs a 500-pound bomb into the lead truck. As the caravan is vaporized, the F-15 pilot shouts down at the Taliban — as if they could hear him from 20,000 feet — "You have just been killed by a girl."

I was thinking about that scene as I watched the preparations for next week's NATO summit in Prague, which will expand the alliance from 19 to 26 countries, adding Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. I wonder how many lady F-15 pilots the Latvians have. Actually, I wonder how many Denmark or Spain have. I suspect the number is zero. And that is the main reason why I don't object anymore to NATO being expanded. Because, as we already saw in the Afghan war, most NATO countries have fallen so far behind the U.S. in their defense spending and modernizations, they really can't fight alongside of us anymore anyway. So what the heck, let's invite everybody in.

"It's now Club NATO," said Michael Mandelbaum, author of the new book "The Ideas That Conquered the World." "And Club NATO's main purpose seems to be to act as a kind of support group and kaffeeklatsch for the newly admitted democracies of Eastern and Central Europe, which suffered under authoritarian rule throughout the cold war."

Indeed, I think of NATO now as "Autocrats Anonymous," a club where all these formerly autocratic nations of Eastern and Central Europe can share their problems as fledgling democracies and buck one another up. Sure it's more Dale Carnegie than Clausewitz, and it means that Club NATO will no longer be a serious fighting force, but don't worry, our Pentagon has known that for a while, which is why it never thought of going through NATO to fight in Afghanistan, and won't in Iraq either.

But there is another reason not to fret: The old NATO has been replaced as a military alliance — not by the expanded NATO but by a totally different NATO. The "new NATO" is made up of three like-minded English-speaking allies — America, Britain and Australia — with France as a partner for peace, depending on the war. What these four core countries all have in common is that they are sea powers, with a tradition of fighting abroad, with the ability to transport troops around the world and with mobile special forces that have an "attitude." That is what you need to deal with today's threats.

Also, as one European official noted, all four of these countries play either rugby or American-style football — violent games where success depends on hurting the other team. This should be a prerequisite for joining the new NATO, which should henceforth be called "Nations Allied to Stop Tyrants," or NASTY.

If you talk to U.S. Fifth Fleet sailors in the Persian Gulf, they will tell you that the oil smugglers and pirates down there all know when the Australian Navy takes its monthly turn on patrol, because the Aussie Navy has a real attitude, and the bandits know it. Same with the French. The French can drive you crazy, especially over things that are not important. But when things are important, they usually show up. Said one U.S. official: "The French are bad-weather friends and their troops certainly have an attitude."

While Club NATO countries will never really be able to fight alongside NASTY, they can help, depending on the war. Each of them has certain boutique skills, whether it is an anti-chemical warfare unit from Germany or a peacekeeping unit from Poland or a minesweeper from Spain. They are now Dial-an-Ally, undertaking specific tasks that NASTY does not have the time or energy to do.

In fact, I imagine after this round of expansion that when you call NATO headquarters in Brussels, a recording will answer that will go something like this: "Hello. You have reached NATO. Dial 1 if you want help consolidating your democracy. Dial 2 if you need minesweeping. Dial 3 if you need anti-chemical warfare trucks. If you need to fight a real war, please stay on the line and an English-speaking operator will assist you."

[PitViper 0]

The US could withdraw from NATO and Voila! NATO would become the "European Defense Force".

correct?

[Guest]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,174)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was thinking about that scene as I watched the preparations for next week's NATO summit in Prague, which will expand the alliance from 19 to 26 countries, adding Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. I wonder how many lady F-15 pilots the Latvians have. Actually, I wonder how many Denmark or Spain have. I suspect the number is zero.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, this is such crap. The Soviets had female fighter pilots already during WW2 not to mention later. As for Denmark, I suppose it isn't as different from Sweden and I can say as much that one of Swedens top test pilots is a woman

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

And that is the main reason why I don't object anymore to NATO being expanded. Because, as we already saw in the Afghan war, most NATO countries have fallen so far behind the U.S. in their defense spending and modernizations, they really can't fight alongside of us anymore anyway. So what the heck, let's invite everybody in.

<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO! Fallen back behind the US??? We are not the ones sitting on rusting cold war relics and leaking nukes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But there is another reason not to fret: The old NATO has been replaced as a military alliance — not by the expanded NATO but by a totally different NATO. The "new NATO" is made up of three like-minded English-speaking allies — America, Britain and Australia — with France as a partner for peace, depending on the war. What these four core countries all have in common is that they are sea powers, with a tradition of fighting abroad, with the ability to transport troops around the world and with mobile special forces that have an "attitude." That is what you need to deal with today's threats.

Also, as one European official noted, all four of these countries play either rugby or American-style football — violent games where success depends on hurting the other team. This should be a prerequisite for joining the new NATO, which should henceforth be called "Nations Allied to Stop Tyrants," or NASTY.

<span id='postcolor'>

Ok. I'm going to stop commenting on this, this is just too silly. The French don't play American Football or Rugby. They play football just as the rest of Europe. Very good article indeed.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 19 2002,18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was thinking about that scene as I watched the preparations for next week's NATO summit in Prague, which will expand the alliance from 19 to 26 countries, adding Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. I wonder how many lady F-15 pilots the Latvians have. Actually, I wonder how many Denmark or Spain have. I suspect the number is zero.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, this is such crap. The Soviets had female fighter pilots already during WW2 not to mention later.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. The Eastern Block countries were the first to allow women to fly combat aircraft, and the USSR produced some female aces.

Lilya Litvak - The "White Rose" of Stalingrad.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

France do play rugby,  but they are useless at it, getting plastered by Italy, Wales, Scotland etc.

This whole article is BS and just adds to my belief that there should be a huge fence around the G8+Greece states....and another one between the US and the remaining G8+Greece states.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 19 2002,19:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France do play rugby,  but they are useless at it, getting plastered by Italy, Wales, Scotland etc.<span id='postcolor'>

France plays hockey too, that doesn't make it a national sport Sweden has rugby teams too and I am sure that we have a national team in woman's beach volley but they are not commons sports.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 19 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 19 2002,192)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France do play rugby,  but they are useless at it, getting plastered by Italy, Wales, Scotland etc.<span id='postcolor'>

France plays hockey too, that doesn't make it a national sport Sweden has rugby teams too and I am sure that we have a national team in woman's beach volley but they are not commons sports.<span id='postcolor'>

Fairy nuff

[KingBeast 0]

I always thought that the french were really big on Rugby, at least more so than football. Its why all of the french football players come to play for English teams probably

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The New Club NATO

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN<span id='postcolor'>

Another bullshit propaganda type article from New York Times...

Friedman... a prime example of who runs NYC and NYT. If you don't follow then let it be.

I'll look at shows or magazines or anything else that has NY on it when I want to get really angry at twisted facts.

[Akira 0]

Didn't know people would get so bent out of shape.

It's an editorial people, an Op/Ed piece. It's not passed off as fact or fiction but someones OPINION. A humorous one at that.

And because its an OPINION its certainly not "propaganda". You sure you even KNOW what propaganda is?

People throw that word around WAY too much in this forum. Its really very sad.

[bn880 5]

Not bent out of shape at all, almost all the articles from NYT are like that that's all. So it's meant to be funny when people pick up the bullshit, but most Americans won't and it turns into

Propaganda!

Instead of the caps here is a definition:

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Dictionary.com

Should be:

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause or information.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 19 2002,22:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not bent out of shape at all, almost all the articles from NYT are like that that's all.  So it's meant to be funny when people pick up the bullshit, but most Americans won't and it turns into

Propaganda!

Instead of the caps here is a definition:

  1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.<span id='postcolor'>

Most people don't read the NYT's either.

And anyone that believes there is a NASTY (hehehe) should stay in the trailer park anyway...

[sseagle 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 19 2002,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 19 2002,17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

LMAO! Fallen back behind the US??? We are not the ones sitting on rusting cold war relics and leaking nukes.

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Nah, no leaking nukes, they all work fine, its all the chemical weapons that are stored here (I can see the Blue Grass Army Depot from my dorm room) that are constantly leaking out. Unless you mean our nuclear waste, which we have shitloads of, and yeah, that is leaking too, cause none of the states want to have the depot located there.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Friedman's article provided by Akira is more about social structure than NATO itself. I skimmed over it and seems like he wants to talk about how NATO is used as a method of putting some new component in each country's social structure.

[Frisbee 0]

Lol well,let me dig up an article that puts the american army as an army that has more casualties from friendly fire than from enemy fire,and see how it gets labelled 'left extremist terrorist commie hippie bullshit' instead of the funny little piece of text it was.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Nov. 19 2002,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol well,let me dig up an article that puts the american army as an army that has more casualties from friendly fire than from enemy fire,and see how it gets labelled 'left extremist terrorist commie hippie bullshit' instead of the funny little piece of text it was.<span id='postcolor'>

it would be misleading because we have far more soldiers than anyone else. if you did it on a "per soldier" basis, you'd see our FF level is probably less than the rest of the worlds.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 20 2002,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Nov. 19 2002,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol well,let me dig up an article that puts the american army as an army that has more casualties from friendly fire than from enemy fire,and see how it gets labelled 'left extremist terrorist commie hippie bullshit' instead of the funny little piece of text it was.<span id='postcolor'>

it would be misleading because we have far more soldiers than anyone else.  if you did it on a "per soldier" basis, you'd see our FF level is probably less than the rest of the worlds.<span id='postcolor'>

....surely not more than China? - or North Korea?

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 20 2002,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Nov. 20 2002,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Nov. 19 2002,20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol well,let me dig up an article that puts the american army as an army that has more casualties from friendly fire than from enemy fire,and see how it gets labelled 'left extremist terrorist commie hippie bullshit' instead of the funny little piece of text it was.<span id='postcolor'>

it would be misleading because we have far more soldiers than anyone else.  if you did it on a "per soldier" basis, you'd see our FF level is probably less than the rest of the worlds.<span id='postcolor'>

....surely not more than China? - or North Korea?<span id='postcolor'>

Surely not, but whose Army sees more action and whose army trains more?

If you train, accidents are bound to happen, sometimes we pay in dollars sometimes we pay in lives. Our soldiers are also in more situations where Friendly Fire can be a problem.

[Frisbee 0]

Well it was just sarcasm on the other article.

Suppose I post an article that ridicules the american army a lot of guys here would get high on their horses and take it seriously.Though now,since it's not their army it's just innocent fun.

REPEAT : sarcasm

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Nov. 20 2002,03:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you train, accidents are bound to happen, sometimes we pay in dollars sometimes we pay in lives. Our soldiers are also in more situations where Friendly Fire can be a problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't one of the points of training to prevent accidents?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 20 2002,02:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Friedman's article provided by Akira is more about social structure than NATO itself. I skimmed over it and seems like he wants to talk about how NATO is used as a method of putting some new component in each country's social structure.<span id='postcolor'>

THANK YOU Mr. Moderator Man....

Merely posted because I found his point interesting that NATO is more of a social/ally club now then an the effective fighting treaty that it was.

It seems it is turning more into another form of the EU with America in it, where smaller, economically depressed countries are aloud in more for the merit of being previously Soviet Bloc countries, then for being able to field any fighting force of consequence. And with the dissolution of NATO's reason for being this seems a logical course, as there is no real "collective enemy" that NATO stands against. I'll take it one step further and say that NATO seems more of a military based UN then anything else right now.