Should NATO Still Exist?

[TheDemSocialist]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Are you excluding the possibility of aliens in your question?

 

[Sherman123]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Yes definitely. However NATO should be transformed into a global 'NATO' in an effort to create a concert of military alliances between democratic states.

 

[Porchev]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

I do like NATO's purpose:

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949. In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping.

 

[Ad_Captandum]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Yes, of course. It is a mutually beneficial (and HUGELY beneficial) political and military alliance between the most powerful nations in the world. Why would we want that split up? The only think that would serve would be to allow our enemies to exploit rifts between us.

 

[The German]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Yes.

And it should be expanded for other democracies to enter. Such as South Korea, Australia, India, Brasil and South Africa.

A democratic military alliance is important in a world with countries such as Putins Russia.

on the subject, you seem to be spending to much time on RT.

 

[Paleocon]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Yes, but we shouldn't keep expanding it in an attempt to one-up Russia.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Yes.

And it should be expanded for other democracies to enter. Such as South Korea, Australia, India, Brasil and South Africa.

A democratic military alliance is important in a world with countries such as Putins Russia.

on the subject, you seem to be spending to much time on RT.

But then it will have to be renamed because it's ATLANTIC D:

 

[radcen]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Yes, but I question whether we'd have the guts to actually fight if necessary.

 

[Wiggen]

I voted yes, but not without some qualification. NATO has, for too long, been an American operation, with only token participation by member states. We can no longer afford to underwrite NATO to the extent that we have been doing since its inception. That made some sense, when western Europe was devastated following the Second World War. They are no longer in that condition and must start picking up more of the burden, both financially and militarily.

 

[Cephus]

No, it shouldn't. As others have said, if we want to have another organization that applies to all democracies around the world, that's fine, but that wouldn't be NATO, would it? NATO exists to protect Europe from Russia. That organization has no reason to exist anymore.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist?

No. Europe should pay for its own defense. I'm sick and tired of America paying the bills for so many first world countries. It'd be a ****storm of immeasurable disaster if we just withdrew all at once, though. I say we give a cutoff date for our military presence in Europe, say, four or five years from now. In addition, we allow the European nations that now have to supply their own soldiers to put some of our military officers on their payroll for the duration of their stay to train the troops.

A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Not at all. I wouldn't mind this so much if Europe actually had anything to protect the US with. Not that we even need it, of course. Meanwhile, we foot the bill for multiple continents' armed forces, and take **** for it the entire time? Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

 

[Coin]

With all the conflict that is still around in the world, should NATO still exist? A clause in NATO states: One attack is an attack on all. Do you agree with this?

Agree with the clause "One attack is an attack on all"
And Russia should join NATO too.

 

[radcen]

Agree with the clause "One attack is an attack on all"
And Russia should join NATO too.

They'd probably demand that we all invade Ukraine.