Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    The blame is pretty one-sided here.

    The U.S. has been going off on its own cockamamy missions to procure oil for the past 10+ years, expecting NATO to help or clean up the mess. The only mission I agree with is Afghanistan. The rest are U.S. vendettas that the other nations should have no part of.

    If the U.S. pulls out of NATO then it's because the U.S. wants to, not because other countries aren't doing their jobs.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Does not matter if you are talking about NATO or the UN the US usually has the leadership to handle these situations this is not the case with Obama as president.
    This Libyan episode is a demonstration of a serious NATO weakness, as well as America's. Recall how the Coalition troops rolled into Iraq with the most powerful military force in world history? Now they can't even defeat a two-bit third world dictator despite over two months of trying, and having America break its own laws in the process.

    At one time, in fact throughout history, the idea of war was to win as quickly as possible but now, for purely political reasons, wars must be fought as though wars aren't really being fought. It seems that, at well over 200 years old, America is becoming senile.

  3. #13
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    I disagree with US weakness displayed. The NATO alliance which took over control of the Libya operation has been running out of ammunition, etc. The US has been there to hold its hand, and frankly our problem is we want to stop doing that. How exactly is the NATO alliance helping keep the US safe? The simple answer is, apart from England and France, it is not. We are keeping them safe for nothing in return.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    I disagree with US weakness displayed. The NATO alliance which took over control of the Libya operation has been running out of ammunition, etc. The US has been there to hold its hand, and frankly our problem is we want to stop doing that. How exactly is the NATO alliance helping keep the US safe? The simple answer is, apart from England and France, it is not. We are keeping them safe for nothing in return.
    It doesn't seem that the US is keeping them safe from anything in particular as Libya is no threat to anyone.

    If they are running out of ammunition it sounds like it was all very poorly planned and it is also incredibly poorly executed.

    BHO does not appear to be a wartime president, and neither do the others. Canada is in only because the new government wants to be a good ally, it seems, but Canada should just leave as well. Fight to win or don't bother.

  5. #15
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    It doesn't seem that the US is keeping them safe from anything in particular as Libya is no threat to anyone.

    If they are running out of ammunition it sounds like it was all very poorly planned and it is also incredibly poorly executed.

    BHO does not appear to be a wartime president, and neither do the others. Canada is in only because the new government wants to be a good ally, it seems, but Canada should just leave as well. Fight to win or don't bother.
    That's not what I mean. NATO = collective security. We are not benefiting from NATO. They are benefiting from us. Under nato provisions if Russia suddenly attacks Poland then we consider it an attack on our own soil and we involve ourselves. If China attacks the US, what benefit are we getting from European nations other than France, england, and Germany?

  6. #16
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” Mr. Gates said.
    Without American involvement, the world will become a much more dangerous place.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    That's not what I mean. NATO = collective security. We are not benefiting from NATO. They are benefiting from us. Under nato provisions if Russia suddenly attacks Poland then we consider it an attack on our own soil and we involve ourselves. If China attacks the US, what benefit are we getting from European nations other than France, england, and Germany?
    Five out of 28 NATO countries are involved in this Libya fiasco so it hardly makes it a NATO exercise. The US is carrying NATO just as they're carrying the UN.

    The Cold War is over and NATO, like the UN, is no longer necessary. Best for the serious democracies to withdraw from this out-dated organization and re-group into an effective force where the entry levels, and the requirements, are far more stringent. Our tax dollars are being wasted on frivolous expeditions where the objectives are unclear and the outcome uncertain.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Without American involvement, the world will become a much more dangerous place.
    I agree, and there has to be more serious involvement and commitment from other countries.

  9. #19
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Five out of 28 NATO countries are involved in this Libya fiasco so it hardly makes it a NATO exercise. The US is carrying NATO just as they're carrying the UN.

    The Cold War is over and NATO, like the UN, is no longer necessary. Best for the serious democracies to withdraw from this out-dated organization and re-group into an effective force where the entry levels, and the requirements, are far more stringent. Our tax dollars are being wasted on frivolous expeditions where the objectives are unclear and the outcome uncertain.
    Why withdraw and create a new one that does the same thing? Raise the requirements right now for the current organization. If these European nations don't want to put the money in, then too bad, you aren't getting collective defense. England, France, and Germany have shown they are willing, along with Canada. I don't know of any others that have.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    Why withdraw and create a new one that does the same thing? Raise the requirements right now for the current organization. If these European nations don't want to put the money in, then too bad, you aren't getting collective defense. England, France, and Germany have shown they are willing, along with Canada. I don't know of any others that have.
    Yes, that's another alternative, Gargantuan, and one that makes good sense. I'd like to see this 'coalition of the willing' become another type of UN, but without the involvement of any dictatorships.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •