• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the U.S. leave NATO?

Should the U.S. leave NATO


  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

alphacat

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Now that the Cold War is over, I wondered what benefit, on balance, accrued to the U.S. for being in NATO. It seems to me most of our allies have little military ability and less inclination to use it. In addition, it seems all we are doing is providing a subsidy for the european nanny state.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphacat said:
Now that the Cold War is over, I wondered what benefit, on balance, accrued to the U.S. for being in NATO. It seems to me most of our allies have little military ability and less inclination to use it. In addition, it seems all we are doing is providing a subsidy for the european nanny state.
You are right there. NATO does not benefit the US at all, and since most of Europe has decided that we are the biggest threat in the world.... and not islamic fundamentalism......we should pull out as soon as possible. Ditto for the UN, which is nothing more than an ongoing fashion show....a forum where every dictator on the face of the earth takes turns leading the chorus of America-bashing...while their despotic regimes gain international recognition.

Nato and the UN are for the europeans, who are pacifists, socialists and full of guilt for all the "isms" of their past: colonialism, fascism, imperialism, comunism, anti-semitism, etc...We don't need preaching.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
A preacher is only a few letters off from being a teacher. But ah well, pull your pants high and spank the world, you own it now.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The US should feel guilty of what its done to Latin America they ****ed it for a long time, and now when they're trying to free themselves from US Imperialism, the media does nothing but criticize the countries.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, how did the US dare keep Central America from turning Red! Oh wait that would upset you wouldnt it? :roll:

The Media criticise countries with searous human rights problams what in the hell is going on here.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its also S. America. The serious human rights violations were generally in the past. And you really have no idea what Communism is, there are links in my sig. if you'd like to know more.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I do understand what Communism is, and even if I did not I don't have to understand your version to understand what it would mean for the Soviet Union to suddenly have a plethora of communist states south of the Border. I also dont have to understand what Communism is to udnerstand what the Commumist Regimes were doing at the time.

But all of this is irrelivant because I do understand communism, yes I ahve read Marx's book and yes I know true communism has never been implimented (only because it is not feasible.) but the versions that did exist and were being formed were terrible.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
'Communist Regimes'? What you probably mean are the socialist ones. Totalitarian socialist. Which I don't like much...

And you can't start predicting its not feasable if its never existed. And which of Marx's books.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I bought a hardcover copy of the Communist Manifesto when I was in Tel'Aviv a few years back. As well as Capitol a Critique of Political Economy. I'm not even close to being convinced.


They were never implimented even after attempts were made because people could not do it feasibly.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Communist Manifesto, that's a start, read more, I reccomend Lenin's The State And Revolution. But of course there are thousands of Marxist writings.

But of course Communism doesn't exist untill social classes, capital, government is abolished and it was always estimated that we'd see at least a hundred years of Representative Socialism and then it will probably take more time. Lots of people to help.
 
Last edited:

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Recommending more books wont help...He's obviously against communism or socialism.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

The USA screwed over South America. The USSR would've screwed them too. The cold truth.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Comrade Brian said:
The US should feel guilty of what its done to Latin America they ****ed it for a long time, and now when they're trying to free themselves from US Imperialism, the media does nothing but criticize the countries.
Comrade, will you expand on how the U.S. has f......up Latin America?
 
R

rednuke



It was singer/songwriter Bob Dylan who wrote the infamous lines "the times they are a'changin,'" and the times have certainly changed. When the United Nations and NATO were forced created the world was divided into three distinct geopolitical spheres of influence. One of obviously the United States, the other was the Soviet Union, and China was bringing up the rear spreading its influence over Eastern Asia. However in the past half-decade out world has drastically changed. When the Soviet Union finally economically imploded onto itself, it scattered about a plethora of struggling independent republics, all fully armed, and all very desperate. However, the Soviets also left the United States with a gift. Where there were three powers before, now stood only one, America. It is undeniable that the United States has an enormous economic, political, and military gap with the rest of the world. Now, the United States just has to figure out what to do with its new found dominance, before it dwindles and declines at the hands of superpower candidates such as China, India, and maybe even Russia will make a comeback. Nevertheless, in this new world of sole-superpower politics, the United States now turned against NATO, and rightly so. I believe this will be my only digression and unintelligent remark, but seriously, **** NATO.

I will not even begin to describe to you the numerous NATO failures in this decade... (Ex. Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Liberia, Zimbabwe...etc.etc.) However I will highlight the inadequacies of this so called "Military Peacekeeper." NATO was originally meant to stop soviet influence from spreading... but now with the Soviet Union long dead and buried what's this multi-billion, international military peacekeeper supposed to do. Well in November of 2002 NATO held a summit in Prague where it expanded the alliance from 19 to 26 countries, adding (get this): Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania. Now looking back at the Second Gulf War (pass no judgment on the war on Iraq.. this post has nothing to do with it.. and you cannot deny the clear military victory over the Iraqi ARMY not the Muslim insurgency).. I realized that the war was won easily through advanced military technology. Through the F-18s, the Abrams and Challenger tanks, through the Joint Direct Attack Munitions a.k.a. JDANs, and through the Apache Helicopters... etc. And I began to wonder, "How many F-18s to the Latvians have? How many Abrams or Challenger tanks can the Estonians deploy? How many Apache's will the Slovenians send to battle" and just how many JDANs will a long-standing member of NATO such as Portugal or Spain drop when called upon to do their assigned peacekeeping duties. I, along with numerous military analysts estimate this number to be close to ZERO.

NATO has truly become what Michael Mandelbaum, author of The Ideas that Conquered the World, calls “Club NATO" And Club NATO's purpose seems to be to act as a kind of support group for the newly fledging Eastern European democracies. NATO has become a crutch for these new nations to lean on to help build an economic infrastructure and shed the yoke of communism. NATO is by no means a longer serious fighting force. If... god forbids... an international crisis was to erupt, NATO would be inadequate to handle the crisis because they are simply ill equipped.

So the main question is where to go from here? Certainly the United States, with all of its military superiority cannot act as the world's sword as Austria did for the better part of the 16th century. NATO needs to be replaced, and I propose exactly what Thomas Freedman proposes in his book "Longitudes and Attitudes." He proposes an alliance of the three like-minded English speaking nations, America, Great Britain, and Australia. All three nations are global sea powers, have a tradition of fighting abroad, have the ability to transport troops around the world, and have mobile Special Forces that pack a global reaching punch. He proposes to call this new organization NASTY (Nations Allied to Stop Tyrants) as hilarious as this sound... I would rather see NASTY protecting the security of the world rather then the dilapidated NATO.

NATO has become what I can call a "Dial an Ally". If you want a minesweeper you call Spain, a chemical warfare agent, call Germany, and if you want personnel call Poland. But in this world... if you really want to restore peace to a troubled area, just stay on the line and wait for the US, Great Britain, or Australia to intervene and then you can wage a real modern conflict.

The United States needs to withdraw out of NATO ASAP and set the precedent of a new order of global politics.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well you guy's did orchestrate a bloody,bloody war in Niceragua, though you also got Panamanian Indipendance, and pumped millions into Central and South America and kept Europe from reclaiming land as colleteral from South American and Latin American countries by default forgiving their debt. South America was doing quite well until Cold War struggles began ripping into it. As it has ended America is still the number one aid contributer to South America and Latin America and South America and Latin America's and South America's number one trade partner.

You did not **** it up, but you did some really bad thing's during the Cold War, but you also did some great thing's before the Cold War, and after it, as well as a slight amount during it.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
superskippy said:
Well you guy's did orchestrate a bloody,bloody war in Niceragua, though you also got Panamanian Indipendance, and pumped millions into Central and South America and kept Europe from reclaiming land as colleteral from South American and Latin American countries by default forgiving their debt. South America was doing quite well until Cold War struggles began ripping into it. As it has ended America is still the number one aid contributer to South America and Latin America and South America and Latin America's and South America's number one trade partner.

You did not **** it up, but you did some really bad thing's during the Cold War, but you also did some great thing's before the Cold War, and after it, as well as a slight amount during it.
South America was doing quite well until Cold War struggles? I think not. There wasn't a single democracy in S.A. before the Cold War. There was one in Central America.....and a so-so one in Mexico. Today every country in the Americas, except Cuba is a democracy.

The U.S. made mistakes in the Americas during the Cold War, but then again look at the forces brewing during that time: The Cuban Revolution and Cuban military adventurism in Central and South America, financed by the Soviet Union.....and guerrillas in almost every country.

From the Bogotazo in Colombia in 1948 (in which Fidel Castro participated as a foreign instigator) until the early today, Latin America has been besieged by marxist guerrillas. You are going to make mistakes when you have to deal with groups such as the M-19, Shining Path, ELN, the F.A.R.C., Tupac Amaru, the Sandinistas, FMLN, etc...Colombia has been in perpetual state of war with the guerrillas for more than half a century. Until recently, the FARC (a marxist guerrilla) controlled...unopposed....a territory the size of Switzerland.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
South America was doing quite well until Cold War struggles? I think not. There wasn't a single democracy in S.A. before the Cold War. There was one in Central America.....and a so-so one in Mexico. Today every country in the Americas, except Cuba is a democracy.

Of course there were, what do you think Siman Bolivar's war of liberation against the Europeon's was all about? Bolivia, Argentina, Columbia, Peru, almost all of the S.A. became a democracy or republic of sorts. Who do you think Teddy Roosevelt dickered with for Columbia to leave Panema, the elected Columbian President. Cuba was a democracy for a long time after the American's withdrew. The same goes for Central America.

The U.S. made mistakes in the Americas during the Cold War, but then again look at the forces brewing during that time: The Cuban Revolution and Cuban military adventurism in Central and South America, financed by the Soviet Union.....and guerrillas in almost every country.From the Bogotazo in Colombia in 1948 (in which Fidel Castro participated as a foreign instigator) until the early today, Latin America has been besieged by marxist guerrillas. You are going to make mistakes when you have to deal with groups such as the M-19, Shining Path, ELN, the F.A.R.C., Tupac Amaru, the Sandinistas, FMLN, etc...Colombia has been in perpetual state of war with the guerrillas for more than half a century. Until recently, the FARC (a marxist guerrilla) controlled...unopposed....a territory the size of Switzerland.

Exactly which is why I'm not blaiming you it was a battleground and screwup's along with terrible decisions occured. But so did great idea's and decisions.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
superskippy said:
South America was doing quite well until Cold War struggles? I think not. There wasn't a single democracy in S.A. before the Cold War. There was one in Central America.....and a so-so one in Mexico. Today every country in the Americas, except Cuba is a democracy.

Of course there were, what do you think Siman Bolivar's war of liberation against the Europeon's was all about? Bolivia, Argentina, Columbia, Peru, almost all of the S.A. became a democracy or republic of sorts. Who do you think Teddy Roosevelt dickered with for Columbia to leave Panema, the elected Columbian President. Cuba was a democracy for a long time after the American's withdrew. The same goes for Central America.

The U.S. made mistakes in the Americas during the Cold War, but then again look at the forces brewing during that time: The Cuban Revolution and Cuban military adventurism in Central and South America, financed by the Soviet Union.....and guerrillas in almost every country.From the Bogotazo in Colombia in 1948 (in which Fidel Castro participated as a foreign instigator) until the early today, Latin America has been besieged by marxist guerrillas. You are going to make mistakes when you have to deal with groups such as the M-19, Shining Path, ELN, the F.A.R.C., Tupac Amaru, the Sandinistas, FMLN, etc...Colombia has been in perpetual state of war with the guerrillas for more than half a century. Until recently, the FARC (a marxist guerrilla) controlled...unopposed....a territory the size of Switzerland.

Exactly which is why I'm not blaiming you it was a battleground and screwup's along with terrible decisions occured. But so did great idea's and decisions.
Independence and democracy are two different things. Simon Bolivar (a great admirer of the United States) died a broken man after his dreams of a great South American republic shattered when Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru pulled away from Colombia.

Cuba was riddled by petty dictators such as Machado and Batista and by a string of Presidents whose only aim was to steal as much as possible, as quickly as possible. It should be noted, however, that prior to Castros's Revolution, Cuba was the most advanced country in Latin America, and one of the most developed nations in the world. But politically, they sucked.

In other countries, rulers such as Trujillo, Somoza, Perón, Noriega, Stroessner, Pinochet, etc....followed in the footsteps of their Cuban cousins. Democracy simply wasn't a tradition in our culture...and it was a hard sell.
 
Top Bottom