Caid Ivik Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 The NATO is a relic of the Cold War and should be abolished rather then expanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leto le Juste Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egeides Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Leto, the USSR no longer exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted 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. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 They should make it World Treaty Organisation and let anyone join :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leto le Juste Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Harkonnen Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I'm disappointed by this news, I'm personally a big fan of the EU. That'll be Russia's pick ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted 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 ;DYou weren't living there, so be quiet about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 NATO won't be able to co-exist with the EU's Army they expect to be putting together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Harkonnen Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Nice. Let EU have it. But then let it is me who is who leads it, at least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leto le Juste Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filecore Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted 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" ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidu Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leto le Juste Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Eh Caid, that is why I spoke about the UssR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted April 2, 2004 Author Share Posted April 2, 2004 Well, I haven't disagreed with you yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 And what's wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.