- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,301
- Reaction score
- 26,920
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I see...
What is the point of the NATO alliance? Why was it created,
NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948.[6] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.
These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.
and why does it still exist?
NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and signed in Paris in 1990, mandated specific reductions. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, signed some years later. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and since that time has intensified working relations with the military structure. France did not, however, rejoin the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy have resulted in a major reform of France's military position, culminating in a pledge in June 2008 to rejoin the military command of NATO while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.[17]
The first NATO military operation caused by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was Operation Sharp Guard, which ran from June 1993–October 1996. It provided maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February 1994, NATO took its first military action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, had begun a year before, on 12 April 1993, and was to continue until 20 December 1995. NATO air strikes that year helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement, which in turn meant that NATO deployed a peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, first named IFOR and then SFOR, which ran from December 1996 to December 2004. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.
If your answer is "it makes America stronger", then you that is one hefty assumption: deterrence does not create enemies...
I don't submit to neo-con ideas. Read my links and the role that NATO has played in different events since the Cold-War.
OPINION and nothing more...
Alright so NOTHING to reply at what the destruction of your belief that Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is complete lunacy? Noted.
What is the point of an international organization that has very little maneuverability in terms of policy implementation? The UN functions at the pace of the Big 5, and acts as nothing more than a formality, rarely easing political tension. Suffice to say, the UN has proved itself irrelevant...
The deterrence theory you seem to subscribe to has only brought America enemies, and has led to military buildup to escalate throughout the world. Our overall safety is actually reduced as more and more states develop nuclear weapons, which begs me to ask, how is military buildup any different? If anything, arms races are a self fulfilling prophecy, as full scale war becomes reality.
You have proved your understanding of Dr. Paul's ideas on foreign policy is non existent...
Ahahahahaha. How cute. You sound like a child screaming 'YOU DON'T GET ME!'. Ron Paul must have been born in the 15th century if he believes we can just keep to ourselves and everything will be alright if we ignore it. NOBODY other then like 8 people in DC holds these beliefs. Not even the founding fathers held this belief. Not France. Not Germany. Which I'm still trying to figure out why you asked about them. Hold this belief. Nobody. Do you understand why yet? Because in a world where my internet connection is all I need to infiltrate the government of India's databases it simply makes no sense to act like if we hide ourselves long enough that we won't have terrorist attacks, or that Americans will come up with technological advancements before people in other countries or that we'll cure deceases by isolating ourselves. The overwhelming majority of agreements we have with the world yield benefits. It simply does not make sense to 'mind our own business'.