Does NATO make the world more secure?, page 2


dan 3 April, 2008, 08:50	NATO was first needed as the threat from the Soviet Union against Europe.I remember on many occasions being on the border between East & West Germany.Barbed wire armed patrols mines and many lives lost trying to get to the west and freedom.Russia sowed the seeds so now it is harvest time permalink quote 0 dan
Roman 3 April, 2008, 09:23	NATO is not made to make the World more secure, but to secure the World's wealth exclusively to its members. Thus, the World would be much more secure place if they would give up their aggressive and unjust idea of depriving other nations' their own development means, resources and rights. The best thing would be if they'd dissolve altogether, like the former Warsaw Pact did two decades ago. permalink quote 0 Roman
rambler 3 April, 2008, 09:58	NATO was unable to prevent member Turkey from invading Cyprus in 1974 causing the deaths of 7,000 people, among them hundreds of mainland Greek soldiers stationed in Cyprus. 200,000 were displaced and churches desecrated and vandalized. After 34 years the problem is mostly unresolved. Why is NATO not dealing with problems among its own members first before moving on to the Afghan crisis (leaving aside US demands for NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia)? permalink quote 0 rambler
fred 3 April, 2008, 10:02	sevodnya . i partly agree , but i think the real question is : Does the world need Nato ? i think no ! the goal of that organisation has been gone with the collapse of warsaw-pact . so no need there . the fight against terrorism is NOT (read ABSOLUTELY NOT ) going to be succesful with ANY kind of army !!! sorry to say this , but it is the UK/USA version of the story . irak proove it to be worthless . or to be precise = in afgahnistan what USA spend in ONE month is equal to THREE TIMES the whole aghan state budget for ONE YEAR . of the money promised after US invasion ( or when the talibans were pushed away) what has been REALLY given ? = NOTHING ! = result , afghanis see in Nato , a western invader with a big mouth , empty promises and get back to talibans for some or go back to produce opium for most . at the same time , as a french , i see afghanistan as a US mess . they don't have enough troops there because they are in Irak . fine , but they did the mess = it is normal they clean the mess , themselves !!! Nato is allies , but when the very same aliies told them NOT to go in Irak , were we allies ?? Trying to get Ukrain (very unstable country) or Georgia (only a short term political interest) was a desperate attemp of Mr Bush to have some thing good to be left in his 8 years of office . up to now , nothing is good or working as planned . no need here either ! so what is the point ? to keep permalink quote 0 fred
HH 3 April, 2008, 10:13	Osama Ben Laden and his guys are toddlers compared to NATO, as the latter is a destruction tool. Its target is more than clear. Russia hang on! permalink quote 0 HH
Vijay 3 April, 2008, 10:27	As said before and multiple times by me and others - A strong UN army - regionally strong/worldly accountable is the only answer to present problems/world disorder/future holocaust! Wake up world, wake up Europe, lest we not go to sleep for ever. A world W/O peace is a world W/O a future! permalink quote 0 Vijay
Nick 3 April, 2008, 11:22	Why Why Why do Russians see NATO as a threat???! Surely by now that think is outdated. NATO is not against Russia. Russia would gain much by working with NATO then by being against it. In response to Fred, I should point out that NATO came before the Warsaw pact and that with the end of the cold war it has evolved to meet new threats. These threats are terrorism and rogue states. I would not classify Russia as a rogue state or a failed state. Hence no threat. NATO would never attack Russia. what would be the point and how would NATO do it? An Invasion of Russia by NATO is a fantasy. Even today it would still be an impossible task. NATO can't even get enough troops in Afghanistan and some countries seem very reluctant to go and take the fight to the taleban (eg Italy, Spain, Germany). In addition, splitting up Russia into a large number of fueding states would be a terrible for everyone. A possibly large loss of life as well as a number of waring states with nuclear weapons or those arms falling into the hands of terrorists. It seems to me that a lot of the arguments against NATO are outdated fears of the west. permalink quote 0 Nick
fred 3 April, 2008, 14:34	nick . your comments are hilarious !! ok , so what is the point to have Nato ? to fight terrorism ? : terrorism is something related with the fear you make your enemy to face . if they need to keep an army because of the fear , terrorits already won !! as simple as this ! USA is nowaday governed by fear ( the fear of terrorism , or ecomonics turn-over , or rhat less and less peoples in the world like USA , etc.etc.) but does it change anything ? answer = no ! because americans have fear , they do things to pretend to protect themselves , wich infuriate others . (E.U. and the C.I.A torture center on its own territory , guantanmo and its goulag , puting peoples in custody for years without any charges against them , etc.etc.) look at facts = in afghanistan , taleebans control one third of the country . against them , many (in my opinion too much) soldiers from the best armies in the world , with endless supplies , access to satelite spying and intelligence = result = it doesn't change a iota ! Irak is the same problem at the exception : there is no shortage of troops there and those troops have even more supplies and can use heavy materials (tanks , bombers , you name it , where it is difficult to use in afghanees mountains ) . result = exactly the same ! lesson to be taken = YOU 'll never win against terrorism using conventional forces !!! because terrorism allways advance in disguise . so anybody can be a terrorist ; soldiers need targets easilly identified .!! so the first reason for a Nato is gone-up in smoke , or at least reveal itself as worthless . (nothing new into this , algeria ,vietnam or somalia was the same kind of mistake = using weapons where words and deeds was more powerfull .) rogue state : who is going to decide what is a "rogue state " ??? Nato ? it is not their role ! a group of western countries ? just too few of them .! United Nations ? they are supposed to promote peace , not war ! and i really doubt Mr Bush would like to see US soldiers under U.N. command . (remember USA refused to sign any agreement on use of military power !) so Nato is not needed here as well . so what could be the point ? = to keep European Countries in or out , by this succeding into preventing Europeans to have a common defense system where THEN Russia and all other countries of geographic europ could have a place .! for the sole benefit of USA !! sorry , there isn't any benefit for Europeans to keep Nato . and as to see Russia as a country being afraid of Nato . just ask yourself : would you like to live in a neighborood where every has plenty of guns , bombs and missile . and you , you are forbiden to have any because it would make you looking unfriendly .??? would you ? me , not !! i prefer peacefull places .!!! permalink quote 0 fred
MihalMihalich 3 April, 2008, 15:25	Dear Ladies & Gentlemen NATO is a military organization controlled by all American 4 star general. NATO takes sovereignty away from every member that joins it. U.S. ordered NATO to go to Afghanistan and didn’t ask what Nick or anyone else thinks about it (like in democracy) you were told to go there. If you give control of your military that is supposed to protect only your sovereignty to someone stronger = you no longer free you are a “slave”. NATO is a military union created due to USSR + Warsaw pack THREAT, and when USSR disband WarsawPack and signed treaties to reduce military presence and limit its army and removed ALL THREAT in return U.S. promised to stop NATO expansion. But NATO expanded and made their armies bigger and increased amount of military tanks, jets, helicopters, artillery over limits signed in the treaties. U.S. did not keep its promises and guaranties neither did NATO. NATO is a military union controlled by U.S. and it is expanding without any threat or reason, and it will attack anyone without their will. NATO is like a dog that blindly follows orders of its owner & being fed by American arms. NATO would attack Russia if ordered just like it went to Afghanistan or Iraq or Serbia. NATO has no benefits. Nick if you really think that NATO ended Cold War you only kid yourself, I know Americans like to think that they did, but it is not a Victory is one player stopped playing on its own free will. Victory by default without a shot fired. If U.S. did not use nukes against Japan there would be no occupation in east Europe, Warsaw Pack and Europe in general was a hostage between USSR & U.S.A until Russia was able to develop & produce enough nuclear warheads and missiles like ss18”Satan” & ss20 that would ensure its sovereignty by mutual destruction. After the hostage was no longer necessary so they left alone free and they kept everything USSR/Russia gave them including Production lines, technologies, military for FREE and they never paid even a copyrights fee, because they feel they were used, they don’t care reason “why?”. If NATO expands more & arms with US ABMs that will create risks that would get NATO targeted again & ensure creation of alternative coalition unions such as Caspian countries + Russia + India + China & maybe + some Middle East. And since almost noone knows the truth in the west and guys like Nick don’t use logic to make assumptions why things happen & lack in history they would not have problem with NATO going against Russia and its allies if the time comes. Best Regards. permalink quote 0 MihalMihalich
macedonianbarbarian 3 April, 2008, 15:43	Thanks god Macedonia did not join the gang permalink quote 0 macedonianbarbarian
Sevodnya_Net 3 April, 2008, 16:29	I don't think Nick's comments are hilarious at all - when you have people comparing NATO to Osama Bin Laden I think there are a lot more candidates for the comedy award on this thread to be honest :-) No, Nick is largely correct - however I repeat what I said that NATO is ill- served by George Bush's ill-conceived and ill-timed attempts to shoehorn Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. Like it or not we in the west do have to see this from a Russian perspective too, although I think sometimes the Kremlin deliberately plays up fear of NATO for its own ends. (I think? I know!) NATO is not perfect, and has certainly made errors but it is a well-established alliance offering mutual security to its members and to dismantle it would be, IMO, a retrograde step. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Sanjay 3 April, 2008, 16:31	Nick ".NATO would never attack Russia. what would be the point and how would NATO do it? An Invasion of Russia by NATO is a fantasy. Even today it would still be an impossible task. NATO can't even get enough troops in Afghanistan." You have missed the whole point. Europeans do not want to attack or invade Russia. It is the Americans who want to use NATO as a cover to bring their military-nuclear infrastructure to Russia's borders. The reason why US is pushing for Ukraine's and Georgia's inclusion is because american nuclear tipped missiles will be right on russia's borders, whereas russia's missiles will be thousands of miles away from american mainland. If US wages a nuclear war which it will, the response time needed for Russia's missiles to wage a counter attack will on the order of seconds compared to 20-30 minutes available to US. So US can neutralize almost all land based russian nukes with a first strike and submarine underwater missiles can be neutralized with polish and czech missile-defense. I think the americans are planning to destroy almost all russian population to the west of urals with this first strike, and take away the rich mineral resources to the east of urals. Nuclear primacy will inevitably lead to nuclear first strike and destruction of Russia and russian civilization. permalink quote 0 Sanjay
IP 3 April, 2008, 18:28	Nick, I feen you are getting overboard with your suggestions of possible US nuclear attack against russia. This attack would be more than likely to cause retalliation from russians and they will strike back. This sort of strike is likely to take place from space, so the bases in Poland may proove to be of no use. Destruction of life in the whole world would be inevitable then. NATO, to my disappointment is currently led by the US, however Mr Bush only has few months in his office and is NOT terribly popular back home and in other countries. The next US president should hopefully have a different agenda on that issue. NATO, I feel is more of a political rather than millitary organisation these days, therefore its membership is clearly symbolical. What would it bring to say Ukraine? Either Ukraine or Georgia are NOT at danger of beeing attacked by any country at the moment! They have been ingdependent from russia for ver 20yrs now and there has never been a threat towards them. permalink quote 0 IP
Vijay Singh 3 April, 2008, 19:05	Nick says - Why Why Why do Russians see NATO as a threat???! Surely by now that think is outdated. NATO is not against Russia. Russia would gain much by working with NATO then by being against it. Let’s clarify a thing or two - Are you saying that RF would gain much by working [with] NATO or by being [in] NATO?? There's a vast difference in the two. Russia is already working [with] NATO in number of ways.Joint exercises, various arms control pacts, supply routes, anti-drug/anti-terrorism measures etc etc. About joining NATO, Russians would welcome it along with a host of allies/other countries such as China, India, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudis, many others. NATO could, if it wanted, easily become the military arm for UN, which has an ineffective peace keeping force. In fact the UN sec gen was in Bucharest regards the Afghan affair, which even Russia, is interested in resolving, unlike US, during USSR days in Afghanistan, and thus the Bin-Ladens were created! As far as [in] NATO is concerned, is NATO, more specifically, the Pentagon willing? For that would mean granting veto powers to Russia, and creating an alternative power structure within NATO itself. NO is the answer, even before they answer it themselves!! NATO today is a single tier organization, with only Germany and to an extent France offering any kind of resistance to the Pentagon's views/directions., For in NATO, what US wants NATO does/goes, otherwise the usual 'kind' threats of ignoring or veiled threats are offered! That we have already witnessed. No, the ultimate aim of NATO or rather the masters, who control NATO, is very different. It aims in 'TOTAL CONTROL' of the earth and it’s resources/even its future. It aims in elimination of present/future threats to this agenda, and it sees the RF and China as primary threats. It aims to control population, food, water, natural resources, even climate change! The real NATO masters are a tiny group of people - International financiers, kings, and political people including a president etc and others. However, common to all these people and interests is 'CONTROL' and the basic instrument - military muscle combined of course with media manipulation, financial control, and the control of sea-lanes/oceanic trade routes!! And the best instrument - of course the US army or by extension NATO (wolf in the sheep's attire) Their greatest fear - human fodder - thus this drive to include more and more members.For the Old Europeans want out and the Americans are sick and tired of the body bags… Look out, either this veto goes fast or NATO goes fast OR NON-'CORE' NATO nations go into virtual hibernation for years, maybe decades/centuries, till these US/Neo-con puppet 'advanced western' nations take off for greener pastures (somewhere far far away)after having stripped the earth bare and having lived off its resources grandly/richly. Maybe they’ll take some really bright people from their ‘devoted slave nations’ as well, as a reward for their [Human sacrifices]. For does not anyone learn anything by observing this frenetic search for new habitable planets/this entire ‘Hoax’ of Global warming…? Thus eventually only one set of laws/one rule/ONE IDEOLOGY will survive – The neo-con or …? Be happy, for the journey is just beginning.! And maybe that elusive beep will finally arrive in the sounds of the "stars and stripes" from somewhere FAR out in space.abroad a much younger/greener/more richly endowed [New Earth] For take a bet - that's going to be the name as well!! Remember New York. permalink quote 0 Vijay Singh
chris 3 April, 2008, 20:12	NATO is a cold war alliance looking for new wars. It has a war in Afghanistan on the go. It has a new occupation in Kosovo. It has dismembered a European state for the first time since the second world war. It supports the deployment of American missiles aimed at Russian missiles. America may be safer Europe isn't. permalink quote 0 chris
johann 3 April, 2008, 22:57	Some of you put the question of attack on Russia on the table.Well,some of them are very interesting .The following question has to be put also : the attack might ocure nuclear or conventional or mixed? If we are looking to the Allies Forces there three important things : 1) there are no more subscribts-armyes in the West.That means that in case of a major war will be less reservists to catch in,the time for instruct new soldiers will be short,if the proffesional soldiers in the first phase will have huge casualties who will replace them?The Western armies have sophisticated weaponerry wich needs long time to use it properely without hurting yourself.The combatant soldiers have to be trained efficiently ;phisically,psichically,technically. Seeing today's youth,hardly can belive that they are redy to go to war,except the proffesionals.But whatever well prepared may be,an invading army (soldier) will never have the fighting spirit of that who is defending his own country.I don't see in the West ,among ordinary people the willigness to fight,don't see how could they be indoctrinised in such a way that millons of young people to join the Army(has to happen something horrific).The Western societies - as far as I now - generally are against war but the wars are made by politicians who are staying in safety. 2) For making a war in Europe is needed a "Casus Belli" wich has to be created in a very provocative way by some kind of "covert action" and underlined by huge propaganda.The "sample" for this was made in Yugoslavia and was a totally "success",with the "help" of Milosevich who made a huge military mistake. 3) this is related with nr.1-->the newly joined countries have enough human force :- these countries have been more or less under soviet "occupation",these countries have a huge unemploiment rate,these countries have made a relentless propaganda against Russia , posting it as the Greatest danger.So,from these countries can be recruited the fighters.There are a few "Generals Vlasov" around Russia:can be recruited fromBaltic states,Poland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria,Croatia,Albania,Gruzia,Ukraine,maybe some arab states,south-American states whom desire is to get into US-but first signing to fight for that. Attacking a country you have to occupy it anyway,therefore you need troops.As we see US is now in a big trubble with these "inconvinients"of war. (All this may be just a fiction in short words) permalink quote 0 johann
SepheronX 4 April, 2008, 01:48	I think that the NATO expansion is all in favor of the United States and their plans to move missiles to Ukraine and Georgia. Since Russia cannot seem to win the love of the Bush Loving countries like Ukraine and Georgia (I strongly feel they were placed in power (leaders of those countries) by the American government), they should build more and greater Missile defense shields and Radar jammers alongside their borders, in Belarus, send more to Venezuela, and finally, send them into Cuba (along with ICBM's), and the breakaway nations of Georgia. So they both have the close proximity of the United states from the Western Hispanic countries, and they are more then protected against NATO's weapons if they ever decide to try and attack Russia. No, NATO itself would not Attack Russia, but in the end, they will be forced to, because the United States will create the conflict. permalink quote 0 SepheronX
Andrew 4 April, 2008, 04:40	I guess NATO (i.e. the US) plays a very dangerous game. Russia isn't gonna stand still and this will impose new instability in Europe. The problem is that Russia doesn't have a choice when NATO coming to its borders. Why NATO is coming closer ? They might have some sort of plan it seems permalink quote 0 Andrew
fred 4 April, 2008, 06:16	sevodnya . when i wrote "hilarious" it was not in the way "funny" . but more in the way of something foolish ! one thing on what we disagree = Nato and its role , to say there is any . Ukrain and Georgia was just an other attemp from US mad foreign policies to spread evil divisions . as usual , nothing new into that ; in the Roman Empire it was already konwn : "if you want to rule , divide !" if you understand this , then you'll understand the reason why US could have had some interests into "funding" the "coloured" revolutions . you wrote "nato give mutual security" ok , may be . but against what ? look at reality , taking off your stars and striped glasses . who can be a threat in the world of today for any european country ? in our own geographic boundaries ? apart , may be , Belarus or transnistria ( which could be overtaken by any sized regular army of any western power , if not directly thrown-out by its own peoples for doing such madness ) could be tempted to do anything so stupidly pointless . so we do not have threat in our lands that can be fought this regular means .! as for terrorism : the Nazi army fought against "terrorism" , they couldn't win . the french army fought against algerian "terrorists" , they couldn't win . british army fought against terrorism in many occasion , they never won , look at ireland . soviet army fought against "terrorists" in afghanistan , they didn't win . why ? because armies and wars never win ANY peace ! and armies are giant bodies trying to get on a myriad of individuals called "terrorists" ( if you prefer : when you have mosquitos in your home , do you try to get rid of them using mortars ?) at the best maximum they prepare grounds for political solutions ! In afghanistan , nowaday , few countries spend too much money to keep too many soldiers or not enough to do a good job and then leave . because if it is done this way , then ACTS and PROMISES would have to be fullfilled . and not a single country involved there wants to give an opportunity for afghanee to rebuild their country : because no one TRUST them enough ! so we spend many more than a true reconstruction would cost , and if the country would be reconstructed chances that afghanees would care about themselve peacefully would be much greater . exactly like the attemp of Mr Bush with Ukrain .(against Russia !) in french there is a saying for this , it is : "to drop oil on fire ." permalink quote 0 fred
Rad 4 April, 2008, 06:48	Sevodnya_Net writes April 3, 2008, 20:29: "I don't think Nick's comments are hilarious at all - when you have people comparing NATO to Osama Bin Laden I think there are a lot more candidates for the comedy award on this thread to be honest :-)" ---------------------------------------------- If you have family and loved ones killed both by NATO and Al Queda. Both are one and the same to you, i.e. your enemy. What's funny or difficult to understand about that? What's funny is those places claiming to be a democracy and those jumping the democracy bandwagon. It's even funnier if they think anyone believes them. permalink quote 0 Rad

dan 3 April, 2008, 08:50

NATO was first needed as the threat from the Soviet Union against Europe.I remember on many occasions being on the border between East & West Germany.Barbed wire armed patrols mines and many lives lost trying to get to the west and freedom.Russia sowed the seeds so now it is harvest time

permalink quote dan

Roman 3 April, 2008, 09:23

NATO is not made to make the World more secure, but to secure the World's wealth exclusively to its members. Thus, the World would be much more secure place if they would give up their aggressive and unjust idea of depriving other nations' their own development means, resources and rights. The best thing would be if they'd dissolve altogether, like the former Warsaw Pact did two decades ago.

permalink quote Roman

rambler 3 April, 2008, 09:58

NATO was unable to prevent member Turkey from invading Cyprus in 1974 causing the deaths of 7,000 people, among them hundreds of mainland Greek soldiers stationed in Cyprus. 200,000 were displaced and churches desecrated and vandalized. After 34 years the problem is mostly unresolved. Why is NATO not dealing with problems among its own members first before moving on to the Afghan crisis (leaving aside US demands for NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia)?

permalink quote rambler

fred 3 April, 2008, 10:02

sevodnya . i partly agree , but i think the real question is : Does the world need Nato ? i think no ! the goal of that organisation has been gone with the collapse of warsaw-pact . so no need there . the fight against terrorism is NOT (read ABSOLUTELY NOT ) going to be succesful with ANY kind of army !!! sorry to say this , but it is the UK/USA version of the story . irak proove it to be worthless . or to be precise = in afgahnistan what USA spend in ONE month is equal to THREE TIMES the whole aghan state budget for ONE YEAR . of the money promised after US invasion ( or when the talibans were pushed away) what has been REALLY given ? = NOTHING ! = result , afghanis see in Nato , a western invader with a big mouth , empty promises and get back to talibans for some or go back to produce opium for most . at the same time , as a french , i see afghanistan as a US mess . they don't have enough troops there because they are in Irak . fine , but they did the mess = it is normal they clean the mess , themselves !!! Nato is allies , but when the very same aliies told them NOT to go in Irak , were we allies ?? Trying to get Ukrain (very unstable country) or Georgia (only a short term political interest) was a desperate attemp of Mr Bush to have some thing good to be left in his 8 years of office . up to now , nothing is good or working as planned . no need here either ! so what is the point ? to keep

permalink quote fred

HH 3 April, 2008, 10:13

Osama Ben Laden and his guys are toddlers compared to NATO, as the latter is a destruction tool. Its target is more than clear. Russia hang on!

permalink quote HH

Vijay 3 April, 2008, 10:27

As said before and multiple times by me and others - A strong UN army - regionally strong/worldly accountable is the only answer to present problems/world disorder/future holocaust! Wake up world, wake up Europe, lest we not go to sleep for ever. A world W/O peace is a world W/O a future!

permalink quote Vijay

Nick 3 April, 2008, 11:22

Why Why Why do Russians see NATO as a threat???! Surely by now that think is outdated. NATO is not against Russia. Russia would gain much by working with NATO then by being against it. In response to Fred, I should point out that NATO came before the Warsaw pact and that with the end of the cold war it has evolved to meet new threats. These threats are terrorism and rogue states. I would not classify Russia as a rogue state or a failed state. Hence no threat. NATO would never attack Russia. what would be the point and how would NATO do it? An Invasion of Russia by NATO is a fantasy. Even today it would still be an impossible task. NATO can't even get enough troops in Afghanistan and some countries seem very reluctant to go and take the fight to the taleban (eg Italy, Spain, Germany). In addition, splitting up Russia into a large number of fueding states would be a terrible for everyone. A possibly large loss of life as well as a number of waring states with nuclear weapons or those arms falling into the hands of terrorists. It seems to me that a lot of the arguments against NATO are outdated fears of the west.

permalink quote Nick

fred 3 April, 2008, 14:34

nick . your comments are hilarious !! ok , so what is the point to have Nato ? to fight terrorism ? : terrorism is something related with the fear you make your enemy to face . if they need to keep an army because of the fear , terrorits already won !! as simple as this ! USA is nowaday governed by fear ( the fear of terrorism , or ecomonics turn-over , or rhat less and less peoples in the world like USA , etc.etc.) but does it change anything ? answer = no ! because americans have fear , they do things to pretend to protect themselves , wich infuriate others . (E.U. and the C.I.A torture center on its own territory , guantanmo and its goulag , puting peoples in custody for years without any charges against them , etc.etc.) look at facts = in afghanistan , taleebans control one third of the country . against them , many (in my opinion too much) soldiers from the best armies in the world , with endless supplies , access to satelite spying and intelligence = result = it doesn't change a iota ! Irak is the same problem at the exception : there is no shortage of troops there and those troops have even more supplies and can use heavy materials (tanks , bombers , you name it , where it is difficult to use in afghanees mountains ) . result = exactly the same ! lesson to be taken = YOU 'll never win against terrorism using conventional forces !!! because terrorism allways advance in disguise . so anybody can be a terrorist ; soldiers need targets easilly identified .!! so the first reason for a Nato is gone-up in smoke , or at least reveal itself as worthless . (nothing new into this , algeria ,vietnam or somalia was the same kind of mistake = using weapons where words and deeds was more powerfull .) rogue state : who is going to decide what is a "rogue state " ??? Nato ? it is not their role ! a group of western countries ? just too few of them .! United Nations ? they are supposed to promote peace , not war ! and i really doubt Mr Bush would like to see US soldiers under U.N. command . (remember USA refused to sign any agreement on use of military power !) so Nato is not needed here as well . so what could be the point ? = to keep European Countries in or out , by this succeding into preventing Europeans to have a common defense system where THEN Russia and all other countries of geographic europ could have a place .! for the sole benefit of USA !! sorry , there isn't any benefit for Europeans to keep Nato . and as to see Russia as a country being afraid of Nato . just ask yourself : would you like to live in a neighborood where every has plenty of guns , bombs and missile . and you , you are forbiden to have any because it would make you looking unfriendly .??? would you ? me , not !! i prefer peacefull places .!!!

permalink quote fred

MihalMihalich 3 April, 2008, 15:25

Dear Ladies & Gentlemen NATO is a military organization controlled by all American 4 star general. NATO takes sovereignty away from every member that joins it. U.S. ordered NATO to go to Afghanistan and didn’t ask what Nick or anyone else thinks about it (like in democracy) you were told to go there. If you give control of your military that is supposed to protect only your sovereignty to someone stronger = you no longer free you are a “slave”. NATO is a military union created due to USSR + Warsaw pack THREAT, and when USSR disband WarsawPack and signed treaties to reduce military presence and limit its army and removed ALL THREAT in return U.S. promised to stop NATO expansion. But NATO expanded and made their armies bigger and increased amount of military tanks, jets, helicopters, artillery over limits signed in the treaties. U.S. did not keep its promises and guaranties neither did NATO. NATO is a military union controlled by U.S. and it is expanding without any threat or reason, and it will attack anyone without their will. NATO is like a dog that blindly follows orders of its owner & being fed by American arms. NATO would attack Russia if ordered just like it went to Afghanistan or Iraq or Serbia. NATO has no benefits. Nick if you really think that NATO ended Cold War you only kid yourself, I know Americans like to think that they did, but it is not a Victory is one player stopped playing on its own free will. Victory by default without a shot fired. If U.S. did not use nukes against Japan there would be no occupation in east Europe, Warsaw Pack and Europe in general was a hostage between USSR & U.S.A until Russia was able to develop & produce enough nuclear warheads and missiles like ss18”Satan” & ss20 that would ensure its sovereignty by mutual destruction. After the hostage was no longer necessary so they left alone free and they kept everything USSR/Russia gave them including Production lines, technologies, military for FREE and they never paid even a copyrights fee, because they feel they were used, they don’t care reason “why?”. If NATO expands more & arms with US ABMs that will create risks that would get NATO targeted again & ensure creation of alternative coalition unions such as Caspian countries + Russia + India + China & maybe + some Middle East. And since almost noone knows the truth in the west and guys like Nick don’t use logic to make assumptions why things happen & lack in history they would not have problem with NATO going against Russia and its allies if the time comes. Best Regards.

permalink quote MihalMihalich

macedonianbarbarian 3 April, 2008, 15:43

Thanks god Macedonia did not join the gang

permalink quote macedonianbarbarian

Sevodnya_Net 3 April, 2008, 16:29

I don't think Nick's comments are hilarious at all - when you have people comparing NATO to Osama Bin Laden I think there are a lot more candidates for the comedy award on this thread to be honest :-) No, Nick is largely correct - however I repeat what I said that NATO is ill- served by George Bush's ill-conceived and ill-timed attempts to shoehorn Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. Like it or not we in the west do have to see this from a Russian perspective too, although I think sometimes the Kremlin deliberately plays up fear of NATO for its own ends. (I think? I know!) NATO is not perfect, and has certainly made errors but it is a well-established alliance offering mutual security to its members and to dismantle it would be, IMO, a retrograde step.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Sanjay 3 April, 2008, 16:31

Nick ".NATO would never attack Russia. what would be the point and how would NATO do it? An Invasion of Russia by NATO is a fantasy. Even today it would still be an impossible task. NATO can't even get enough troops in Afghanistan." You have missed the whole point. Europeans do not want to attack or invade Russia. It is the Americans who want to use NATO as a cover to bring their military-nuclear infrastructure to Russia's borders. The reason why US is pushing for Ukraine's and Georgia's inclusion is because american nuclear tipped missiles will be right on russia's borders, whereas russia's missiles will be thousands of miles away from american mainland. If US wages a nuclear war which it will, the response time needed for Russia's missiles to wage a counter attack will on the order of seconds compared to 20-30 minutes available to US. So US can neutralize almost all land based russian nukes with a first strike and submarine underwater missiles can be neutralized with polish and czech missile-defense. I think the americans are planning to destroy almost all russian population to the west of urals with this first strike, and take away the rich mineral resources to the east of urals. Nuclear primacy will inevitably lead to nuclear first strike and destruction of Russia and russian civilization.

permalink quote Sanjay

IP 3 April, 2008, 18:28

Nick, I feen you are getting overboard with your suggestions of possible US nuclear attack against russia. This attack would be more than likely to cause retalliation from russians and they will strike back. This sort of strike is likely to take place from space, so the bases in Poland may proove to be of no use. Destruction of life in the whole world would be inevitable then. NATO, to my disappointment is currently led by the US, however Mr Bush only has few months in his office and is NOT terribly popular back home and in other countries. The next US president should hopefully have a different agenda on that issue. NATO, I feel is more of a political rather than millitary organisation these days, therefore its membership is clearly symbolical. What would it bring to say Ukraine? Either Ukraine or Georgia are NOT at danger of beeing attacked by any country at the moment! They have been ingdependent from russia for ver 20yrs now and there has never been a threat towards them.

permalink quote IP

Vijay Singh 3 April, 2008, 19:05

Nick says - Why Why Why do Russians see NATO as a threat???! Surely by now that think is outdated. NATO is not against Russia. Russia would gain much by working with NATO then by being against it. Let’s clarify a thing or two - Are you saying that RF would gain much by working [with] NATO or by being [in] NATO?? There's a vast difference in the two. Russia is already working [with] NATO in number of ways.Joint exercises, various arms control pacts, supply routes, anti-drug/anti-terrorism measures etc etc. About joining NATO, Russians would welcome it along with a host of allies/other countries such as China, India, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudis, many others. NATO could, if it wanted, easily become the military arm for UN, which has an ineffective peace keeping force. In fact the UN sec gen was in Bucharest regards the Afghan affair, which even Russia, is interested in resolving, unlike US, during USSR days in Afghanistan, and thus the Bin-Ladens were created! As far as [in] NATO is concerned, is NATO, more specifically, the Pentagon willing? For that would mean granting veto powers to Russia, and creating an alternative power structure within NATO itself. NO is the answer, even before they answer it themselves!! NATO today is a single tier organization, with only Germany and to an extent France offering any kind of resistance to the Pentagon's views/directions., For in NATO, what US wants NATO does/goes, otherwise the usual 'kind' threats of ignoring or veiled threats are offered! That we have already witnessed. No, the ultimate aim of NATO or rather the masters, who control NATO, is very different. It aims in 'TOTAL CONTROL' of the earth and it’s resources/even its future. It aims in elimination of present/future threats to this agenda, and it sees the RF and China as primary threats. It aims to control population, food, water, natural resources, even climate change! The real NATO masters are a tiny group of people - International financiers, kings, and political people including a president etc and others. However, common to all these people and interests is 'CONTROL' and the basic instrument - military muscle combined of course with media manipulation, financial control, and the control of sea-lanes/oceanic trade routes!! And the best instrument - of course the US army or by extension NATO (wolf in the sheep's attire) Their greatest fear - human fodder - thus this drive to include more and more members.For the Old Europeans want out and the Americans are sick and tired of the body bags… Look out, either this veto goes fast or NATO goes fast OR NON-'CORE' NATO nations go into virtual hibernation for years, maybe decades/centuries, till these US/Neo-con puppet 'advanced western' nations take off for greener pastures (somewhere far far away)after having stripped the earth bare and having lived off its resources grandly/richly. Maybe they’ll take some really bright people from their ‘devoted slave nations’ as well, as a reward for their [Human sacrifices]. For does not anyone learn anything by observing this frenetic search for new habitable planets/this entire ‘Hoax’ of Global warming…? Thus eventually only one set of laws/one rule/ONE IDEOLOGY will survive – The neo-con or …? Be happy, for the journey is just beginning.! And maybe that elusive beep will finally arrive in the sounds of the "stars and stripes" from somewhere FAR out in space.abroad a much younger/greener/more richly endowed [New Earth] For take a bet - that's going to be the name as well!! Remember New York.

permalink quote Vijay Singh

chris 3 April, 2008, 20:12

NATO is a cold war alliance looking for new wars. It has a war in Afghanistan on the go. It has a new occupation in Kosovo. It has dismembered a European state for the first time since the second world war. It supports the deployment of American missiles aimed at Russian missiles. America may be safer Europe isn't.

permalink quote chris

johann 3 April, 2008, 22:57

Some of you put the question of attack on Russia on the table.Well,some of them are very interesting .The following question has to be put also : the attack might ocure nuclear or conventional or mixed? If we are looking to the Allies Forces there three important things : 1) there are no more subscribts-armyes in the West.That means that in case of a major war will be less reservists to catch in,the time for instruct new soldiers will be short,if the proffesional soldiers in the first phase will have huge casualties who will replace them?The Western armies have sophisticated weaponerry wich needs long time to use it properely without hurting yourself.The combatant soldiers have to be trained efficiently ;phisically,psichically,technically. Seeing today's youth,hardly can belive that they are redy to go to war,except the proffesionals.But whatever well prepared may be,an invading army (soldier) will never have the fighting spirit of that who is defending his own country.I don't see in the West ,among ordinary people the willigness to fight,don't see how could they be indoctrinised in such a way that millons of young people to join the Army(has to happen something horrific).The Western societies - as far as I now - generally are against war but the wars are made by politicians who are staying in safety. 2) For making a war in Europe is needed a "Casus Belli" wich has to be created in a very provocative way by some kind of "covert action" and underlined by huge propaganda.The "sample" for this was made in Yugoslavia and was a totally "success",with the "help" of Milosevich who made a huge military mistake. 3) this is related with nr.1-->the newly joined countries have enough human force :- these countries have been more or less under soviet "occupation",these countries have a huge unemploiment rate,these countries have made a relentless propaganda against Russia , posting it as the Greatest danger.So,from these countries can be recruited the fighters.There are a few "Generals Vlasov" around Russia:can be recruited fromBaltic states,Poland,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria,Croatia,Albania,Gruzia,Ukraine,maybe some arab states,south-American states whom desire is to get into US-but first signing to fight for that. Attacking a country you have to occupy it anyway,therefore you need troops.As we see US is now in a big trubble with these "inconvinients"of war. (All this may be just a fiction in short words)

permalink quote johann

SepheronX 4 April, 2008, 01:48

I think that the NATO expansion is all in favor of the United States and their plans to move missiles to Ukraine and Georgia. Since Russia cannot seem to win the love of the Bush Loving countries like Ukraine and Georgia (I strongly feel they were placed in power (leaders of those countries) by the American government), they should build more and greater Missile defense shields and Radar jammers alongside their borders, in Belarus, send more to Venezuela, and finally, send them into Cuba (along with ICBM's), and the breakaway nations of Georgia. So they both have the close proximity of the United states from the Western Hispanic countries, and they are more then protected against NATO's weapons if they ever decide to try and attack Russia. No, NATO itself would not Attack Russia, but in the end, they will be forced to, because the United States will create the conflict.

permalink quote SepheronX

Andrew 4 April, 2008, 04:40

I guess NATO (i.e. the US) plays a very dangerous game. Russia isn't gonna stand still and this will impose new instability in Europe. The problem is that Russia doesn't have a choice when NATO coming to its borders. Why NATO is coming closer ? They might have some sort of plan it seems

permalink quote Andrew

fred 4 April, 2008, 06:16

sevodnya . when i wrote "hilarious" it was not in the way "funny" . but more in the way of something foolish ! one thing on what we disagree = Nato and its role , to say there is any . Ukrain and Georgia was just an other attemp from US mad foreign policies to spread evil divisions . as usual , nothing new into that ; in the Roman Empire it was already konwn : "if you want to rule , divide !" if you understand this , then you'll understand the reason why US could have had some interests into "funding" the "coloured" revolutions . you wrote "nato give mutual security" ok , may be . but against what ? look at reality , taking off your stars and striped glasses . who can be a threat in the world of today for any european country ? in our own geographic boundaries ? apart , may be , Belarus or transnistria ( which could be overtaken by any sized regular army of any western power , if not directly thrown-out by its own peoples for doing such madness ) could be tempted to do anything so stupidly pointless . so we do not have threat in our lands that can be fought this regular means .! as for terrorism : the Nazi army fought against "terrorism" , they couldn't win . the french army fought against algerian "terrorists" , they couldn't win . british army fought against terrorism in many occasion , they never won , look at ireland . soviet army fought against "terrorists" in afghanistan , they didn't win . why ? because armies and wars never win ANY peace ! and armies are giant bodies trying to get on a myriad of individuals called "terrorists" ( if you prefer : when you have mosquitos in your home , do you try to get rid of them using mortars ?) at the best maximum they prepare grounds for political solutions ! In afghanistan , nowaday , few countries spend too much money to keep too many soldiers or not enough to do a good job and then leave . because if it is done this way , then ACTS and PROMISES would have to be fullfilled . and not a single country involved there wants to give an opportunity for afghanee to rebuild their country : because no one TRUST them enough ! so we spend many more than a true reconstruction would cost , and if the country would be reconstructed chances that afghanees would care about themselve peacefully would be much greater . exactly like the attemp of Mr Bush with Ukrain .(against Russia !) in french there is a saying for this , it is : "to drop oil on fire ."

permalink quote fred

Rad 4 April, 2008, 06:48

Sevodnya_Net writes April 3, 2008, 20:29: "I don't think Nick's comments are hilarious at all - when you have people comparing NATO to Osama Bin Laden I think there are a lot more candidates for the comedy award on this thread to be honest :-)" ---------------------------------------------- If you have family and loved ones killed both by NATO and Al Queda. Both are one and the same to you, i.e. your enemy. What's funny or difficult to understand about that? What's funny is those places claiming to be a democracy and those jumping the democracy bandwagon. It's even funnier if they think anyone believes them.

permalink quote Rad

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields