NATO spreads

Caid Ivik · March 29, 2004

Slovakia has today became a part of NATO, alongside with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgary. This means NATO has attained majority of Black Sea and Baltic coast, centroeuropean aerospace and even three former soviet republics. So, we're finally in. Who thinks it has a reason to be part of that alliance, feel free to comment.

Anathema · March 29, 2004

The NATO is a relic of the Cold War and should be abolished rather then expanded.

Leto le Juste · March 29, 2004

I totally agree with you. USA is wanting to let NATO live because it is the only international organization they control. Furthermore, it is an aim for eastern countries (like Poland, romania,...) 'cause it is a means for them to cut links with UssR. It is understandable. But, for USA, it is not a means to help those countries. For instance, Poland was promised to receive a part of the reconstruction market in Iraq if they come with USA. Now, they have nothing.

Egeides · March 30, 2004

NATO needed a justification of its existence after the Cold War. A turnaround happened when it was given a justification by going in Kosovo (where to attack meant more deaths, not less: thus humanitarian goals are a bit discredited*). Now, after this mutation, it looks like an influence device where many wish to get their share or be kept out. Some sort of Landsraad on some aspects (only SOME aspects, of course).

*If you do not believe me on this, look at what are your reasons, and know to which extent you are sure of yourself: it's an evidence, it's unsure, don't know... [hide]My source is a Pentagon official before the attack. If you were sure of your shot, then you know a bit more how secure your "sure shots" are ;)[/hide]

So NATO seems like a strategical asset, and we see that some are getting closer to the US, by agreement or contraint under consequences.

Wolf · March 30, 2004

Leto, the USSR no longer exists.

Gobalopper · March 30, 2004

It will be a great day when Russia finally joins NATO. Although at that point the name NATO will seem a little odd. :)

Dunenewt · March 30, 2004

They should make it World Treaty Organisation and let anyone join :P

Leto le Juste · March 30, 2004

Leto, the USSR no longer exists.

So, the threat goes away and such a militarian association comptited with UNO is no more efficient

Wolf · March 30, 2004

Leto, you said NATO's aim was to cut ties Eastern Europe had to the USSR. I am telling you that the USSR does not exist. Perhaps you misspoke, or I did not understand you.

Emperor Harkonnen · March 30, 2004

I think that no more countries should join NATO. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It should be restriced to members who border with the north atlantic only, due to its name.

and we must now remove the ties to the USSR. The USSR was a great empire, which I would want to come again ;D

Inoculator9 · March 30, 2004

I'm disappointed by this news, I'm personally a big fan of the EU. That'll be Russia's pick ;)

Caid Ivik · March 30, 2004

I think that no more countries should join NATO. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It should be restriced to members who border with the north atlantic only, due to its name.
and we must now remove the ties to the USSR. The USSR was a great empire, which I would want to come again ;D

You weren't living there, so be quiet about it.

ordos45 · March 31, 2004

NATO won't be able to co-exist with the EU's Army they expect to be putting together.

Emperor Harkonnen · March 31, 2004

USA will have to join the EU. that's a good idea. a great idea. we need more power in the EU. ;D

Caid Ivik · April 1, 2004

Nice. Let EU have it. But then let it is me who is who leads it, at least...

Leto le Juste · April 2, 2004

Leto, you said NATO's aim was to cut ties Eastern Europe had to the USSR. I am telling you that the USSR does not exist. Perhaps you misspoke, or I did not understand you.

I know, I know. It was a misspoke

filecore · April 2, 2004

The NATO is a relic of the Cold War and should be abolished rather then expanded.

Totally. I think NATO is a bad idea. And like was mentioned, this ERDF (iirc that was the name, European Rapid Defence Force?) will stand as a direct alternative, if it ever gets off the ground, although I have my doubts about that too. Anyway NATO membership is a big debate in Finland where about two-thirds don't want to join, but the politicians are a little closer split and of course they make the decisions.

You weren't living there, so be quiet about it.

Yes, I have a lot of friends from Czech Republic and some from Slovakia, and I hear things about those times... I don't think there should be a dominating organisation with that sort of military strength coupled with an imperialistic streak, be it USSR (RIP) or USA. I think multilateral organisations like the UN are a better choice, and having a ERDF made up of bits of all the European countries (and others?) would help to stop any single country doing something silly, whether by design or by accident.

Of course, there's still the old oppositions within Europe and between EU/USA to contend with but, if France and Germany can forget their recent pasts and work together, why can't the rest of us?

"The only difference between a NUclear war and an UNclear war is the way you use the UN" ;)

Davidu · April 2, 2004

For me NATO means no more political independance. That is EU too. I want my country to be independant, not crowding toghether with all the nuts (politically talking).

Why didn't Switzerland join? Why didn't Austria join? Why didn't Sweden join? Why didn't FInland join? Well, those countires have a healthy political class that knows to preserve their rights.

Leto le Juste · April 2, 2004

Eh Caid, that is why I spoke about the UssR.

Caid Ivik · April 2, 2004

Well, I haven't disagreed with you yet.

Edric O · April 3, 2004

"The purpose of NATO is to... err... be an alliance of countries which are... uh, allied... and who wish to ensure peace in the region of... ummmm... wherever peace is necessary..."

That's how it sounds to me at the moment. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, desperately trying to find an excuse for its own existence - and failing miserabely at it.

What exactly is the purpose of NATO? To be an alliance of what countries? (clearly the "North Atlantic" label is obsolete) To fight against what enemy? To preserve what kind of peace in what region?

NATO isn't even synonimous with American hegemony any more, since it includes America's new European rivals. It seems that the only common interest of NATO countries these days is to pretend that they're all one big happy family, when everyone knows they're not.

Over here in Eastern Europe, our politicians' infatuation with NATO is downright pathetic. Everyone is so happy that we finally joined NATO, but nobody seems to know exactly what is there to be so happy about. How exactly is a military alliance going to improve anything in regards to our social and economic problems? And for what purpose did we join NATO? The only answer our government gives to these questions can be summed up as "We joined NATO because NATO is cool".

Wolf · April 3, 2004

Well, NATO is cool. But, I see your point. I think NATO is simply a means through which to further integrate alread-integrated militaries for better efficiency in combat.

Dunenewt · April 5, 2004

And what's wrong with that?

Sign In

NATO spreads

Recommended Posts

Caid Ivik

Anathema

Leto le Juste

Egeides

Wolf

Gobalopper

Dunenewt

Leto le Juste

Wolf

Emperor Harkonnen

Inoculator9

Caid Ivik

ordos45

Emperor Harkonnen

Caid Ivik

Leto le Juste

filecore

Davidu

Leto le Juste

Caid Ivik

Edric O

Wolf

Dunenewt

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information